# Nordstrom banned from shopping from their online and store



## mzmba

I have had a string of bad luck with my Nordstrom purchases. Two were tracked and said delivered yesterday but there was nothing from them on the porch. And I had other pkgs delivered by UPS from Amazon and Urban Decay that were on the porch yesterday.

They were able to re ship one order but my BF TB Carolines and slip on sneakers were sold out.. Of course! So I asked for a credit. She put me on hold for a very long time and came back saying she was working on the credit but there is "a lot of stuff on my file". I didn't ask her what that meant but her tone changed from awww you're missing your things... To hmmmm.

I think UPS misdelivers a lot of stuff this time of year. Just on Saturday they brought a package that should've been delivered across the street. I took it over the next day. I have no motive to fabricate lost packages and have been a cardholder for almost a decade. 

Should I be worried they're going to put me on a "list"?


----------



## Jesssh

Were the Nordstrom packages sent UPS?

That's what your post implied, just wanted to clarify. If they used UPS Surepost, then USPS might have delivered it. Some of my Nordstrom packages come via OnTrac (can't remember if it's Nordstrom Rack/Hautelook only or Nordstrom too).

I do a lot of returns to Nordstrom and NR. The SAs have always said that was no problem. I tend to do them quickly after receipt. Haven't dealt with a lost package yet.

I have a UPS store receive my packages. They do a good job of tracking packages through the store and they have me sign for them when I pick them up. They sign for every package, send me an email, put a slip in my UPS Store mailbox, and then when I pick it up, I sign for it. UPS never seems to have a problem finding my address when it's at a UPS store.


----------



## gail13

mzmba said:


> I have had a string of bad luck with my Nordstrom purchases. Two were tracked and said delivered yesterday but there was nothing from them on the porch. And I had other pkgs delivered by UPS from Amazon and Urban Decay that were on the porch yesterday.
> 
> They were able to re ship one order but my BF TB Carolines and slip on sneakers were sold out.. Of course! So I asked for a credit. She put me on hold for a very long time and came back saying she was working on the credit but there is "a lot of stuff on my file". I didn't ask her what that meant but her tone changed from awww you're missing your things... To hmmmm.
> 
> I think UPS misdelivers a lot of stuff this time of year. Just on Saturday they brought a package that should've been delivered across the street. I took it over the next day. I have no motive to fabricate lost packages and have been a cardholder for almost a decade.
> 
> Should I be worried they're going to put me on a "list"?



I would call and ask for a clarification so that you're not surprised out of the blue.  That way you can get a statement on file, or send a letter if you need before it becomes a problem.


----------



## katran26

gail13 said:


> I would call and ask for a clarification so that you're not surprised out of the blue.  That way you can get a statement on file, or send a letter if you need before it becomes a problem.



I agree - best to be pro-active in these instances and sometimes (when I've heard about people getting banned) it's pretty much an email/call notifying them that they're banned. Best to take some action beforehand & get a clearer picture.


----------



## natalia0128

I read it online 
does anyone receive any kinds of letter like this . It sent with certified mail .


----------



## snibor

Do a search there was another thread on this.


----------



## sdkitty

natalia0128 said:


> I read it online
> does anyone receive any kinds of letter like this . It sent with certified mail .
> View attachment 4421585


with Nordstroms rep for CS I would think it would take a lot for them to do this


----------



## fabuleux

Obviously that customer doesn’t realize that every time she returns an item, it costs money to the company. And clearly they’ve had enough. Lol


----------



## Christofle

Might have spent thousands over the years but they might have spent thousands in shipping too.


----------



## natalia0128

does anyone know the banned is going forever in your life ? or warning certain time frame Like retail equation report for 1 year? and no one in household also can order from Nordstrom store and online???


----------



## lovlouisvuitton

In one sentence you state you never return anything "Worn?" Then in the next sentence you state "You don't know how it'll look on you?" To me, that's a worn item & not removing the tags to try it on or whatever doesn't change that.

I'm sorry this happened to you - But you really must have returned an extraordinarily amount of returns for you to get banned from their Stores. Usually it _Can_ be a life time ban, but you can contact them & ask how long are they going to ban you. They might just tell you xx amount of years. No one that lives at your address or with your name will be able to purchase anything as it will be flagged when trying to purchase anything.

I don't know how returns work in the US - But if they are paying for return shipping then it's no wonder you got banned. 

This reminds me of the Thread of that woman who was banned from LV! Lol! And another woman who went to prison!


----------



## lovlouisvuitton

Ugh! Too early in the morning for me! Sorry OP! 

I just re read your original post & I actually thought you were talking about yourself not "I read it online!"

My sincere apologies!  My bad!  

I tried to Edit my reply above but I timed out! Most of it still applies just take out the "You" (as in yourself) & replace it with him/her.


----------



## jeangene

I received this exact letter a few days ago. I wrote a letter and they called me back today. Apparently, I have a 94% return rate, lol woops. It sucks though because I buy all my expensive items/gifts at Nordstrom. The returns are all online purchases from shoes/denim that didn't fit or I hated. The guy who called me back told me their decision is indefinite but I can try calling them at a much later time and see if they can reverse it.


----------



## Florasun

Uh-oh! I just returned a bunch of things. I probably have a greater than 50% return rate so far this year! My husband would love it if l got banned.


----------



## mrsinsyder

Florasun said:


> Uh-oh! I just returned a bunch of things. I probably have a greater than 50% return rate so far this year! My husband would love it if l got banned.


I return quite a bit and never had an issue, I have a feeling these folks are returning A LOT and the patterns are probably suspicious.


----------



## jeangene

Florasun said:


> Uh-oh! I just returned a bunch of things. I probably have a greater than 50% return rate so far this year! My husband would love it if l got banned.


haha - my husband is thrilled! "no more boxes! there is a God!"


----------



## DC-Cutie

Nordstrom had one of the most relaxed return policies in retail.  Customers started taking advantage of it and now they are cracking down


----------



## whateve

I rarely return anything even if I'm not 100% happy. It's too much trouble.


----------



## A1aGypsy

lovlouisvuitton said:


> In one sentence you state you never return anything "Worn?" Then in the next sentence you state "You don't know how it'll look on you?" To me, that's a worn item & not removing the tags to try it on or whatever doesn't change that.



If it is tried on it isn’t worn. Would you call everything you take to a dressing room worn? 

I agree that online shopping is different - you cannot order 60 things and keep two. Someone has to pay for the shipping.  But ordering one in two sizes because you don’t know which one will fit and trying them both on - that’s ok in my book. (Of course, I have return shipping so I never shop online that way)


----------



## MarthaWebster

jeangene said:


> I received this exact letter a few days ago. I wrote a letter and they called me back today. Apparently, I have a 94% return rate, lol woops. It sucks though because I buy all my expensive items/gifts at Nordstrom. The returns are all online purchases from shoes/denim that didn't fit or I hated. The guy who called me back told me their decision is indefinite but I can try calling them at a much later time and see if they can reverse it.



But a 94% return rate means out of 100 items you order, you might keep 6, that is a lot of admin and postage costs for the company


----------



## sdkitty

A1aGypsy said:


> If it is tried on it isn’t worn. Would you call everything you take to a dressing room worn?
> 
> I agree that online shopping is different - you cannot order 60 things and keep two. Someone has to pay for the shipping.  But ordering one in two sizes because you don’t know which one will fit and trying them both on - that’s ok in my book. (Of course, I have return shipping so I never shop online that way)


I did buy and return several pair of boots this past winter.  I couldn't find what I wanted in the store so bought multiples, tried, failed and tried again.
Some things I would never order online - like jeans.  you have to try them on.  Even looking at them on the hanger, I can be wrong about whether they'll fit.  And sometimes they fit (as in I can zip them) but don't flatter.


----------



## jeangene

MarthaWebster said:


> But a 94% return rate means out of 100 items you order, you might keep 6, that is a lot of admin and postage costs for the company



I agree. I never realized it was THAT much. I admit, sometimes I did buy things just to see them in person with no intent on keeping it (unless I reallllly loved it) because I don't have a Nordstrom around me. Free shipping, free returns, I figured why not. NOW I see why not...smh.
But I'm proud to say I never wore things and returned them.


----------



## jbags07

Of the last 6 items i ordered from Nordstrom online, 3 arrived used so i returned them. I hope this does not count against me! It never occurred to me until reading this post, as i DID NOT use them! And i cannot believe someone actually shipped them to me. And failed to realize these items had been used. One was a pair of Munro shoes, not only worn but with the dr scholls inserts still in them. These were ordered in a Nordstrom store from another store, and shipped to me directly from that store. Next was a graf lantz suede handbag that was all beat up, full of marks and obviously used. Next was a Valentino collar — the fabric was off white, and there was a dirty ring around the collar from use. I told the customer associate they were received in this condition, and were returned within 3 or 4 days after i received them.  I think i am going to call to make sure there isnt a problem, if i have to return something else i dont want to worry about being banned!


----------



## MontaukWaves

I understand Nordstrom is a for-profit company and don't expect much else from them besides chasing profit. But these policy changes may hurt them in the end by losing customers. Their open return policy leads many to shop there vs Bloomingdales, Saks, etc; without it what makes them special? Certainly not their selection of high end pieces; these others stores carry much more. I think if they want to really shift gears they need to warn people with high return rates that they "could" be banned unless they change their shopping habits. To expect the customer to know exactly what Nordstrom's threshold for returns is, is well a ridiculous idea. Warn people, and if they still persist, maybe then consider a ban.


----------



## natalia0128

one time I ordered 6 Burberry  coats from Nordstrom online in 3 different colors and sizes  to decide whichone to get because my local Nordstrom doesn't carry designer brands. 
unfortunately, the burberry coats I ordered the size run so big..none of these fit me. I had to return them all. I don't know if it is going to hurt my return.
I have to admit that I ordered alot during designer sale  during August and December. 
most of the items I received almost worn out.  shoes were as lot of scratchs, missing dustbags. in the other hand, the designer handbag were missing accessories such as keys, broken handle etc
you don't expect me keep all that. and ban me for return all items that were *used*.


----------



## Mrs.Z

Perhaps they should focus on banning people who return items that are clearly used


----------



## onlyk

jbags07 said:


> Of the last 6 items i ordered from Nordstrom online, 3 arrived used so i returned them. I hope this does not count against me! It never occurred to me until reading this post, as i DID NOT use them! And i cannot believe someone actually shipped them to me. And failed to realize these items had been used. One was a pair of Munro shoes, not only worn but with the dr scholls inserts still in them. These were ordered in a Nordstrom store from another store, and shipped to me directly from that store. Next was a graf lantz suede handbag that was all beat up, full of marks and obviously used. Next was a Valentino collar — the fabric was off white, and there was a dirty ring around the collar from use. I told the customer associate they were received in this condition, and were returned within 3 or 4 days after i received them.  I think i am going to call to make sure there isnt a problem, if i have to return something else i dont want to worry about being banned!


Yes, last time I bought a pair shoes when they were on sale and when received they clearly been worn or from display that had been tried on, called them they said quite coldly oh just return them.   I didn't expect used ones even they were on sale!!

oh and a handbag I called and found in one store out of the state, when received, it had been used with corners worn and even has a doctor's appointment card in one of the pockets!!

I think Nordstrom shouldn't take back items that clearly been worn and resell them.


----------



## natalia0128

I don't know the banned  returning/ shopping policies are going to take  action on reseller at regular Nordstrom and rack. I mean I usually return something that not fit me in a week or so. it gives another customers chances to buy that items 
 I saw one of Nordstrom reseller customers return an item she kept more than a year.
 because she could not sell it any where. 
especially with customers  that the not have norstrom store in there area or carry the brand they want


----------



## natalia0128

not to mention since the rack take off the price adjustment. when you return, it is also affected banning too


----------



## Ms.Dixie

onlyk said:


> Yes, last time I bought a pair shoes when they were on sale and when received they clearly been worn or from display that had been tried on, called them they said quite coldly oh just return them.   I didn't expect used ones even they were on sale!!
> 
> oh and a handbag I called and found in one store out of the state, when received, it had been used with corners worn and even has a doctor's appointment card in one of the pockets!!
> 
> I think Nordstrom shouldn't take back items that clearly been worn and resell them.



I too received a bag that was used. It was a Gucci bag with worn corners, makeup stains on the inside and the crossbody strap had wear marks where the strap buckle had been adjusted to wear short and long. It was obvious the bag had been used for a while. Then I ordered a tote and they shipped me a totally different bag not the tote I ordered. Those were high dollar purchases that turned into high dollar returns that were no fault of my own. I’m afraid to reorder the bags or anything from them at this point for fear it could end up being a return. I want a pair of Valentino sandals but then what if they send the wrong size, color or shoe? Frustrating.


----------



## Gabs007

natalia0128 said:


> I don't know the banned  returning/ shopping policies are going to take  action on reseller at regular Nordstrom and rack. I mean I usually return something that not fit me in a week or so. it gives another customers chances to buy that items
> I saw one of Nordstrom reseller customers return an item she kept more than a year.
> because she could not sell it any where.
> especially with customers  that the not have norstrom store in there area or carry the brand they want



Tbh I think if you get something that really doesn't fit, you find out soon enough, a window of 10 to 14 days should be enough for returns, but over a year? That is taking the proverbial


----------



## Michelle1x

There have been a lot of mgmt changes at Nordstrom in the past year or so.  I'm waiting to see what they do with the Anniversary sale this year.
Someone in mgmt at Nordstrom decided to crack down on loopholes, and this returns issue seems to be one of them.  Another thing is the red tag clearances at Rack, those have virtually disappeared and they used to have them every month.  They stock much less inventory at the stores so lots of times, the stores just have a few items and the salespeople order what you want from the warehouse- this saves on inventory but in the long run it hurts the experience.  Almost like a Russian store where they have nothing to actually sell.
The retail climate is disintegrating with all this globalization and people buying stuff online from china on places like DHgate.  Nordstrom probably determined they needed to do this to survive.


----------



## onlyk

Michelle1x said:


> There have been a lot of mgmt changes at Nordstrom in the past year or so.  I'm waiting to see what they do with the Anniversary sale this year.
> Someone in mgmt at Nordstrom decided to crack down on loopholes, and this returns issue seems to be one of them.  Another thing is the red tag clearances at Rack, those have virtually disappeared and they used to have them every month.  They stock much less inventory at the stores so lots of times, the stores just have a few items and the salespeople order what you want from the warehouse- this saves on inventory but in the long run it hurts the experience.  Almost like a Russian store where they have nothing to actually sell.
> The retail climate is disintegrating with all this globalization and people buying stuff online from china on places like DHgate.  Nordstrom probably determined they needed to do this to survive.


Yeah, Rack used to have lots of great deals, now not so much, I used to shop there a lot but now maybe once every half year. Glad didn't get their credit card at that time.


----------



## Michelle1x

onlyk said:


> Yeah, Rack used to have lots of great deals, now not so much, I used to shop there a lot but now maybe once every half year. Glad didn't get their credit card at that time.


Yeah, I think Rack having no deals is related to this store stock issue too.  They don't stock anything in the stores, so they never have to mark anything down and send to rack.  Rack used to have a loophole where if somebody bought something online and returned to Rack, it was marked way down and put on clearance.  They don't do that anymore either, now they have tight inventory controls so pricing is the same online as all the stores.
Returns are a killer, I know this just from selling stuff on ebay.  It doesn't matter if you wear it or not, the problem is you buy it and it is delivered, you return it and the entire process takes 6-8 weeks, now it is past the season and worth much less.  This is assuming the item comes back in pristine condition, many do not.


----------



## onlyk

Michelle1x said:


> Yeah, I think Rack having no deals is related to this store stock issue too.  They don't stock anything in the stores, so they never have to mark anything down and send to rack.  Rack used to have a loophole where if somebody bought something online and returned to Rack, it was marked way down and put on clearance.  They don't do that anymore either, now they have tight inventory controls so pricing is the same online as all the stores.
> Returns are a killer, I know this just from selling stuff on ebay.  It doesn't matter if you wear it or not, the problem is you buy it and it is delivered, you return it and the entire process takes 6-8 weeks, now it is past the season and worth much less.  This is assuming the item comes back in pristine condition, many do not.


Agree, any returns is a headache to the stores or sellers. That's why I rarely return items even if not as described, sometimes i really should though, cause me losing money and time to deal with the not as described items.


----------



## Florasun

sdkitty said:


> I did buy and return several pair of boots this past winter.  I couldn't find what I wanted in the store so bought multiples, tried, failed and tried again.
> Some things I would never order online - like jeans.  you have to try them on.  Even looking at them on the hanger, I can be wrong about whether they'll fit.  And sometimes they fit (as in I can zip them) but don't flatter.



That is my story as well. They were down to one pair of Valentino rock stud city sandal in black, and one in gold. I bought both so I could try them on in person and make up my mind. Same thing with my Easter dress. If they don’t have the merchandise in the store, I usually order a couple of different styles and sizes. About 90% of the time I keep one but sometimes nothing works!


----------



## Gabs007

onlyk said:


> Agree, any returns is a headache to the stores or sellers. That's why I rarely return items even if not as described, sometimes i really should though, cause me losing money and time to deal with the not as described items.



If I buy something and then it doesn't really fit or I don't like it, I usually keep it unless the description is grossly misleading (wrong measurements) because that is my fault, but lately I had a few issues when buying items that were described as new, with or without tags, the items then came worn and partially with stains or smelled of BO, covered in hair and all that. I have pets myself and if I can clean something easily with one of the fluff removers, not much of an issue, but somebody sent me a black silk cashmere dress that was actually grey from hair, let me find the picture, described as "In excellent condition without signs of wear" - well maybe she didn't wear it but it looks like a cat did, when I sent her a message that the amount of cat hair on the dress is a bit unacceptable and the picture, she accused me of being a bad buyer who is possibly too fat for the dress... I honestly can't believe that somebody would send a dress out like that. That isn't a stray hair, that's a fur covering


----------



## Florasun

Gabs007 said:


> If I buy something and then it doesn't really fit or I don't like it, I usually keep it unless the description is grossly misleading (wrong measurements) because that is my fault, but lately I had a few issues when buying items that were described as new, with or without tags, the items then came worn and partially with stains or smelled of BO, covered in hair and all that. I have pets myself and if I can clean something easily with one of the fluff removers, not much of an issue, but somebody sent me a black silk cashmere dress that was actually grey from hair, let me find the picture, described as "In excellent condition without signs of wear" - well maybe she didn't wear it but it looks like a cat did, when I sent her a message that the amount of cat hair on the dress is a bit unacceptable and the picture, she accused me of being a bad buyer who is possibly too fat for the dress... I honestly can't believe that somebody would send a dress out like that. That isn't a stray hair, that's a fur covering



I would do the same, if I am buying from an individual. But this is crazy! And then to be such a b#tch on top of that. You’re lucky she didn’t try to charge you extra for the fur coat!


----------



## sdkitty

Gabs007 said:


> If I buy something and then it doesn't really fit or I don't like it, I usually keep it unless the description is grossly misleading (wrong measurements) because that is my fault, but lately I had a few issues when buying items that were described as new, with or without tags, the items then came worn and partially with stains or smelled of BO, covered in hair and all that. I have pets myself and if I can clean something easily with one of the fluff removers, not much of an issue, but somebody sent me a black silk cashmere dress that was actually grey from hair, let me find the picture, described as "In excellent condition without signs of wear" - well maybe she didn't wear it but it looks like a cat did, when I sent her a message that the amount of cat hair on the dress is a bit unacceptable and the picture, she accused me of being a bad buyer who is possibly too fat for the dress... I honestly can't believe that somebody would send a dress out like that. That isn't a stray hair, that's a fur covering


how rude
reminds me of a time I asked my husband to bring a pair of pants to the alterations lady because the button was loose.  we had used her many times.  she told my husband I was too fat.  needless to say we didn't return to her.


----------



## Gabs007

Florasun said:


> I would do the same, if I am buying from an individual. But this is crazy! And then to be such a b#tch on top of that. You’re lucky she didn’t try to charge you extra for the fur coat!



The funny thing is, the dress would actually be a bit too big, but seriously, new and unworn isn't covered in cat hair, with that amount of hair, her poor cat must be naked... I just got something else today, again bought as new with tags, they had pinned on a tag with a safety pin and the lining is ripped, lose threads inside and clearly worn as the there are the tell tale deodorant marks in the armpit region


----------



## Florasun

Gabs007 said:


> The funny thing is, the dress would actually be a bit too big, but seriously, new and unworn isn't covered in cat hair, with that amount of hair, her poor cat must be naked... I just got something else today, again bought as new with tags, they had pinned on a tag with a safety pin and the lining is ripped, lose threads inside and clearly worn as the there are the tell tale deodorant marks in the armpit region


I’m confused, was this from an on-line store, or from a reseller?


----------



## lvchanellvr

I agree that Nordstrom has a very liberal return policy to the point that some customers do take advantage of it. Whoever was banned must have returned an exorbitant amount of items.


----------



## Gabs007

Florasun said:


> I’m confused, was this from an on-line store, or from a reseller?



On eBay it is actually a store, also acts like a shop with the setup but then claims she is a private seller... It is one I am going to avoid at all costs in the future


----------



## Gabs007

lvchanellvr said:


> I agree that Nordstrom has a very liberal return policy to the point that some customers do take advantage of it. Whoever was banned must have returned an exorbitant amount of items.



I think some buyers should possibly ask themselves if they would be happy if somebody would order lots and return most of it, it simply causes a massive loss for the shop, not just postage costs, also the restocking, checking, etc. Also if the seasons change, nobody might then buy the item. To not make a loss, the shop will have to put the prices up, something every customer pays for, so I think they are just eliminating people who cause them to make a loss and not a profit, which is actually good business sense. 

If you don't have a shop nearby, that is unfortunate, but hardly the fault of the shop, who really shouldn't be burdened with the costs of sending stuff to people who usually will keep 1 item out of 10. I work in a completely different business, but if one of my clients would cause me more costs than earnings, we would also part ways, nobody works for free or to pay for the pleasure of working


----------



## cieux

Gabs007 said:


> If I buy something and then it doesn't really fit or I don't like it, I usually keep it unless the description is grossly misleading (wrong measurements) because that is my fault, but lately I had a few issues when buying items that were described as new, with or without tags, the items then came worn and partially with stains or smelled of BO, covered in hair and all that. I have pets myself and if I can clean something easily with one of the fluff removers, not much of an issue, but somebody sent me a black silk cashmere dress that was actually grey from hair, let me find the picture, described as "In excellent condition without signs of wear" - well maybe she didn't wear it but it looks like a cat did, when I sent her a message that the amount of cat hair on the dress is a bit unacceptable and the picture, she accused me of being a bad buyer who is possibly too fat for the dress... I honestly can't believe that somebody would send a dress out like that. That isn't a stray hair, that's a fur covering



That is horrific.


----------



## cieux

I have heard rumours that these crackdowns are because Instagram types are buying lots of items, photographing it for social media, and returning it. Not fair to the companies at all, and I understand why they are pushing back.

Here is an article on this phenomenon:

https://econsultancy.com/asos-new-returns-policy-ecommerce-ask-the-experts/



> It also appears that social media is fuelling this new returns culture. A 2018 Barclaycard study delved into the ‘snap and send back phenomenon’, revealing that almost one in ten consumers admit to buying clothes so they can post photos of themselves wearing a new outfit on social media, and then returning it to get their money back.



Terrible thing for people to do...


----------



## Gabs007

cieux said:


> That is horrific.



Don't get me wrong, I love cats and dogs, but I think the fur looks better on them than on a dress in "Excellent, unworn condition", people make mistakes and if somebody makes a mistake, I am not going to crucify them, but to not see all that fur on an item, you have to be legally blind.



cieux said:


> I have heard rumours that these crackdowns are because Instagram types are buying lots of items, photographing it for social media, and returning it. Not fair to the companies at all, and I understand why they are pushing back.
> 
> Here is an article on this phenomenon:
> 
> https://econsultancy.com/asos-new-returns-policy-ecommerce-ask-the-experts/
> 
> 
> 
> Terrible thing for people to do...



I think a lot of them might also try and resell it for more money than they paid for it, if that doesn't work they return it, but also if you just want to try on stuff, go to the shop, if the shop is not conveniently near, that is tough but no excuse for expecting them to ship the merchandise back and forth at great cost.

Btw the people who returned an item because it was obviously previously worn and/or damage, totally understand that, if I order something new, I expect it to be new, without any signs of wear and tear


----------



## Gabs007

Florasun said:


> I would do the same, if I am buying from an individual. But this is crazy! And then to be such a b#tch on top of that. You’re lucky she didn’t try to charge you extra for the fur coat!



Hey, I have total sympathy for the cat who must be freezing due to lack of a coat now, trying to see the funny side of it "At least no animal suffered in the making of this furry item"


----------



## cieux

Gabs007 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I love cats and dogs, but I think the fur looks better on them than on a dress in "Excellent, unworn condition", people make mistakes and if somebody makes a mistake, I am not going to crucify them, but to not see all that fur on an item, you have to be legally blind.
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of them might also try and resell it for more money than they paid for it, if that doesn't work they return it, but also if you just want to try on stuff, go to the shop, if the shop is not conveniently near, that is tough but no excuse for expecting them to ship the merchandise back and forth at great cost.
> 
> Btw the people who returned an item because it was obviously previously worn and/or damage, totally understand that, if I order something new, I expect it to be new, without any signs of wear and tear



I'm with you, I love furry creatures too! But it looks like that person had never heard of a lint roller.


----------



## Gabs007

cieux said:


> I'm with you, I love furry creatures too! But it looks like that person had never heard of a lint roller.



I think it would require several lint rollers... Tbh I was quite concerned with the poor animal, because my cat sheds a lot but that's a bit more than just shedding


----------



## dramaprincess713

This makes me nervous. I just calculated, and I have about a 50% return rate at Nordstroms. I don't shop there often though...I've basically kept about 13 of 24 items I've ever ordered from there. Some of these were things that didn't work, others were exchanges for a different size, but exchanges show in my account as a return and second order. I just placed an order for a Gucci key holder, but there is a very real possibility it may not work out for me. Nordstroms is the only place I've been able to find this particular key case. It's not even on the Gucci website, so I ordered to see it in person, but now I'm worried I'll have issues if I need to return it...


----------



## rutabaga

I haven't logged in for a while but I saw this thread and as someone who was banned from shopping at nordstromrack.com about a year ago I have to say I'm glad for other shoppers that they're actually providing notice of your return percentage BEFORE banning shoppers for life. I was banned without prior warning and had no idea what my return rate was before being banned. The problem is there's a disconnect between management's policies and what Nordstrom's in-store reps are telling shoppers.  When I was chatting with a sales rep at the SF Nordstrom, she told me I could make all the returns I want to Nordstrom because it's separate from NR, and she even gave me a e-bar card for free coffee/tea because she felt bad that I was banned. In general, I've been shopping less at Nordstrom in store and online, haven't set foot in a NR for almost a year, and have been buying lightly used/consignment items that are final sale, ironically, from eBay and Poshmark. Being banned from NR online definitely changed my online shopping habits but I do blame retailers for keeping most of their merchandise online only. If I could try an item on in store before purchasing, I would, but how many times have we seen something we want but it's an online exclusive? I get that retailers want to minimize store space and stock on hand but this forces consumers to buy online sight unseen, so you're going to expect returns for various reasons.

In short, I don't miss NR or Nordstrom very much at all, so being banned isn't the end of the world. I wonder how many people will be banned from Nordstrom as a result of the Anniversary Sale frenzy.


----------



## itsmree

I wonder if the return rate for gifts goes against you? As these would be an exchange vs a return? My husband buys a lot of gifts at nordstrom and I exchange a large percentage of them (size, color, style?).  Or if I can't find something, it goes on a gift card...  but nordstrom is still keeping the money, so I hope we are good? GAH!


----------



## fritz12

i*bella said:


> I haven't logged in for a while but I saw this thread and as someone who was banned from shopping at nordstromrack.com about a year ago I have to say I'm glad for other shoppers that they're actually providing notice of your return percentage BEFORE banning shoppers for life. I was banned without prior warning and had no idea what my return rate was before being banned. The problem is there's a disconnect between management's policies and what Nordstrom's in-store reps are telling shoppers.  When I was chatting with a sales rep at the SF Nordstrom, she told me I could make all the returns I want to Nordstrom because it's separate from NR, and she even gave me a e-bar card for free coffee/tea because she felt bad that I was banned. In general, I've been shopping less at Nordstrom in store and online, haven't set foot in a NR for almost a year, and have been buying lightly used/consignment items that are final sale, ironically, from eBay and Poshmark. Being banned from NR online definitely changed my online shopping habits but I do blame retailers for keeping most of their merchandise online only. If I could try an item on in store before purchasing, I would, but how many times have we seen something we want but it's an online exclusive? I get that retailers want to minimize store space and stock on hand but this forces consumers to buy online sight unseen, so you're going to expect returns for various reasons.
> 
> In short, I don't miss NR or Nordstrom very much at all, so being banned isn't the end of the world. I wonder how many people will be banned from Nordstrom as a result of the Anniversary Sale frenzy.


Why do you shop online if it only results in returns? Why don't you just go to the store and give the environment a break from all the shipping and returns?  It's the retailer's fault - it's yours.  Our store bans people who return too often, and will continue to do so.  We build a database and we share among other retailers.  It's not a free service for you to abuse.  From a retail perspective - we don't want you as customers - go somewhere else!


----------



## whateve

fritz12 said:


> Why do you shop online if it only results in returns? Why don't you just go to the store and give the environment a break from all the shipping and returns?  It's the retailer's fault - it's yours.  Our store bans people who return too often, and will continue to do so.  We build a database and we share among other retailers.  It's not a free service for you to abuse.  From a retail perspective - we don't want you as customers - go somewhere else!


Not speaking for the person you quoted, but for myself, these stores don't have physical locations in my area. There are very limited shopping choices where I live, as I am sure is true for many people.


----------



## cowgrrl

whateve said:


> Not speaking for the person you quoted, but for myself, these stores don't have physical locations in my area. There are very limited shopping choices where I live, as I am sure is true for many people.



Amen.  I now live in a major metropolitan area but I use to live in an incredibly rural area.  The closest Nordstroms was probably 3+ hours away.  I know people for who it would be 6+ hours.  
The number of people who seem to forget that the US is filled with huge areas of rural communities is still shocking to me after all these years.  There's more to the country than NYC, LA & Chicago.


----------



## JNH14

They REALLY CAN'T BAN YOU IN ANY STORE AS LONG AS YOU ARE PAYING WITH CASH! I don't think they have your photo at the register....


----------



## ultravisitor

Gabs007 said:


> I think some buyers should possibly ask themselves if they would be happy if somebody would order lots and return most of it, it simply causes a massive loss for the shop, not just postage costs, also the restocking, checking, etc. Also if the seasons change, nobody might then buy the item. To not make a loss, the shop will have to put the prices up, something every customer pays for, so I think they are just eliminating people who cause them to make a loss and not a profit, which is actually good business sense.
> 
> If you don't have a shop nearby, that is unfortunate, but hardly the fault of the shop, who really shouldn't be burdened with the costs of sending stuff to people who usually will keep 1 item out of 10. I work in a completely different business, but if one of my clients would cause me more costs than earnings, we would also part ways, nobody works for free or to pay for the pleasure of working


All true, but people have entitlement issues.


----------



## ultravisitor

cowgrrl said:


> The number of people who seem to forget that the US is filled with huge areas of rural communities is still shocking to me after all these years. There's more to the country than NYC, LA & Chicago.


I grew up in a rural community. If something I wanted was not part of that community, I did without it or I made a special trip for it. I eventually moved and never went back to that rural community because it didn't offer enough for me. 

No one is entitled to shop at Nordstrom or any other store. I hardly think it's a problem if a company needs to take some action because people's material desires lead them to abuse the company's policies.


----------



## jellyv

fritz12 said:


> Why do you shop online if it only results in returns? Why don't you just go to the store and give the environment a break from all the shipping and returns?  It's the retailer's fault - it's yours.


Two _separate_ businesses, _separate _inventory. The stores are pretty much shells of their former selves, so if you go there you'll have the opportunity to try on two things, in the wrong colors.


----------



## Bubach

How are they computing this return rate? If I purchase multiple items and keep some, but return the rest, will this purchase still count towards my overall return score or not?


----------



## MontaukWaves

Bubach said:


> How are they computing this return rate? If I purchase multiple items and keep some, but return the rest, will this purchase still count towards my overall return score or not?


I think they look at the dollar sales - the aggregated dollar amount of the items you keep, compared to the dollar amount of the items you returned.


----------



## lulilu

I live reasonably close to Nordstrom and tons of other stores.  I would prefer to go to the store to try on something before I buy.  I ALWAYS try to find a store nearby that carries something I want.  But it is rare that NM, Nordstrom, Bloomies and other stores have online items in the store.  It is frustrating.  Usually, I just don't bother buying.  It is too annoying to have to return (and I almost always take the returns directly to the store within days of receiving them).


----------



## baghabitz34

Gabs007 said:


> If I buy something and then it doesn't really fit or I don't like it, I usually keep it unless the description is grossly misleading (wrong measurements) because that is my fault, but lately I had a few issues when buying items that were described as new, with or without tags, the items then came worn and partially with stains or smelled of BO, covered in hair and all that. I have pets myself and if I can clean something easily with one of the fluff removers, not much of an issue, but somebody sent me a black silk cashmere dress that was actually grey from hair, let me find the picture, described as "In excellent condition without signs of wear" - well maybe she didn't wear it but it looks like a cat did, when I sent her a message that the amount of cat hair on the dress is a bit unacceptable and the picture, she accused me of being a bad buyer who is possibly too fat for the dress... I honestly can't believe that somebody would send a dress out like that. That isn't a stray hair, that's a fur covering


OMG, that is gross! And then for her to respond the way she did...SMH


----------



## chicinthecity777

I personally refuse to shop at stores with long return policies because of chances of getting a returned stock is way too high (although I do wash everything washable before wearing it). I appreciate that not everybody live near physical stores but that's not stores' problem that you do. Maybe the way to get around this is to impose outbound and return shipping fees. That way, the store can recover some costs and give people chances to order and return for things they can't easily try.


----------



## sdkitty

chicinthecity777 said:


> I personally refuse to shop at stores with long return policies because of chances of getting a returned stock is way too high (although I do wash everything washable before wearing it). I appreciate that not everybody live near physical stores but that's not stores' problem that you do. Maybe the way to get around this is to impose outbound and return shipping fees. That way, the store can recover some costs and give people chances to order and return for things they can't easily try.


I don't buy a lot of clothes online.  Actually I don't think I've ever bought clothing except for robes.  I have bought shoes a few times, which are subject to trying on before you know if they will fit and be comfortable. 

 If you're suggesting that all of us pay return shipping, I don't like that idea.  I hate to think I may buy something, have it not work out and then have to bear the cost of shipping both ways.  Not saying I agree with these people who abuse the system but don't want to see them spoil it for everyone.


----------



## lulilu

sdkitty said:


> I don't buy a lot of clothes online.  Actually I don't think I've ever bought clothing except for robes.  I have bought shoes a few times, which are subject to trying on before you know if they will fit and be comfortable.
> 
> If you're suggesting that all of us pay return shipping, I don't like that idea.  I hate to think I may buy something, have it not work out and then have to bear the cost of shipping both ways.  Not saying I agree with these people who abuse the system but don't want to see them spoil it for everyone.



If I recall, Saks charges return shipping.  $10.


----------



## sdkitty

lulilu said:


> If I recall, Saks charges return shipping.  $10.


I wouldn't purchase anything that I had to pay return shipping on unless I was pretty sure it would work for me


----------



## whateve

sdkitty said:


> I wouldn't purchase anything that I had to pay return shipping on unless I was pretty sure it would work for me


I hate paying shipping, especially return shipping. It has really cut down on my purchases from places that charge for it, like the Coach outlet.


----------



## chicinthecity777

sdkitty said:


> I don't buy a lot of clothes online.  Actually I don't think I've ever bought clothing except for robes.  I have bought shoes a few times, which are subject to trying on before you know if they will fit and be comfortable.
> 
> If you're suggesting that all of us pay return shipping, I don't like that idea.  I hate to think I may buy something, have it not work out and then have to bear the cost of shipping both ways.  Not saying I agree with these people who abuse the system but don't want to see them spoil it for everyone.


If you need to go to a shop to buy things, unless you can walk there, you will need to incur a cost to get there. Shipping fees is no difference. Like I said, I don't shop with stores allow such as 3 months+ return period unless I can physically see the goods. You can't have it both ways, why should the store, which is not a charity organisation bear all costs? 
In my country, online stores generally charge shipping one way, e.g. you either pay outbound shipping get returns for free or free shipping but charged for returns. You can avoid charges by picking it up or dropping it off in store or in parcel shops, so unless you can walk there, it will cost you. 
Besides, I was just suggesting it as a possible alternative, it's not as if the stores would listen to me and start to implement it tomorrow so chill out.


----------



## chicinthecity777

whateve said:


> I hate paying shipping, especially return shipping. It has really cut down on my purchases from places that charge for it, like the Coach outlet.


I am sure the stores hate free shipping and free returns so that that.


----------



## whateve

chicinthecity777 said:


> I am sure the stores hate free shipping and free returns so that that.


They offer free shipping and free returns because it results in more sales. If it didn't, they wouldn't offer it. They don't hate it.


----------



## Annie J

whateve said:


> They offer free shipping and free returns because it results in more sales. If it didn't, they wouldn't offer it. They don't hate it.



Here comes one of my essays ...

I’m so puzzled, reading various posts in this thread and others about online returns, by why this issue becomes so contentious sometimes in the particular way it does, as though it’s a battle between shoppers who return a lot and those who never return anything, and as though people who return are somehow exploiting retailers’ goodwill and spoiling things for other customers, or the other view that retailers are unfair to ban serial heavy returners. Some people undoubtedly push the system to its limits, but surely this isn’t where the problem lies?  It’s all a simple business matter, not a moral one, isn’t it?  I know plenty have people have offered points of view like mine too. 

I’ve always viewed it that if retail businesses sell online, it must be because it is profitable for them to do so, not because they are being kind.  Being able to return things you’ve bought online is what makes shopping online possible and it’s up to retailers to decide upon how they state and manage their return policy to stay profitable. 

Who would ever buy anything online if they couldn’t return the goods in simple fashion?  The business wouldn’t exist. It has nothing to do with whether you should go to a physical store or not/live near one/live miles from one. The offer is freely made, subject to conditions, by the business, the customer is free to take up the offer or not, businesses and other customers are not being abused when a customer buys from a company with such a policy and makes returns according with it. Right to return with ‘distance selling’, which covers mail order and online, is also a legal matter in the UK and Europe, and may be elsewhere, but I don’t know the laws in the rest of the world. 

For a customer to be able to shop online with confidence and thus allow the retailer to make their profit, they need to know they can return with no quibbles.  Will it fit? Will it suit me?  Will the fabric/colour/style really be as it appears on screen?  Does the style look like the same thing in my size that it does on the model?  The way I view it, particularly with clothing, is that I have to order whatever I would have taken into a fitting room to try on if I were in a physical store, and be able to return anything that does not work for me.  Meantime the retailer hangs onto my money and is at liberty to refuse my return if I do not return items promptly in the time allowed and in good condition. 

With regard to whether items returned by an online shopper are still ‘new’ or not, which some people have sometimes justifiable concerns about, surely the answer is that an item tried on and returned to an online retailer is just as ‘new’ as an item in a physical store that has been tried on in a physical store, decided against, and returned to the shop floor in the normal way?  Items that are received when online shopping that are in terrible condition are a sign the retailer is not doing its job to firstly refuse returned goods which are spoilt, and secondly in sending those spoilt goods on to another customer. So the responsibility for sending any effectively truly second-hand goods to a customer lies with the retailer, not the customer who spoilt the item, however shabby that customer’s behaviour was.  It’s just a bad retailer failing to uphold its own policies. Surely no retailer has an actual policy that they will accept returns in any condition at all?*

Obviously there will be cases of customers who over a long period of time return such a high proportion of what they buy, or frequently return things in bad, not-as-sold condition (which the retailer ought to refuse to accept item by item), that to have a very large number of such customers would start to reduce reasonable profitability. And in those cases surely it is obvious that the retailer has the right to decide they will no longer sell to those customers/close those customers’ accounts?  Provided that closing somebody’s account for this reason is in accordance with any terms and conditions originally agreed to when first creating the account, or in a similar way in accordance with the T&Cs if the same shopper was making an unreasonable number of returns or returning wrecked goods as a ‘guest’ client without an account, if the retailer is able to identify them.  They would only be able to apply this as far as the law allows them to.  Any business makes an offer and can choose not to do business with a customer if the legally valid stated terms and conditions are not complied with by the customer. 

The only remaining query, then, from the customer point of view would be: “What is this ‘unreasonable’ pattern of/level of/condition of returns that might get me banned?” It is probably at the retailer’s discretion and probably just requires common sense to assess. I can’t comment for various different retailers, but Net-a-Porter for instance says what the screenshot below shows. It’s at their discretion rather than very specific probably because it’s difficult to quantify and is based upon different factors with an individual customer.  It will be courteous of them to issue a polite warning rather than ban immediately. And if they issue you a warning but you didn’t think your returns were unreasonable, you can talk to them about it I’m sure, or alternatively think about whether your pattern of returns is maybe a bit unreasonable. Sometimes I’ll order multiple sizes of a new item that might sell out quickly because an alternative size will have disappeared before I can exchange. I think that’s fair enough. Personally, I feel that in the online shopping context, it’s reasonable occasionally to order four dresses for an occasion and try all on before deciding which I really prefer, or even return them all, promptly and in original condition, if none really hits the mark.  But I wouldn’t do such a high volume return regularly.  Have you fallen into a pattern of regularly ordering absolutely everything that catches your eye knowing full well you’re going to consistently return a huge proportion of it, or are you ordering multiples for genuine reasons, returning just what really doesn’t fit or suit you, or turns out to be not as expected from the screen?  Very occasionally if I think a run of returns for perfectly valid reasons might nevertheless look odd, I have emailed customer service to explain the reasons so that it’s on record, and I could refer to it if I ever received a warning (which I never have, but who knows if it could happen if they don’t know for sure all the criteria?) 

Regarding the point of whether the customer ‘should’ pay for shipping and returns, and are they creating ‘unfair’ costs for the retailer, I have always made the assumption that online retailers will have decided how far they can incorporate this into the prices of their goods and weigh it against the hugely increased business they can do online and the reduced costs of not having a physical store or maintain fewer physical stores.  Charging shipping either way is really just a business decision, not a moral one where some customers should pay because others never want to return anything. Those customers who never want to return everything still have the return policy available to them so it is still a benefit, and if other customers were prevented from or had to pay more for their returns, quite likely those who never return anything would find what is available to buy online shrinks as other customers desert online shopping and retailers can’t make enough money from it.  I imagine that where businesses do not charge for return shipping, they have calculated that it increases their business overall and contributes to its viability. We read often about the online retail business struggling with large numbers of returns and it reducing their profits, but this isn’t a moral issue, it’s a business model/profitability issue that the retailers have to decide upon. 

It’s for the retailers to decide their business model and the consumer to decide whether to accept the offer. I don’t understand why some retailers have a really long or open-ended return policy (except for faulty goods which are covered by law anyway)  This is uncommon in the UK; Marks & Spencer and John Lewis stopped their open ended policy and reduced the returns/exchanges window years ago, and the only European retailer I know of that has a long returns window is Zalando. I get the impression here that some US online retailers have long windows. They must have decided it works for them and are at liberty to change their policy, subject to consumer law, when it no longer works as a business model. Of course it’s not working for consumers when they receive essentially used goods when paying for new, but that is a separate customer service issue and the retailer is responsible for managing it. We can return unacceptable goods to or choose not to buy from retailers who have poor quality control over their returns and ship spoilt goods out to new customers. 

It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it?   That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.”  The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place. 


* Note that this is not something that applies to purchase or return of second hand goods from private seller on resale platforms unless in SNAD cases; that’s obviously a different point which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, just in case anyone is thinking about it.


----------



## rutabaga

Annie J said:


> Here comes one of my essays ...
> 
> I’m so puzzled, reading various posts in this thread and others about online returns, by why this issue becomes so contentious sometimes in the particular way it does, as though it’s a battle between shoppers who return a lot and those who never return anything, and as though people who return are somehow exploiting retailers’ goodwill and spoiling things for other customers, or the other view that retailers are unfair to ban serial heavy returners. Some people undoubtedly push the system to its limits, but surely this isn’t where the problem lies?  It’s all a simple business matter, not a moral one, isn’t it?  I know plenty have people have offered points of view like mine too.
> 
> I’ve always viewed it that if retail businesses sell online, it must be because it is profitable for them to do so, not because they are being kind.  Being able to return things you’ve bought online is what makes shopping online possible and it’s up to retailers to decide upon how they state and manage their return policy to stay profitable.
> 
> Who would ever buy anything online if they couldn’t return the goods in simple fashion?  The business wouldn’t exist. It has nothing to do with whether you should go to a physical store or not/live near one/live miles from one. The offer is freely made, subject to conditions, by the business, the customer is free to take up the offer or not, businesses and other customers are not being abused when a customer buys from a company with such a policy and makes returns according with it. Right to return with ‘distance selling’, which covers mail order and online, is also a legal matter in the UK and Europe, and may be elsewhere, but I don’t know the laws in the rest of the world.
> 
> For a customer to be able to shop online with confidence and thus allow the retailer to make their profit, they need to know they can return with no quibbles.  Will it fit? Will it suit me?  Will the fabric/colour/style really be as it appears on screen?  Does the style look like the same thing in my size that it does on the model?  The way I view it, particularly with clothing, is that I have to order whatever I would have taken into a fitting room to try on if I were in a physical store, and be able to return anything that does not work for me.  Meantime the retailer hangs onto my money and is at liberty to refuse my return if I do not return items promptly in the time allowed and in good condition.
> 
> With regard to whether items returned by an online shopper are still ‘new’ or not, which some people have sometimes justifiable concerns about, surely the answer is that an item tried on and returned to an online retailer is just as ‘new’ as an item in a physical store that has been tried on in a physical store, decided against, and returned to the shop floor in the normal way?  Items that are received when online shopping that are in terrible condition are a sign the retailer is not doing its job to firstly refuse returned goods which are spoilt, and secondly in sending those spoilt goods on to another customer. So the responsibility for sending any effectively truly second-hand goods to a customer lies with the retailer, not the customer who spoilt the item, however shabby that customer’s behaviour was.  It’s just a bad retailer failing to uphold its own policies. Surely no retailer has an actual policy that they will accept returns in any condition at all?*
> 
> Obviously there will be cases of customers who over a long period of time return such a high proportion of what they buy, or frequently return things in bad, not-as-sold condition (which the retailer ought to refuse to accept item by item), that to have a very large number of such customers would start to reduce reasonable profitability. And in those cases surely it is obvious that the retailer has the right to decide they will no longer sell to those customers/close those customers’ accounts?  Provided that closing somebody’s account for this reason is in accordance with any terms and conditions originally agreed to when first creating the account, or in a similar way in accordance with the T&Cs if the same shopper was making an unreasonable number of returns or returning wrecked goods as a ‘guest’ client without an account, if the retailer is able to identify them.  They would only be able to apply this as far as the law allows them to.  Any business makes an offer and can choose not to do business with a customer if the legally valid stated terms and conditions are not complied with by the customer.
> 
> The only remaining query, then, from the customer point of view would be: “What is this ‘unreasonable’ pattern of/level of/condition of returns that might get me banned?” It is probably at the retailer’s discretion and probably just requires common sense to assess. I can’t comment for various different retailers, but Net-a-Porter for instance says what the screenshot below shows. It’s at their discretion rather than very specific probably because it’s difficult to quantify and is based upon different factors with an individual customer.  It will be courteous of them to issue a polite warning rather than ban immediately. And if they issue you a warning but you didn’t think your returns were unreasonable, you can talk to them about it I’m sure, or alternatively think about whether your pattern of returns is maybe a bit unreasonable. Have you fallen into a pattern of ordering absolutely everything that catches your eye knowing full well you’re going to consistently return a huge proportion of it, or are you ordering multiples for genuine reasons, returning just what really doesn’t fit or suit you, or turns out to be not as expected from the screen?  Very occasionally if I think a run of returns for perfectly valid reasons might nevertheless look odd, I have emailed customer service to explain the reasons so that it’s on record, and I could refer to it if I ever received a warning (which I never have, but who knows if it could happen if they don’t know for sure all the criteria?)
> 
> Regarding the point of whether the customer ‘should’ pay for shipping and returns, and are they creating ‘unfair’ costs for the retailer, I have always made the assumption that online retailers will have decided how far they can incorporate this into the prices of their goods and weigh it against the hugely increased business they can do online and the reduced costs of not having a physical store or maintain fewer physical stores.  Charging shipping either way is really just a business decision, not a moral one where some customers should pay because others never want to return anything. Those customers who never want to return everything still have the return policy available to them so it is still a benefit, and if other customers were prevented from or had to pay more for their returns, quite likely those who never return anything would find what is available to buy online shrinks as other customers desert online shopping and retailers can’t make enough money from it.  I imagine that where businesses do not charge for return shipping, they have calculated that it increases their business overall and contributes to its viability. We read often about the online retail business struggling with large numbers of returns and it reducing their profits, but this isn’t a moral issue, it’s a business model/profitability issue that the retailers have to decide upon.
> 
> It’s for the retailers to decide their business model and the consumer to decide whether to accept the offer. I don’t understand why some retailers have a really long or open-ended return policy (except for faulty goods which are covered by law anyway)  This is uncommon in the UK; Marks & Spencer and John Lewis stopped their open ended policy and reduced the returns/exchanges window years ago, and the only European retailer I know of that has a long returns window is Zalando. I get the impression here that some US online retailers have long windows. They must have decided it works for them and are at liberty to change their policy, subject to consumer law, when it no longer works as a business model. Of course it’s not working for consumers when they receive essentially used goods when paying for new, but that is a separate customer service issue and the retailer is responsible for managing it. We can return to or choose not to buy from retailers who have poor quality control over their returns and ship spoilt goods out to new customers.
> 
> It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it?   That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.”  The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place.
> 
> 
> * Note that this is not something that applies to purchase or return of second hand goods from private seller on resale platforms unless in SNAD cases; that’s obviously a different point which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, just in case anyone is thinking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4446668



Ok, thank you for this post! I’m also baffled as to why this issue is so contentious to the point where posts are vitriolic. The US has very liberal return policies compared to the rest of the world, where often it’s all sales final all the time. 

That said, yesterday when I went to Nordstrom a woman returned $500 worth of Sam Edelman shoes. She brought them in in three shopping bags. Someone like that should be in the running for a ban. If online returns are a problem, Nordstrom could do something like Sephora or Amazon Prime where you pay a yearly membership fee for free shipping.


----------



## Annie J

i*bella said:


> Ok, thank you for this post! I’m also baffled as to why this issue is so contentious to the point where posts are vitriolic. The US has very liberal return policies compared to the rest of the world, where often it’s all sales final all the time.
> 
> That said, yesterday when I went to Nordstrom a woman returned $500 worth of Sam Edelman shoes. She brought them in in three shopping bags. Someone like that should be in the running for a ban. If online returns are a problem, Nordstrom could do something like Sephora or Amazon Prime where you pay a yearly membership fee for free shipping.




Thanks to you too!  I feel it’s a matter of common sense, not emotion, don’t you?

It’s interesting, the differences in policies throughout the world. Liberal time-unlimited or long-window return policies have become uncommon in the UK and Europe, as no doubt they can be ultimately detrimental to business, but even if it’s not just common sense for business that online retailers accept returns, consumer law dictates the right to return in all distance selling (except for customised goods, or second hand goods from a private seller unless they are not as described, the latter of which certainly applies in the UK and I think probably applies in the rest of Europe too, though I am not certain of my facts on Europe). I have no knowledge of the consumer law elsewhere.  I agree that a customer like the one you mentioned should be in the running for a ban; retailers have to be able to protect against unreasonable returns to stay profitable and then this also prevents prices escalating for everyone.


----------



## sdkitty

chicinthecity777 said:


> If you need to go to a shop to buy things, unless you can walk there, you will need to incur a cost to get there. Shipping fees is no difference. Like I said, I don't shop with stores allow such as 3 months+ return period unless I can physically see the goods. You can't have it both ways, why should the store, which is not a charity organisation bear all costs?
> In my country, online stores generally charge shipping one way, e.g. you either pay outbound shipping get returns for free or free shipping but charged for returns. You can avoid charges by picking it up or dropping it off in store or in parcel shops, so unless you can walk there, it will cost you.
> Besides, I was just suggesting it as a possible alternative, it's not as if the stores would listen to me and start to implement it tomorrow so chill out.


I was just expressing my opinion which differs from yours.  No need to tell me to chill out


----------



## Annie J

Oops sorry SDKitty who just liked this post, I just deleted to repost because I forgot the quotes and can’t work out how to put them back in with editing!  I’ve reposted exactly the same thing below.


----------



## Annie J

i*bella said:


> Ok, thank you for this post! I’m also baffled as to why this issue is so contentious to the point where posts are vitriolic. The US has very liberal return policies compared to the rest of the world, where often it’s all sales final all the time.
> 
> That said, yesterday when I went to Nordstrom a woman returned $500 worth of Sam Edelman shoes. She brought them in in three shopping bags. Someone like that should be in the running for a ban. If online returns are a problem, Nordstrom could do something like Sephora or Amazon Prime where you pay a yearly membership fee for free shipping.





Annie J said:


> Thanks to you too!  I feel it’s a matter of common sense, not emotion, don’t you?
> 
> It’s interesting, the differences in policies throughout the world. Liberal time-unlimited or long-window return policies have become uncommon in the UK and Europe, as no doubt they can be ultimately detrimental to business, but even if it’s not just common sense for business that online retailers accept returns, consumer law dictates the right to return in all distance selling (except for customised goods, or second hand goods from a private seller unless they are not as described, the latter of which certainly applies in the UK and I think probably applies in the rest of Europe too, though I am not certain of my facts on Europe). I have no knowledge of the consumer law elsewhere.  I agree that a customer like the one you mentioned should be in the running for a ban; retailers have to be able to protect against unreasonable returns to stay profitable and then this also prevents prices escalating for everyone.



I probably should have qualified that: I mean someone like that should be in the running for a ban if it’s something she does frequently. I can sort of imagine buying shoes I really thought were going to perfect, in three sizes, say, if I didn’t know the brand well, couldn’t go to a store, and thought they might sell out quickly, so I might miss on an alternative size if I waited for an exchange.  Then could find that actually none of them fits correctly so would have to return all. But if that represented the norm of my shopping behaviour over time, I think it might be pretty fair to ban me (after reasonable warning) as the type of customer who would be detrimental to business if one of many similar customers. 

Anyway, I think we’re on the same page!


----------



## whateve

Annie J said:


> Here comes one of my essays ...
> 
> I’m so puzzled, reading various posts in this thread and others about online returns, by why this issue becomes so contentious sometimes in the particular way it does, as though it’s a battle between shoppers who return a lot and those who never return anything, and as though people who return are somehow exploiting retailers’ goodwill and spoiling things for other customers, or the other view that retailers are unfair to ban serial heavy returners. Some people undoubtedly push the system to its limits, but surely this isn’t where the problem lies?  It’s all a simple business matter, not a moral one, isn’t it?  I know plenty have people have offered points of view like mine too.
> 
> I’ve always viewed it that if retail businesses sell online, it must be because it is profitable for them to do so, not because they are being kind.  Being able to return things you’ve bought online is what makes shopping online possible and it’s up to retailers to decide upon how they state and manage their return policy to stay profitable.
> 
> Who would ever buy anything online if they couldn’t return the goods in simple fashion?  The business wouldn’t exist. It has nothing to do with whether you should go to a physical store or not/live near one/live miles from one. The offer is freely made, subject to conditions, by the business, the customer is free to take up the offer or not, businesses and other customers are not being abused when a customer buys from a company with such a policy and makes returns according with it. Right to return with ‘distance selling’, which covers mail order and online, is also a legal matter in the UK and Europe, and may be elsewhere, but I don’t know the laws in the rest of the world.
> 
> For a customer to be able to shop online with confidence and thus allow the retailer to make their profit, they need to know they can return with no quibbles.  Will it fit? Will it suit me?  Will the fabric/colour/style really be as it appears on screen?  Does the style look like the same thing in my size that it does on the model?  The way I view it, particularly with clothing, is that I have to order whatever I would have taken into a fitting room to try on if I were in a physical store, and be able to return anything that does not work for me.  Meantime the retailer hangs onto my money and is at liberty to refuse my return if I do not return items promptly in the time allowed and in good condition.
> 
> With regard to whether items returned by an online shopper are still ‘new’ or not, which some people have sometimes justifiable concerns about, surely the answer is that an item tried on and returned to an online retailer is just as ‘new’ as an item in a physical store that has been tried on in a physical store, decided against, and returned to the shop floor in the normal way?  Items that are received when online shopping that are in terrible condition are a sign the retailer is not doing its job to firstly refuse returned goods which are spoilt, and secondly in sending those spoilt goods on to another customer. So the responsibility for sending any effectively truly second-hand goods to a customer lies with the retailer, not the customer who spoilt the item, however shabby that customer’s behaviour was.  It’s just a bad retailer failing to uphold its own policies. Surely no retailer has an actual policy that they will accept returns in any condition at all?*
> 
> Obviously there will be cases of customers who over a long period of time return such a high proportion of what they buy, or frequently return things in bad, not-as-sold condition (which the retailer ought to refuse to accept item by item), that to have a very large number of such customers would start to reduce reasonable profitability. And in those cases surely it is obvious that the retailer has the right to decide they will no longer sell to those customers/close those customers’ accounts?  Provided that closing somebody’s account for this reason is in accordance with any terms and conditions originally agreed to when first creating the account, or in a similar way in accordance with the T&Cs if the same shopper was making an unreasonable number of returns or returning wrecked goods as a ‘guest’ client without an account, if the retailer is able to identify them.  They would only be able to apply this as far as the law allows them to.  Any business makes an offer and can choose not to do business with a customer if the legally valid stated terms and conditions are not complied with by the customer.
> 
> The only remaining query, then, from the customer point of view would be: “What is this ‘unreasonable’ pattern of/level of/condition of returns that might get me banned?” It is probably at the retailer’s discretion and probably just requires common sense to assess. I can’t comment for various different retailers, but Net-a-Porter for instance says what the screenshot below shows. It’s at their discretion rather than very specific probably because it’s difficult to quantify and is based upon different factors with an individual customer.  It will be courteous of them to issue a polite warning rather than ban immediately. And if they issue you a warning but you didn’t think your returns were unreasonable, you can talk to them about it I’m sure, or alternatively think about whether your pattern of returns is maybe a bit unreasonable. Sometimes I’ll order multiple sizes of a new item that might sell out quickly because an alternative size will have disappeared before I can exchange. I think that’s fair enough. Personally, I feel that in the online shopping context, it’s reasonable occasionally to order four dresses for an occasion and try all on before deciding which I really prefer, or even return them all, promptly and in original condition, if none really hits the mark.  But I wouldn’t do such a high volume return regularly.  Have you fallen into a pattern of regularly ordering absolutely everything that catches your eye knowing full well you’re going to consistently return a huge proportion of it, or are you ordering multiples for genuine reasons, returning just what really doesn’t fit or suit you, or turns out to be not as expected from the screen?  Very occasionally if I think a run of returns for perfectly valid reasons might nevertheless look odd, I have emailed customer service to explain the reasons so that it’s on record, and I could refer to it if I ever received a warning (which I never have, but who knows if it could happen if they don’t know for sure all the criteria?)
> 
> Regarding the point of whether the customer ‘should’ pay for shipping and returns, and are they creating ‘unfair’ costs for the retailer, I have always made the assumption that online retailers will have decided how far they can incorporate this into the prices of their goods and weigh it against the hugely increased business they can do online and the reduced costs of not having a physical store or maintain fewer physical stores.  Charging shipping either way is really just a business decision, not a moral one where some customers should pay because others never want to return anything. Those customers who never want to return everything still have the return policy available to them so it is still a benefit, and if other customers were prevented from or had to pay more for their returns, quite likely those who never return anything would find what is available to buy online shrinks as other customers desert online shopping and retailers can’t make enough money from it.  I imagine that where businesses do not charge for return shipping, they have calculated that it increases their business overall and contributes to its viability. We read often about the online retail business struggling with large numbers of returns and it reducing their profits, but this isn’t a moral issue, it’s a business model/profitability issue that the retailers have to decide upon.
> 
> It’s for the retailers to decide their business model and the consumer to decide whether to accept the offer. I don’t understand why some retailers have a really long or open-ended return policy (except for faulty goods which are covered by law anyway)  This is uncommon in the UK; Marks & Spencer and John Lewis stopped their open ended policy and reduced the returns/exchanges window years ago, and the only European retailer I know of that has a long returns window is Zalando. I get the impression here that some US online retailers have long windows. They must have decided it works for them and are at liberty to change their policy, subject to consumer law, when it no longer works as a business model. Of course it’s not working for consumers when they receive essentially used goods when paying for new, but that is a separate customer service issue and the retailer is responsible for managing it. We can return unacceptable goods to or choose not to buy from retailers who have poor quality control over their returns and ship spoilt goods out to new customers.
> 
> It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it?   That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.”  The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place.
> 
> 
> * Note that this is not something that applies to purchase or return of second hand goods from private seller on resale platforms unless in SNAD cases; that’s obviously a different point which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, just in case anyone is thinking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4446668


Great post!

Until recently Nordstrom had an unlimited return policy that was often abused. They would take back shoes that had obviously been worn a lot. It was something they were known for.

Coach used to have an unlimited return policy. That changed about a year or more ago. 

Zappos has a 1 year return policy. If you buy on leap year's day, you have 4 years!

Tradesy, which in an online selling platform like ebay, has a 4 day window for returns, but they allowed returns for any reason and it is free. When I first started selling there, I sold many items to the same buyer. Then I noticed that she returned them. I couldn't understand why, as they were new scarves, so I called Tradesy. They said she bought tons of items and returned a lot so they weren't concerned. I imagine she might have been a personal shopper or something like that. Anyway, the unlimited free returns had a toll on Tradesy's bottom line and they initiated more restrictive return policies.

I've been in stores where people returned things that had been purchased years earlier. One way retailers deal with this if they have no time limit is to only offer the lowest selling price of the item, so the purchaser may not get back what they originally spent. That is a deterrent. 

If you return items without a receipt in Target, they require your driver's license and limit how many returns you can make without a receipt.

Even with the high cost of returns, it is more profitable to run an online business than a brick and mortar.


----------



## Annie J

whateve said:


> Great post!
> 
> Until recently Nordstrom had an unlimited return policy that was often abused. They would take back shoes that had obviously been worn a lot. It was something they were known for.
> 
> Coach used to have an unlimited return policy. That changed about a year or more ago.
> 
> Zappos has a 1 year return policy. If you buy on leap year's day, you have 4 years!
> 
> Tradesy, which in an online selling platform like ebay, has a 4 day window for returns, but they allowed returns for any reason and it is free. When I first started selling there, I sold many items to the same buyer. Then I noticed that she returned them. I couldn't understand why, as they were new scarves, so I called Tradesy. They said she bought tons of items and returned a lot so they weren't concerned. I imagine she might have been a personal shopper or something like that. Anyway, the unlimited free returns had a toll on Tradesy's bottom line and they initiated more restrictive return policies.
> 
> I've been in stores where people returned things that had been purchased years earlier. One way retailers deal with this if they have no time limit is to only offer the lowest selling price of the item, so the purchaser may not get back what they originally spent. That is a deterrent.
> 
> If you return items without a receipt in Target, they require your driver's license and limit how many returns you can make without a receipt.
> 
> Even with the high cost of returns, it is more profitable to run an online business than a brick and mortar.


Thanks, Whateve.  I read your posts often and always find them full of good sense and moderation. The examples you mention here are interesting ones.  

You’ve just reminded of something Marks & Spencer used to do in the UK, too, before they introduced a different policy. I think I’m remembering correctly, that this has changed, but haven’t shopped there for a while. They had an open ended timeframe, but sometimes people would find out that the £99.99 item they brought in to return 12 months later was now priced at £00.05 or similar and that was what they’d get back!  Quite a handy deterrent!


----------



## whateve

Annie J said:


> Thanks, Whateve.  I read your posts often and always find them full of good sense and moderation. The examples you mention here are interesting ones.
> 
> You’ve just reminded of something Marks & Spencer used to do in the UK, too, before they introduced a different policy. I think I’m remembering correctly, that this has changed, but haven’t shopped there for a while. They had an open ended timeframe, but sometimes people would find out that the £99.99 item they brought in to return 12 months later was now priced at £00.05 or similar and that was what they’d get back!  Quite a handy deterrent!


Thanks for the compliment! That makes me feel good!


----------



## 2cello

Having a very high buy and return rate is a form of gluttony.  So it is a bit of a moral issue I think.


----------



## Annie J

2cello said:


> Having a very high buy and return rate is a form of gluttony.  So it is a bit of a moral issue I think.





Annie J said:


> It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it?   That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.”  The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4446668




We actually agree!

I did mention this significant moral issue in my post (as in the excerpt from it I’ve quoted above), but was pointing out that any moral issue with returns doesn’t lie where people have been implying it does, and isn’t what people have been becoming irate with each other about at times here, which appears to me based on a misperception about straightforward business viability. 

Where you use the term ‘gluttony’ I would use ‘unsustainable overconsumption’. I personally do not believe gluttony is a sin or moral issue in a religious sense, but I would consider - in this topic - unjustifiable levels of both purchasing and returns immoral if they have a negative impact upon the planet’s ecology, and by pollution upon all people’s wellbeing, so essentially we have said the same thing, I believe?

So to summarise, in that respect I agree with you. The gluttony, as you put it, is significant in its effects: in the impact via pollution on the planet, ecology, people, animals and nature, which is the moral issue I did point out in my post. I think that is the only significant moral issue involved here, as I said, and I think my own consumer behaviour is as immoral in this sense as that of a person who returns every single thing they ever buy. 

There is a possibly more minor moral issue involved in the actions of a customer who returns goods when they have spoilt them; this is essentially theft, which is clearly immoral, and is an act which makes the retailer the victim, but is less of a problem in a business sense, because businesses can and do calculate for it as a predictable part of their model and they can take appropriate action against customers who do this, just as they can against customers who return such a high proportion that, if scaled up across multiple customers, would start to make business unviable.  If these spoilt goods are then passed on to further customers as new, the moral responsibility for that particular unethical action lies with the business. 

I was disagreeing with the tone of some of this thread and others, that there is a moral issue involved in the behaviour of somebody who returns, even sometimes at high volume, for valid reasons within the terms of business, regarding their behaviour towards other customers or towards businesses, insofar as some people have seemed to be angry at each other that this affects pricing for all customers, the condition of items purchased, or profitability. Those aspects are simple business ones in the control of the business, and are in reality unlikely to have the kind of absolute negative impact upon other individuals that some people have appeared unhappy about. 

So as far as the financial impact of returns upon, or any impact on the quality of shopping experience of, other customers goes, which is largely what has been debated in this thread and others, and seems to get unnecessarily personal and antagonistic sometimes, these are in reality not truly moral matters, as some people perceive them to be. They are simply operational matters relating to behavioural realities for a business to assess and incorporate. Logically, that is on the basis that the facility of return is a key aspect of what makes the business viable and profitable at all, and therefore benefits consumers of all persuasions, even those who never return, as the business would likely not exist without it and nobody would be able to buy anything much online. 

The moral problem with gluttony, or overconsumption, is a more general and widespread one which applies to all our consumer behaviour, including my own, wherever or however we shop, high returns of online purchases being just one factor among others. It all contributes to overproduction, overconsumption, subsequent waste, transport and industrial pollution. 

Personally I feel pretty guilty about overconsumption, but so far have failed to change my level of consumption to a very significant degree.


----------



## ultravisitor

chicinthecity777 said:


> You can't have it both ways, why should the store, which is not a charity organisation bear all costs?


For the same reason that people who claim that not having a Nordstrom in their area is the reason why they have to abuse the system: materialism and entitlement.


----------



## 3threebabies

I agree with those above who mention influencers and resellers affecting return cycles and policies for regular people in a way that no one could have imagined even 5 and 10 years ago. 

I picked up glasses today, and one of the opticians left a message for a customer who returned a whole bunch of contacts. 2 sets were ordered in 2018, and were being refunded for a credit. There were several other sets not being refunded. Two of the sets expired in 2015. I asked the optician if this was a regular situation or a one-off, she said it wasn’t normal but is for this customer. 

I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but some people are often unaware of how their behavior affects others. I think online shopping especially promotes a dichotomy in the shopping experience. Since you do not see the sales associate face to face, you may buy and return a lot more than if you had to look directly at an employee. They would be shocked at their behavior in real life, but internet anonymity changes normal behavior.  Similar to how normally reticent and polite people in real life become total a**** on social media and Internet forums.

Also, for some people, mental and physical illness manifests into shopping addiction. The internet make it easy to buy way more than ever needed and makes it east to hide—even from loved ones. More than likely, the lady with 3 bags of shoes was suffering. Granted, there is a slight chance they were bought for a wedding party or similar, but it isn’t likely. As a former retail manager, situations like that are crushing. If you have never worked in retail, you have no idea for just the amount of labor to correctly process and reinventory a return that size. 

I worked for a company who previously had a return policy similar to Nordstrom and LL Bean. It would make me sick the things I returned with a smile for a full refund. One of the worst was a woman who slashed the leather soles of her shoes with a razor blade as soon as she got them home. She didn’t want to slide. She once returned 3 pairs of brand new full price shoes. They changed the policy about 10 years ago, and even restricted returns even more since.


----------



## Annie J

3threebabies said:


> I agree with those above who mention influencers and resellers affecting return cycles and policies for regular people in a way that no one could have imagined even 5 and 10 years ago.
> 
> I picked up glasses today, and one of the opticians left a message for a customer who returned a whole bunch of contacts. 2 sets were ordered in 2018, and were being refunded for a credit. There were several other sets not being refunded. Two of the sets expired in 2015. I asked the optician if this was a regular situation or a one-off, she said it wasn’t normal but is for this customer.
> 
> I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but some people are often unaware of how their behavior affects others. I think online shopping especially promotes a dichotomy in the shopping experience. Since you do not see the sales associate face to face, you may buy and return a lot more than if you had to look directly at an employee. They would be shocked at their behavior in real life, but internet anonymity changes normal behavior.  Similar to how normally reticent and polite people in real life become total a**** on social media and Internet forums.
> 
> Also, for some people, mental and physical illness manifests into shopping addiction. The internet make it easy to buy way more than ever needed and makes it east to hide—even from loved ones. More than likely, the lady with 3 bags of shoes was suffering. Granted, there is a slight chance they were bought for a wedding party or similar, but it isn’t likely. As a former retail manager, situations like that are crushing. If you have never worked in retail, you have no idea for just the amount of labor to correctly process and reinventory a return that size.
> 
> I worked for a company who previously had a return policy similar to Nordstrom and LL Bean. It would make me sick the things I returned with a smile for a full refund. One of the worst was a woman who slashed the leather soles of her shoes with a razor blade as soon as she got them home. She didn’t want to slide. She once returned 3 pairs of brand new full price shoes. They changed the policy about 10 years ago, and even restricted returns even more since.



I think you make such good points, especially in raising the psychology of the whole thing; it must be so important. It’s the third big element here, do you think?  Business (viability/profitability), morality (which parts of it are moral questions, which just business?), psychology (what’s reasonable behaviour, when are we going over the top with shopping, what makes us do it, how do we exercise control over it?)

Quite a lot of returning is perfectly fair and reasonable in the business sense. While I wouldn’t compare the returns with online purchasing directly with those in face-to-face shopping in a business sense, because online shopping wouldn’t be a viable business without straightforward returns (shopping online, my bedroom/closet has to become the fitting or dressing room), there is as you insightfully point out a marked psychological disconnect in the online environment that we don’t experience face-to-face, and the lack of those interpersonal cues encourages or allows over-ordering and over-returning. There must be a psychologist out there reading this thread who could give us a proper professional analysis of that!

Quite apart from those who may have a compulsive habit, creating or masking psychological distress, the cry for help, the unhealthy, secretive hoarding, getting into debt and so on, all worrying enough, from the start there’s also the simple, basic facilitating fact that it is just so easy to buy something in a split second online (“Oh, I really shouldn’t. I don’t need it. I won’t. Oops, I just did.”). 

Add to this mix the toxic world of “influencers”, as you point out, and we’ve arrived in a really strange place my parents’ generation wouldn’t have recognised, and I struggle to understand in middle age, my own sometimes really unjustifiable shopping notwithstanding (I am frequently limited by pain and insomnia. I do online retail therapy. Bad concept. No excuse. I’m already selling off many of my own purchases online and giving a lot away, too. I can try to make myself feel a little less guilty about it by giving proceeds to charities, but really ... Necessary? Healthy?  Good for the planet?). This has exploded.  Nobody anywhere would have given this much attention to ... shopping ... when I was a teenager (maybe a few dictators and their wives, not many of the rest of us!). 

I find online shopping useful. I don’t go along with the idea that people who return too much spoil it for other shoppers, as is sometimes argued in this thread and others. It’s a straightforward enough business issue; I already put this in probably too much detail in earlier posts. (I just might add another thought, that this kind of easy-return online business may cause difficulties for smaller retailers who will struggle to compete, but that’s not strictly relevant here.)  But I completely agree that what has essentially become a dominant culture of too much consumption and materialism is a big worry. 

Perhaps it’s getting too far off topic because the thread started with a query about a specific worry of OP, or in relation to a letter OP had seen, about whether people may or may not get warning letters and get banned from shopping at Nordstrom. It did soon develop into discussion of the rights and wrongs of it all though, and these issues have arisen from that.  I hope it hasn’t hijacked OP’s thread too much.


----------



## Sparkletastic

I’m just floored. People have return rates of 50 - 94% and feel surprised that a store doesn’t want them as a customer? People buy items with *no* intention of keeping them just to try them on then return?  People feel entitled to large numbers of returns because they choose to live in a rural area? 

Are you all that clueless that you don’t know how business works?  Your so called  “free shipping” is paid for by other shoppers. There is no “free”. So, I don’t want you shopping there either. Here, here for Nordstrom getting rid of you and keeping my prices lower and retaining some semblance of a return policy for when it truly is needed. 

The entitlement here is rampant. The company has a right to make money. It also has a right to shut down shoppers that cost them more money than they are worth. And, a company is not your personal try-on-clothes-hobby enabler. You don’t get to enjoy the not-really-free shipping both ways to satisfy your vanity moment. Lastly, if you choose to live in a rural environment (I’m assuming you aren’t imprisoned) you _still_ don’t get to abuse a return policy. Be a big girl or boy like the rest of us who don’t live in NY, LA, Paris, etc. - drive or fly to good shopping and / or learn the brands that consistently give you a good fit and order those. 

Smh! This isn’t angry vitriol. This is a whole lot of incredulous disdain for poor behavior.  And, a few amazed chuckles that people think / act this way.


----------



## MontaukWaves

I think everyone has made good points here. I don't blame Nordstrom and other stores for re-thinking their limitless return policy. It worked for them for a long while, but apparently they've decided no longer. They're a business, after all. The main thing I take issue with is banning customers without warning. I think _some_ people (key emphasis on some) don't realize how far they've slid into unhealthy and questionable shopping practices. Being on a forum like this, for example, normalizes lots of buying, trying, returning. I think it would make more sense, and sit better with a lot of people, if the stores would give a warning to a customer - Your return rate is XX, and if it continues please know that you may not be able to shop here any longer - instead of an instant outright ban.


----------



## Anesthestia

After reading this topic a little while ago, I had some thoughts about my purchasing habits. I'm often unsure of my sizing but find myself lazy to return, so instead of ordering multiple shipments, I order one shipment in which I'll order items I'm not sure about in two sizes, then keep the one that fits better. Maybe a better thing to do would be to just order in one size, then return / exchange after if needed, but I'm often impatient.



MontaukWaves said:


> I think they look at the dollar sales - the aggregated dollar amount of the items you keep, compared to the dollar amount of the items you returned.


I feel there's no right or wrong answer to the good discussion that's been going on in this topic, but now I'm concerned; do stores really calculate using the dollar amount of items kept compared to dollar amount of items returned? I would have assumed it would be the number of items, not dollar amount. And, do they calculate the returns made on their mistake? 
Ex. I just returned one nordstrom top with missing stitching on one arm, and another nordstrom blazer with the security tag still on... Oh, nordstrom.


----------



## MontaukWaves

Anesthestia said:


> After reading this topic a little while ago, I had some thoughts about my purchasing habits. I'm often unsure of my sizing but find myself lazy to return, so instead of ordering multiple shipments, I order one shipment in which I'll order items I'm not sure about in two sizes, then keep the one that fits better. Maybe a better thing to do would be to just order in one size, then return / exchange after if needed, but I'm often impatient.
> 
> 
> I feel there's no right or wrong answer to the good discussion that's been going on in this topic, but now I'm concerned; do stores really calculate using the dollar amount of items kept compared to dollar amount of items returned? I would have assumed it would be the number of items, not dollar amount. And, do they calculate the returns made on their mistake?
> Ex. I just returned one nordstrom top with missing stitching on one arm, and another nordstrom blazer with the security tag still on... Oh, nordstrom.



I could be wrong - something please correct if you know otherwise - but I think it's based on dollar amount for some stores. Which makes it a little trickier if you're buying high end pieces; you'd have to return like five mid-end bags (or more) to equal the same dollar return amount as a Celine bag.


----------



## Annie J

MontaukWaves said:


> I could be wrong - something please correct if you know otherwise - but I think it's based on dollar amount for some stores. Which makes it a little trickier if you're buying high end pieces; you'd have to return like five mid-end bags (or more) to equal the same dollar return amount as a Celine bag.





Anesthestia said:


> I feel there's no right or wrong answer to the good discussion that's been going on in this topic, but now I'm concerned; do stores really calculate using the dollar amount of items kept compared to dollar amount of items returned? I would have assumed it would be the number of items, not dollar amount. And, do they calculate the returns made on their mistake?
> Ex. I just returned one nordstrom top with missing stitching on one arm, and another nordstrom blazer with the security tag still on... Oh, nordstrom.



I’m sure it’ll be a combination of number of items/value/pattern of returns, which the retailer will be calculating with an algorithm or looking at case by case, so I doubt we will be able to work out a clear answer. And I do think it’s fine for them to issue bans to keep their business sustainable as long as they’ve issued courteous warning and allowed a customer time to adjust their pattern first.  Just as I think it’s fine in the business sense (including how it may affect other customers, which I don’t believe is a logical concern at all, as per my earlier posts) to make returns if you’re online shopping. Online shopping can’t exist without easy returns. So therefore it makes online shopping possible for those who return and those who don’t. Nobody abuses the business or other customers by returning and businesses can reasonably act when a customer goes over the top. 



Anesthestia said:


> After reading this topic a little while ago, I had some thoughts about my purchasing habits. I'm often unsure of my sizing but find myself lazy to return, so instead of ordering multiple shipments, I order one shipment in which I'll order items I'm not sure about in two sizes, then keep the one that fits better. Maybe a better thing to do would be to just order in one size, then return / exchange after if needed, but I'm often impatient.



There’s nothing wrong with ordering multiple sizes. You’re not lazy or impatient. It’s a sensible thing to do so that you don’t find the correct size is unavailable when you need to exchange, just as if you were taking two items into the changing room at the store. Retailers wouldn’t allow you the opportunity if it wasn’t good for business, and if returning wasn’t good for business, the business wouldn’t exist, and non-returners wouldn’t be able to buy online either. So you’re not damaging non-returners, it’s just all a balance.  Also it saves on number of parcels shipped. Buy two sizes, return one: two shipments. Buy one size, find it doesn’t fit, return it, exchange for new size: three shipments. Add more shipments if the new one doesn’t fit either. 

Ecological concerns are a separate matter, they’re my only worry. 

I’m not referring to any particular posts (and certainly not to the perfectly reasonable and thoughtful posts of you two ladies I’ve quoted here) but I am aghast at the personal antagonism that arises here, which could be completely avoided by taking a logical view.


----------



## ultravisitor

MontaukWaves said:


> I think it would make more sense, and sit better with a lot of people, if the stores would give a warning to a customer - Your return rate is XX, and if it continues please know that you may not be able to shop here any longer - instead of an instant outright ban.


Nah. Monitoring the customers like that is akin to babysitting. People who believe that makes sense are basically saying "I have problems controlling myself. However, I am entitled to shop here, so it is your job to make sure I can be respectful. Otherwise, I should be allowed to behave however I want."

Really, if you need someone to babysit your shopping, please reexamine your relationship with material goods.

If you have to try it on in person to make sure the size is absolutely right, then maybe it's not something you should get unless you can examine it in person. Waiting to see it in person--and possibly not getting it if you can't examine it in person--is what makes sense. Again, if that offends someone, then that person should examine his or her issues with entitlement and materialism.


----------



## DC-Cutie

I think if America retailers implemented the return policies found in other countries "no refunds or exchanges", people would be butt hurt!


----------



## ultravisitor

DC-Cutie said:


> I think if America retailers implemented the return policies found in other countries "no refunds or exchanges", people would be butt hurt!


"WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T JUST BUY AND RETURN WHATEVER I WANT AND THE STORE WON'T BABYSIT ME? HOW ELSE AM I SUPPOSED TO HAVE WHATEVER I SEE AND WANT?"


----------



## sdkitty

3threebabies said:


> I agree with those above who mention influencers and resellers affecting return cycles and policies for regular people in a way that no one could have imagined even 5 and 10 years ago.
> 
> I picked up glasses today, and one of the opticians left a message for a customer who returned a whole bunch of contacts. 2 sets were ordered in 2018, and were being refunded for a credit. There were several other sets not being refunded. Two of the sets expired in 2015. I asked the optician if this was a regular situation or a one-off, she said it wasn’t normal but is for this customer.
> 
> I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but some people are often unaware of how their behavior affects others. I think online shopping especially promotes a dichotomy in the shopping experience. Since you do not see the sales associate face to face, you may buy and return a lot more than if you had to look directly at an employee. They would be shocked at their behavior in real life, but internet anonymity changes normal behavior.  Similar to how normally reticent and polite people in real life become total a**** on social media and Internet forums.
> 
> Also, for some people, mental and physical illness manifests into shopping addiction. The internet make it easy to buy way more than ever needed and makes it east to hide—even from loved ones. More than likely, the lady with 3 bags of shoes was suffering. Granted, there is a slight chance they were bought for a wedding party or similar, but it isn’t likely. As a former retail manager, situations like that are crushing. If you have never worked in retail, you have no idea for just the amount of labor to correctly process and reinventory a return that size.
> 
> I worked for a company who previously had a return policy similar to Nordstrom and LL Bean. It would make me sick the things I returned with a smile for a full refund. One of the worst was a woman who slashed the leather soles of her shoes with a razor blade as soon as she got them home. She didn’t want to slide. She once returned 3 pairs of brand new full price shoes. They changed the policy about 10 years ago, and even restricted returns even more since.


Costco is another retailer with a very liberal return policy.  I saw a guy return a broken wine glass......it's a wonderful policy and I'm sure they make plenty of money but some people do abuse it.


----------



## Annie J

I think it’s a shame people are being so scathing of each other at times here, because we all visit this forum because we share interests. It seems unnecessary. This is an important topic because it has environmental repercussions. But the business issues and the impact of one customer upon another seem straightforward to me and I think we’re seeing a false dichotomy between returners and non-returners which is causing feelings to run high. 



ultravisitor said:


> Nah. Monitoring the customers like that is akin to babysitting. People who believe that makes sense are basically saying "I have problems controlling myself. However, I am entitled to shop here, so it is your job to make sure I can be respectful. Otherwise, I should be allowed to behave however I want."



I appreciate the quote above is your point of view, @ultravisitor.  However I do feel this view is somewhat mistaken. I would rewrite it like this: 

‘I choose to run an online retail business, and I have made a business decision to have a fairly liberal returns policy so that customers will feel confident to buy in the first place, thus enabling my business to thrive and continue to offer purchasing opportunities to both those who return and those who never or rarely do. If I only sold to those who don’t return, or very rarely return, my customer base would shrink dramatically and I would probably have to reduce the range of products I make available to any customers and may even go out of business. Some customers return a lot more than they buy. Monitoring customers like that is my job as a fair part of what makes my business viable. Customers who tell me that they would like to receive a polite warning that they are returning more than my business can sustain and may be banned are saying “I am as entitled as any other customer to take up your commercial offer to sell to me online and for me to make returns according to your policy when the items I ordered are unsuitable. I am not myself an online retailer, so I do not know exactly at what level any returns I make under your policy will start to make your business unsustainable, so I will be grateful if you would let me know if I am making too many returns for your purposes before you ban me outright.  Otherwise, I will continue to purchase under your considered and legal terms and conditions including the returns policy, mindful of your business needs but not privy to them, and you will be respectful of me as a customer unless I fail to respond to your courteous warning, in which case you will be perfectly entitled to ban me as a nuisance to your business.”’



ultravisitor said:


> If you have to try it on in person to make sure the size is absolutely right, then maybe it's not something you should get unless you can examine it in person. Waiting to see it in person--and possibly not getting it if you can't examine it in person--is what makes sense.



But it won’t make sense if that item can’t be found in a store, or if you can’t get to a store. It may be true that nobody is ‘entitled’ to have any particular item but they are perfectly entitled to accept a retailer’s offer to buy it online and return it if it’s unsuitable. 

If businesses were not happy to accommodate returns they would not offer it. Nobody forces a retailer to sell online. They do it because it’s profitable and offering easy returns actually makes it more profitable, and it keeps the online offer available to all customers. They decide on the right balance to keep the business going and will no doubt alter policies when necessary.  You would be unlikely to see prices drop much if at all if returns were banned or reduced much more than they already are, because the business would probably struggle to make a profit anyway. 

@ultravisitor, my intention is not to single you out but I thought some of your points were representative of the some of the main arguments people have been making. 

There has been rather a lot of talk about ‘entitlement’, mostly on the side of “People these days think they should be able to have everything they want,” or “It was your choice to live in the remote countryside. Just because you live far from a store it doesn’t entitle you to shop at any particular online store.”  Well, it doesn’t disentitle you, either. It’s probably actually a legal matter whether anyone is NOT entitled to shop at a particular store; all variables taken into consideration, we are all as entitled as each other. The person who lives far from a store is no less entitled to shop at any particular online store than any other customer. They are also perfectly entitled, as we all are, to return goods in accordance with the return policy, regardless of how little anyone else returns, and retailers are equally entitled within the terms of their policy to refuse to do further business with a customer who does not abide by the contract. (Disclaimer: local laws may apply which affect the legal entitlements). 

Are we not confusing two different uses of the word ‘entitlement’?  There’s entitlement under law and in contract, and there’s entitlement as in ‘a sense of entitlement’, which is connected with excessive consumption. They are not the same thing but the confusion seems to be fuelling a lot of unnecessary argument and disrespect to each other. 

I think actually we may all be on the same side because we all like to be able to shop online. This argument over returns is a false one. Those who object if they eventually get banned, following polite warning for a truly unreasonable rate of returns, and think they should be allowed to carry on regardless are being extreme one way - because it’s a business matter, not a moral one - and those who think you should never order anything online unless you are certain you will keep it are extreme the other way. If either point of view were put into action as policy, online business would collapse anyway. The middle ground is just a matter for the business to decide upon in a pragmatic way. 

Morality comes into it only when we start to consider environmental cost.


----------



## ultravisitor

Annie J said:


> ‘I choose to run an online retail business, and I have made a business decision to have a fairly liberal returns policy so that customers will feel confident to buy in the first place, thus enabling my business to thrive and continue to offer purchasing opportunities to both those who return and those who never or rarely do. If I only sold to those who don’t return, or very rarely return, my customer base would shrink dramatically and I would probably have to reduce the range of products I make available to any customers and may even go out of business. Some customers return a lot more than they buy. Monitoring customers like that is my job as a fair part of what makes my business viable. Customers who tell me that they would like to receive a polite warning that they are returning more than my business can sustain and may be banned are saying “I am as entitled as any other customer to take up your commercial offer to sell to me online and for me to make returns when the items I ordered are unsuitable according to your policy. I am not myself an online retailer, so I do not know exactly at what level any returns I make under your policy will start to make your business unsustainable, so I will be grateful if you would let me know if I am making too many returns for your purposes before you ban me outright. Otherwise, I will continue to purchase under your considered and legal return terms and conditions including the returns policy, mindful of your business needs but not privy to them, and you will be respectful of me as a customer unless I fail to respond to your courteous warning, in which case you will be perfectly entitled to ban me as a nuisance to your business.”’



Here's the thing: a company can change its policies when it wants. It can enforce its policies however it wants. Customers do not have to like that. If a customer is doing something that is pushing away a customer who they feel is abusive, then it's quite likely the intent. They want you to stop what you're doing and/or go away. You are not that special to them. Yes, you are entitled to shop just as any other customer is, but if the company feels you are not worth the effort, then they don't care about pleasing you anymore.

It is nothing but willful ignorance masking entitlement to think that it is acceptable to buy a bunch of things and return 50% or more because "hey, that's shopping and the shipping is free and the customer is always right". I bet a lot of the people who think that way are also the Beckys who always need to speak with management for petty issues that they cause.

And the whole "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business" line is completely ridiculous. Customers who abuse return policies because "hey, it's their fault they made that the store policy" are costing the company money. If someone's concern is truly making sure that the company is able to stay in business, then they will not force the company to incur all sorts of fees because they insist on taking advantage of a store's generous policy.



Annie J said:


> The person who lives far from a store is no less entitled to shop at any particular online store than any other customer. They are also perfectly entitled, as we all are, to return goods in accordance with the return policy, regardless of how little anyone else returns, and retailers are equally entitled within the terms of their policy to refuse to do further business with a customer who does not abide by the contract. (Disclaimer: local laws may apply which affect the legal entitlements).





Annie J said:


> But it won’t make sense if that item can’t be found in a store, or if you can’t get to a store. It may be true that nobody is ‘entitled’ to have any particular item but they are perfectly entitled to accept a retailer’s offer to buy it online and return it if it’s unsuitable.



Please stop misrepresenting the issue. No one said that customers are not entitled to shop online for things they cannot easily find in their own areas. You know as well as I do that was not the real issue being discussed. An honest approach to the discussion will recognize that the issue is that some people think that, because they cannot easily find some things, they have to end up shopping in an unreasonable manner that is abusing a company's policy.

And no one is actually saying that they think people should absolutely not buy anything online unless they are sure they are going to keep it. Again, that is being reductive of the overall argument.


----------



## classybags4ever

cowgrrl said:


> Amen.  I now live in a major metropolitan area but I use to live in an incredibly rural area.  The closest Nordstroms was probably 3+ hours away.  I know people for who it would be 6+ hours.
> The number of people who seem to forget that the US is filled with huge areas of rural communities is still shocking to me after all these years.  There's more to the country than NYC, LA & Chicago.


It’s not Nordstrom’s fault you live far from a  physical location. And yes we coastal elites do forget about these rural segments bc they don’t have much in terms of population. There’s a reason they don’t have high end designer boutiques. I don’t think they are catering to that market segment.


----------



## sdkitty

cowgrrl said:


> Amen.  I now live in a major metropolitan area but I use to live in an incredibly rural area.  The closest Nordstroms was probably 3+ hours away.  I know people for who it would be 6+ hours.
> The number of people who seem to forget that the US is filled with huge areas of rural communities is still shocking to me after all these years.  There's more to the country than NYC, LA & Chicago.


No one is saying people from rural areas shouldn't shop online.  It's the buying of multiple items to try on knowing your are probably going to return most of them and doing this repeatedly (or habitually) that's the problem


----------



## Annie J

cowgrrl said:


> Amen.  I now live in a major metropolitan area but I use to live in an incredibly rural area.  The closest Nordstroms was probably 3+ hours away.  I know people for who it would be 6+ hours.
> The number of people who seem to forget that the US is filled with huge areas of rural communities is still shocking to me after all these years.  There's more to the country than NYC, LA & Chicago.





classybags4ever said:


> It’s not Nordstrom’s fault you live far from a  physical location.


And Nordstrom isn’t being forced to sell online to her and offer the return option.  @cowgrrl is simply pointing out one very reasonable reason among many that can be behind returns, even multiple returns. Nordstrom knows how to take care of itself, it’ll adjust its business practices if it doesn’t work for them.


----------



## Annie J

ultravisitor said:


> Here's the thing: a company can change its policies when it wants. It can enforce its policies however it wants. Customers do not have to like that. If a customer is doing something that is pushing away a customer who they feel is abusive, then it's quite likely the intent. They want you to stop what you're doing and/or go away. You are not that special to them. Yes, you are entitled to shop just as any other customer is, but if the company feels you are not worth the effort, then they don't care about pleasing you anymore.


I think what I posted actually included and rests upon the idea that a company can have a policy and change and apply it how it wishes?  The exceptions would be that it should not apply a new policy to a purchase that was made under an old policy, as a matter of contract, and it has to keep its policy compliant with consumer and distance selling law.  I didn’t say a customer had to like that, why would I?  I just think it would be nice in a human way to reach out with a courteous warning, before banning, I didn’t say it was an obligation. I was trying to frame the statement in a way that addressed yours as clearly and directly as I could, that’s why it was written that way. I was only pointing out the facts and that up to a certain point, it just all has to proceed according to policy and law. 




ultravisitor said:


> It is nothing but willful ignorance masking entitlement to think that it is acceptable to buy a bunch of things and return 50% or more because "hey, that's shopping and the shipping is free and the customer is always right". I bet a lot of the people who think that way are also the Beckys who always need to speak with management for petty issues that they cause.


I think if you consider what I said justifies or supports entitlement, you maybe misunderstood me. I didn’t say that I thought anything should proceed according to the principle of “the customer is always right”.  It’s just a statement of fact that within the business context the customer is entitled to proceed in accordance with the company’s offer to them and policy until the point where the company, in accordance with the policy and any discretionary riders in its T&Cs, decides the customer is no longer behaving in accordance with the contract and can quite legitimately refuse to serve the customer any longer. My point when I said I thought it was reasonable for a company to issue a courteous warning was in response to yours that a customer shouldn’t need “babysitting”. I just rather feel it’s unnecessary to use terms HERE that could be perceived as unkind because we can debate this matter in a pleasant enough way without making anyone who has been taken aback by receiving a warning or a ban feel vilified.  I didn’t say that a company is never justified in warning or banning a customer, or has to take their feelings into consideration. Of course it is, and of course it doesn’t. 



ultravisitor said:


> And the whole "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business" line is completely ridiculous. Customers who abuse return policies because "hey, it's their fault they made that the store policy" are costing the company money.



I didn’t say that a company would think "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business".  I indicated that they may think that could be one of a spectrum of business consequences if they don’t offer a relatively liberal returns policy, will have made a business decision about what type and level of returns policy will make the business viable and profitable and it’s quite likely as a matter of reality that business overall will be greatly reduced if return policies are not reasonably easy, in the context of online shopping. I am not saying they MUST have a liberal policy just because some customers want it, regardless of the benefits to the business. It’s their decision, and it’s a business decision. Which in turn enables them to keep the business going and enables us all to shop from them, which we all want. And that if customers abuse the return policy, costing the company money to an extent that outweighs the benefits to the company of the policy, companies are able to ban those customers. The cost of returns is a part of their business model. They can adapt the model as they wish. 




ultravisitor said:


> If someone's concern is truly making sure that the company is able to stay in business, then they will not force the company to incur all sorts of fees because they insist on taking advantage of a store's generous policy.


I didn’t say that customers who return a lot would care about keeping the company in business.  I said it’s likely that the policy is a huge factor in what keeps the company in business (and that is of benefit therefore to all customers, so we might all care about that).  Otherwise they would not have the policy.  It’s observation of a probable business reality, not moral justification of poor customer behaviour. A returns policy is not “generous” out of kindness, it is “generous” because it makes business sense overall. If there is someone on here who works in the higher echelons of any of these business, overseeing the whole business practice and finances, it would be great if they could chime in and explain how it actually works in practice and feeds into the big business decisions.  I’m not CEO of Nordstrom, or whatever group they are part of, or of any other retail giant, but am just trying to apply logic. I suspect that if all reasonably liberal return policies were stopped, we would not find prices don’t go down in the way we might imagine. I cannot prove this but it seems logical to me, and it seems likely to be a false basis for the dissatisfaction some shoppers seem to have with others. It will be interesting to see how online retailers deal with this over the next few years, because it’s currently something we hear about in the news quite often and obviously will evolve.




ultravisitor said:


> Please stop misrepresenting the issue. No one said that customers are not entitled to shop online for things they cannot easily find in their own areas. You know as well as I do that was not the real issue being discussed. An honest approach to the discussion will recognize that the issue is that some people think that, because they cannot easily find some things, they have to end up shopping in an unreasonable manner that is abusing a company's policy.


I don’t believe I was misrepresenting the issue. Actually I was remembering a post in the thread, where somebody or more people referred to how people who “choose” to live in the country are not thereby entitled to make multiple returns and should “drive or fly to where there is good shopping” and work out what brands will fit them and then only order those. Maybe I should have quoted them to make that clearer. I didn’t want to single anyone out (just as it wasn’t my intention by quoting your post to single you out but to discuss with you because I thought your points were representative of many).  And also there have been other comments along the lines of “I don’t care what your circumstances are, it’s not my problem and it’s not the business’s problem.” Well, frankly, even if we do all make a choice about where we live, and not all of us do, and not all of us are very mobile, those people are perfectly entitled to order and return multiples so far as the company’s policy allows them to do it, and the company is perfectly entitled to warn and/or ban them if “abuse” of the policy tips the balance and makes an overall unsustainable impact on the business.  Basically, a policy isn’t being abused until the terms and conditions including any built-in discretionary clauses applying are broken.  It’s just not a moral issue, it’s a simple business and pragmatic matter. 



ultravisitor said:


> And no one is actually saying that they think people should absolutely not buy anything online unless they are sure they are going to keep it. Again, that is being reductive of the overall argument.


I was actually responding to what you said yourself about it not making sense to buy something online if you knew fitting might be an issue.  There would be very little clothing one could buy online if we applied that. I just don’t think the point applies, because retailers wouldn’t offer the delivery and return service if it didn’t make good business sense. That isn’t reductive, it’s extrapolating. 

I haven’t been reductive of the overall argument, I’ve tried to pull the whole thing apart, extrapolate and be logically analytical. I’m not saying I’ve got it all right, that would be terribly arrogant of me. I’m just trying to think it through and respectfully discuss. I was also appealing to people to be less antagonistic towards each other in so doing. I thought we were probably on the same side underneath it all, and might be able to come together on it, maybe encourage some moderation in thought and action in our shopping behaviour but also in our behaviour towards each other here. I think everyone has fair points, but some go further to seemingly unnecessary extremes, in both directions, than others. I think the cost argument is a probable fallacy, and I’m still not clear why so much personal feeling comes into it, unless you’re worried about the planet. 

We all shop too much these days. No doubt there are some people here who feel they only ever buy what they truly need and no more, but I find that quite surprising on a forum that’s basically dedicated to luxury shopping.  There’s certainly an ecological argument to be made against all our consumption and returns are part of the problem. 

I think I will step back now, I seem to be returning to the same points because some have been misunderstood. I came into it out of genuine interest, I hope I’ve said some useful things, and anybody is free to disagree, but I hope it can be done in good spirit.


----------



## GPR

Wow. 94% return. I can't even imagine how that works.


----------



## classybags4ever

GPR said:


> Wow. 94% return. I can't even imagine how that works.


It’s insane. They seem like profession Instagram influencer types who are gaming the system.


----------



## Sparkletastic

ultravisitor said:


> Here's the thing: a company can change its policies when it wants. It can enforce its policies however it wants. Customers do not have to like that. If a customer is doing something that is pushing away a customer who they feel is abusive, then it's quite likely the intent. They want you to stop what you're doing and/or go away. You are not that special to them. Yes, you are entitled to shop just as any other customer is, but if the company feels you are not worth the effort, then they don't care about pleasing you anymore.
> 
> It is nothing but willful ignorance masking entitlement to think that it is acceptable to buy a bunch of things and return 50% or more because "hey, that's shopping and the shipping is free and the customer is always right". I bet a lot of the people who think that way are also the Beckys who always need to speak with management for petty issues that they cause.
> 
> And the whole "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business" line is completely ridiculous. Customers who abuse return policies because "hey, it's their fault they made that the store policy" are costing the company money. If someone's concern is truly making sure that the company is able to stay in business, then they will not force the company to incur all sorts of fees because they insist on taking advantage of a store's generous policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop misrepresenting the issue. No one said that customers are not entitled to shop online for things they cannot easily find in their own areas. You know as well as I do that was not the real issue being discussed. An honest approach to the discussion will recognize that the issue is that some people think that, because they cannot easily find some things, they have to end up shopping in an unreasonable manner that is abusing a company's policy.
> 
> And no one is actually saying that they think people should absolutely not buy anything online unless they are sure they are going to keep it. Again, that is being reductive of the overall argument.


----------



## Annie J

Annie J said:


> . I suspect that if all reasonably liberal return policies were stopped, we would not find prices don’t go down in the way we might imagine.



Stepping back in to correct typo:

I suspect that if all reasonably liberal return policies were stopped, we would not find prices TO GO DOWN in the way we might imagine.

Stepping back out.

A final plea: if you respond to me or to anybody else, please respond to what they actually say and not what you assume they are saying at first glance because you have strong feelings on the subject. It’s all well-intentioned. We all misread things sometimes, I expect I have too at some point or other. I try not to.


----------



## EdnaMode

sdkitty said:


> Costco is another retailer with a very liberal return policy.  I saw a guy return a broken wine glass......it's a wonderful policy and I'm sure they make plenty of money but some people do abuse it.


I was going to say Costco too bc once I saw a guy return 5+ packs of their ribeye steaks! Probably a caterer and didn't end up using it. Another time I saw a guy return like 6 outdoor heaters, some all banged up! When he was pulling those things in, the people at Costco were talking to each other saying "that's the guy" etc. Despicable!


----------



## JazzyMac

Annie J said:


> Here comes one of my essays ...
> 
> I’m so puzzled, reading various posts in this thread and others about online returns, by why this issue becomes so contentious sometimes in the particular way it does, as though it’s a battle between shoppers who return a lot and those who never return anything, and as though people who return are somehow exploiting retailers’ goodwill and spoiling things for other customers, or the other view that retailers are unfair to ban serial heavy returners. Some people undoubtedly push the system to its limits, but surely this isn’t where the problem lies?  It’s all a simple business matter, not a moral one, isn’t it?  I know plenty have people have offered points of view like mine too.
> 
> I’ve always viewed it that if retail businesses sell online, it must be because it is profitable for them to do so, not because they are being kind.  Being able to return things you’ve bought online is what makes shopping online possible and it’s up to retailers to decide upon how they state and manage their return policy to stay profitable.
> 
> Who would ever buy anything online if they couldn’t return the goods in simple fashion?  The business wouldn’t exist. It has nothing to do with whether you should go to a physical store or not/live near one/live miles from one. The offer is freely made, subject to conditions, by the business, the customer is free to take up the offer or not, businesses and other customers are not being abused when a customer buys from a company with such a policy and makes returns according with it. Right to return with ‘distance selling’, which covers mail order and online, is also a legal matter in the UK and Europe, and may be elsewhere, but I don’t know the laws in the rest of the world.
> 
> For a customer to be able to shop online with confidence and thus allow the retailer to make their profit, they need to know they can return with no quibbles.  Will it fit? Will it suit me?  Will the fabric/colour/style really be as it appears on screen?  Does the style look like the same thing in my size that it does on the model?  The way I view it, particularly with clothing, is that I have to order whatever I would have taken into a fitting room to try on if I were in a physical store, and be able to return anything that does not work for me.  Meantime the retailer hangs onto my money and is at liberty to refuse my return if I do not return items promptly in the time allowed and in good condition.
> 
> With regard to whether items returned by an online shopper are still ‘new’ or not, which some people have sometimes justifiable concerns about, surely the answer is that an item tried on and returned to an online retailer is just as ‘new’ as an item in a physical store that has been tried on in a physical store, decided against, and returned to the shop floor in the normal way?  Items that are received when online shopping that are in terrible condition are a sign the retailer is not doing its job to firstly refuse returned goods which are spoilt, and secondly in sending those spoilt goods on to another customer. So the responsibility for sending any effectively truly second-hand goods to a customer lies with the retailer, not the customer who spoilt the item, however shabby that customer’s behaviour was.  It’s just a bad retailer failing to uphold its own policies. Surely no retailer has an actual policy that they will accept returns in any condition at all?*
> 
> Obviously there will be cases of customers who over a long period of time return such a high proportion of what they buy, or frequently return things in bad, not-as-sold condition (which the retailer ought to refuse to accept item by item), that to have a very large number of such customers would start to reduce reasonable profitability. And in those cases surely it is obvious that the retailer has the right to decide they will no longer sell to those customers/close those customers’ accounts?  Provided that closing somebody’s account for this reason is in accordance with any terms and conditions originally agreed to when first creating the account, or in a similar way in accordance with the T&Cs if the same shopper was making an unreasonable number of returns or returning wrecked goods as a ‘guest’ client without an account, if the retailer is able to identify them.  They would only be able to apply this as far as the law allows them to.  Any business makes an offer and can choose not to do business with a customer if the legally valid stated terms and conditions are not complied with by the customer.
> 
> The only remaining query, then, from the customer point of view would be: “What is this ‘unreasonable’ pattern of/level of/condition of returns that might get me banned?” It is probably at the retailer’s discretion and probably just requires common sense to assess. I can’t comment for various different retailers, but Net-a-Porter for instance says what the screenshot below shows. It’s at their discretion rather than very specific probably because it’s difficult to quantify and is based upon different factors with an individual customer.  It will be courteous of them to issue a polite warning rather than ban immediately. And if they issue you a warning but you didn’t think your returns were unreasonable, you can talk to them about it I’m sure, or alternatively think about whether your pattern of returns is maybe a bit unreasonable. Sometimes I’ll order multiple sizes of a new item that might sell out quickly because an alternative size will have disappeared before I can exchange. I think that’s fair enough. Personally, I feel that in the online shopping context, it’s reasonable occasionally to order four dresses for an occasion and try all on before deciding which I really prefer, or even return them all, promptly and in original condition, if none really hits the mark.  But I wouldn’t do such a high volume return regularly.  Have you fallen into a pattern of regularly ordering absolutely everything that catches your eye knowing full well you’re going to consistently return a huge proportion of it, or are you ordering multiples for genuine reasons, returning just what really doesn’t fit or suit you, or turns out to be not as expected from the screen?  Very occasionally if I think a run of returns for perfectly valid reasons might nevertheless look odd, I have emailed customer service to explain the reasons so that it’s on record, and I could refer to it if I ever received a warning (which I never have, but who knows if it could happen if they don’t know for sure all the criteria?)
> 
> Regarding the point of whether the customer ‘should’ pay for shipping and returns, and are they creating ‘unfair’ costs for the retailer, I have always made the assumption that online retailers will have decided how far they can incorporate this into the prices of their goods and weigh it against the hugely increased business they can do online and the reduced costs of not having a physical store or maintain fewer physical stores.  Charging shipping either way is really just a business decision, not a moral one where some customers should pay because others never want to return anything. Those customers who never want to return everything still have the return policy available to them so it is still a benefit, and if other customers were prevented from or had to pay more for their returns, quite likely those who never return anything would find what is available to buy online shrinks as other customers desert online shopping and retailers can’t make enough money from it.  I imagine that where businesses do not charge for return shipping, they have calculated that it increases their business overall and contributes to its viability. We read often about the online retail business struggling with large numbers of returns and it reducing their profits, but this isn’t a moral issue, it’s a business model/profitability issue that the retailers have to decide upon.
> 
> It’s for the retailers to decide their business model and the consumer to decide whether to accept the offer. I don’t understand why some retailers have a really long or open-ended return policy (except for faulty goods which are covered by law anyway)  This is uncommon in the UK; Marks & Spencer and John Lewis stopped their open ended policy and reduced the returns/exchanges window years ago, and the only European retailer I know of that has a long returns window is Zalando. I get the impression here that some US online retailers have long windows. They must have decided it works for them and are at liberty to change their policy, subject to consumer law, when it no longer works as a business model. Of course it’s not working for consumers when they receive essentially used goods when paying for new, but that is a separate customer service issue and the retailer is responsible for managing it. We can return unacceptable goods to or choose not to buy from retailers who have poor quality control over their returns and ship spoilt goods out to new customers.
> 
> It’s all a simple business issue, isn’t it?   That’s not a statement, it is my belief, but I’m also asking anybody if there’s some point I’ve missed. As for whether some people abuse the system and spoil it for the rest of us, well, that’s for the retailers to work out as part of their business model and it’s really not a “You with your returns are spoiling it for me who never returns anything.”  The only MORAL issue we should be getting worried about here, as I see it, the only ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ is one we all need to take responsibility for: the hugely increased transport pollution associated with high levels of deliveries and returns. I find it very difficult to get to physical stores and find online shopping a great opportunity to get things from near and far, and would not be able to do this without easy return policies. So I increase the retailers’ business and help to keep the business commercially sustainable which benefits returners and non-returners alike. Nevertheless I am guilty of being a contributor to global pollution by doing so and I aim to reduce not just my returning but also my shopping in the first place.
> 
> 
> * Note that this is not something that applies to purchase or return of second hand goods from private seller on resale platforms unless in SNAD cases; that’s obviously a different point which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, just in case anyone is thinking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4446668


Very intelligent post.


----------



## sdkitty

EdnaMode said:


> I was going to say Costco too bc once I saw a guy return 5+ packs of their ribeye steaks! Probably a caterer and didn't end up using it. Another time I saw a guy return like 6 outdoor heaters, some all banged up! When he was pulling those things in, the people at Costco were talking to each other saying "that's the guy" etc. Despicable!


the story is out there that some person or persons returned live Christmas trees after Christmas......talk about taking advantage - and having no shame


----------



## JazzyMac

ultravisitor said:


> Nah. Monitoring the customers like that is akin to babysitting. People who believe that makes sense are basically saying "I have problems controlling myself. However, I am entitled to shop here, so it is your job to make sure I can be respectful. Otherwise, I should be allowed to behave however I want."
> 
> Really, if you need someone to babysit your shopping, please reexamine your relationship with material goods.
> 
> If you have to try it on in person to make sure the size is absolutely right, then maybe it's not something you should get unless you can examine it in person. Waiting to see it in person--and possibly not getting it if you can't examine it in person--is what makes sense. Again, if that offends someone, then that person should examine his or her issues with entitlement and materialism.


This is not a logical fix to the discussion at hand.  Every single designer or brand differs in their sizes and fits for their clothes.  Some designers even have different sizing for each of their outfits.  And let's not mention 'vanity sizing.'  When you add in all that, I am not certain why someone *would not* try on the clothes and then return them.  There have been a few times when I needed something to wear for an event, and I went online, AND bought two of the same item to try on.  Some stores have chat agents who are not helpful at all.  They know nothing about the clothes except what is online.  No, I could not drive to the shop.  And no, I could not "wait, until I took a plane trip somewhere."  If the shops had a problem with customers trying on clothes, they would not have dressing rooms.  A person's home is their dressing room.  Note:  I said home.  Not club, restaurant, car, etc.

What boggles my mind are all these customers in this thread acting as if these shops are cutting them a check for defending their honors.  It costs $10 to make a dress, and $500 to buy them each.  I am not saying that people should abuse the system; I'm saying that shipping is a small overhead for their return.  

These shops have fraud teams, legal teams, compliance teams.  They don't need average members of purse forum policing other people's behavior.


----------



## jellyv

Annie J said:


> I think I will step back now, I seem to be returning to the same points



Good LORD I need a nap.
--
I think Nordstrom is a slow hand with banning. It takes really becoming noticeable to them. And it's their corporate call how they execute this, period full stop.


----------



## JazzyMac

classybags4ever said:


> It’s not Nordstrom’s fault you live far from a  physical location. And yes we coastal elites do forget about these rural segments bc they don’t have much in terms of population. There’s a reason they don’t have high end designer boutiques. I don’t think they are catering to that market segment.


Gonna need to request you simmah down that sardonic to a Level 2.  Please and thanks.


----------



## EdnaMode

sdkitty said:


> the story is out there that some person or persons returned live Christmas trees after Christmas......talk about taking advantage - and having no shame


Oh I remember reading that in the news!  It's crazy.  No shame!


----------



## Annie J

JazzyMac said:


> Very intelligent post.


Kind comment, thanks.


----------



## DD101

jellyv said:


> ......The stores are pretty much shells of their former selves, so if you go there you'll have the opportunity to try on two things, in the wrong colors.



Wow what a heated topic!  I live very close to a Nordstrom, they are my favorite store and I'd say 95% of all my clothing comes from here. That said, my store does not carry a lot of what I want or see online. I look online and then I click to see if it's available at my store, and typically it isn't. So I order online. 

Now 1 of 2 things happen next. If it's a brand I am familiar with, I can easily order my size and it will fit and I will be happy. But sometimes it's a new brand I am not familiar with, I really like the item and don't want to risk them selling out of the size that will fit me, so I order in 2 sizes and return one. Because I live so close I will usually return it in person.

If you are having online shopping, then this will happen (ordering 2 in 2 different sizes). No one likes to do this....I know I don't, but I have to in order to get the one that fits me.

What I never understood is why measurements are not included with the description. Nordies is usually great about stating how long a blouse or top is. But how wide is it? How long or short are the sleeves? (I have long arms),  How wide are the sleeves? (I once bought a jacket online from Nordies and the sleeves were unbelievably narrow and tight). If the proper measurements were provided, I honestly feel this would help decrease the number of returns. This would be especially helpful because sometimes a brand will change fit models, and the fit of the item will be way off from what it used to be (this has happened to me with jeans).

Now people who return because they just wants to take a picture in it, or just abuse the return policy for whatever reason - they should be easy enough for the store to spot and ban. But like another poster said, if the stores weren't making money by selling online they would stop. And as another poster said, free shipping really isn't free. We all pay for it one way or another.

Oh and I will just add one more thing......I used to love shopping in the mall - loved it! But as they add onto the already sprawling malls, we loose parking spots. And if parking isn't easy, I won't go. Also I find more and more these days sales people who are borderline rude at times, busy chatting with other sales people, or don't care at all and must really dislike their job. These are things that have kept me from the malls.....and I live in an area where we have several malls to choose from within minutes of each other.


----------



## JazzyMac

DD101 said:


> Wow what a heated topic!  I live very close to a Nordstrom, they are my favorite store and I'd say 95% of all my clothing comes from here. That said, my store does not carry a lot of what I want or see online. I look online and then I click to see if it's available at my store, and typically it isn't. So I order online.
> 
> Now 1 of 2 things happen next. If it's a brand I am familiar with, I can easily order my size and it will fit and I will be happy. But sometimes it's a new brand I am not familiar with, I really like the item and don't want to risk them selling out of the size that will fit me, so I order in 2 sizes and return one. Because I live so close I will usually return it in person.
> 
> If you are having online shopping, then this will happen (ordering 2 in 2 different sizes). No one likes to do this....I know I don't, but I have to in order to get the one that fits me.
> 
> What I never understood is why measurements are not included with the description. Nordies is usually great about stating how long a blouse or top is. But how wide is it? How long or short are the sleeves? (I have long arms),  How wide are the sleeves? (I once bought a jacket online from Nordies and the sleeves were unbelievably narrow and tight). If the proper measurements were provided, I honestly feel this would help decrease the number of returns. This would be especially helpful because sometimes a brand will change fit models, and the fit of the item will be way off from what it used to be (this has happened to me with jeans).
> 
> Now people who return because they just wants to take a picture in it, or just abuse the return policy for whatever reason - they should be easy enough for the store to spot and ban. But like another poster said, if the stores weren't making money by selling online they would stop. And as another poster said, free shipping really isn't free. We all pay for it one way or another.
> 
> Oh and I will just add one more thing......I used to love shopping in the mall - loved it! But as they add onto the already sprawling malls, we loose parking spots. And if parking isn't easy, I won't go. Also I find more and more these days sales people who are borderline rude at times, busy chatting with other sales people, or don't care at all and must really dislike their job. These are things that have kept me from the malls.....and I live in an area where we have several malls to choose from within minutes of each other.


Adding measurements would TOTALLY decrease returns.  And yet, the brand stores still don't do it.  I wonder why.  Is it that making a return to a store adds a repeat customer?  If we were to purchase based the perfect measurements and the best design, I imagine stores might lose their customer base.  Hm, that's something to ponder.


----------



## Lake Effect

2cello said:


> Having a very high buy and return rate is a form of gluttony.  So it is a bit of a moral issue I think.





Annie J said:


> We actually agree!
> 
> I did mention this significant moral issue in my post (as in the excerpt from it I’ve quoted above), but was pointing out that any moral issue with returns doesn’t lie where people have been implying it does, and isn’t what people have been becoming irate with each other about at times here, which appears to me based on a misperception about straightforward business viability.
> 
> Where you use the term ‘gluttony’ I would use ‘unsustainable overconsumption’. I personally do not believe gluttony is a sin or moral issue in a religious sense, but I would consider - in this topic - unjustifiable levels of both purchasing and returns immoral if they have a negative impact upon the planet’s ecology, and by pollution upon all people’s wellbeing, so essentially we have said the same thing, I believe?
> 
> So to summarise, in that respect I agree with you. The gluttony, as you put it, is significant in its effects: in the impact via pollution on the planet, ecology, people, animals and nature, which is the moral issue I did point out in my post. I think that is the only significant moral issue involved here, as I said, and I think my own consumer behaviour is as immoral in this sense as that of a person who returns every single thing they ever buy.
> 
> There is a possibly more minor moral issue involved in the actions of a customer who returns goods when they have spoilt them; this is essentially theft, which is clearly immoral, and is an act which makes the retailer the victim, but is less of a problem in a business sense, because businesses can and do calculate for it as a predictable part of their model and they can take appropriate action against customers who do this, just as they can against customers who return such a high proportion that, if scaled up across multiple customers, would start to make business unviable.  If these spoilt goods are then passed on to further customers as new, the moral responsibility for that particular unethical action lies with the business.
> 
> I was disagreeing with the tone of some of this thread and others, that there is a moral issue involved in the behaviour of somebody who returns, even sometimes at high volume, for valid reasons within the terms of business, regarding their behaviour towards other customers or towards businesses, insofar as some people have seemed to be angry at each other that this affects pricing for all customers, the condition of items purchased, or profitability. Those aspects are simple business ones in the control of the business, and are in reality unlikely to have the kind of absolute negative impact upon other individuals that some people have appeared unhappy about.
> 
> So as far as the financial impact of returns upon, or any impact on the quality of shopping experience of, other customers goes, which is largely what has been debated in this thread and others, and seems to get unnecessarily personal and antagonistic sometimes, these are in reality not truly moral matters, as some people perceive them to be. They are simply operational matters relating to behavioural realities for a business to assess and incorporate. Logically, that is on the basis that the facility of return is a key aspect of what makes the business viable and profitable at all, and therefore benefits consumers of all persuasions, even those who never return, as the business would likely not exist without it and nobody would be able to buy anything much online.
> 
> The moral problem with gluttony, or overconsumption, is a more general and widespread one which applies to all our consumer behaviour, including my own, wherever or however we shop, high returns of online purchases being just one factor among others. It all contributes to overproduction, overconsumption, subsequent waste, transport and industrial pollution.
> 
> Personally I feel pretty guilty about overconsumption, but so far have failed to change my level of consumption to a very significant degree.


And this is meant respectfully, it could speak to mental health and impulse control regarding spending, accumulating tendencies, etc.


----------



## Annie J

JazzyMac said:


> Adding measurements would TOTALLY decrease returns.  And yet, the brand stores still don't do it.  I wonder why.  Is it that making a return to a store adds a repeat customer?  If we were to purchase based the perfect measurements and the best design, I imagine stores might lose their customer base.  Hm, that's something to ponder.


It helps SO much to reduce returns if they give measurements. 

Net-a-Porter, Matches Fashion and MyTheresa all give really accurate information and makes it so much easier and my returns are lower at those, but still hardly non-existent - they seem pretty happy going by their approach to my accounts ... They somehow still seem to want make it easier and easier for me to buy from them ... Barneys generally seems to offer proper full measurements too. 

I can sort of see why Farfetch doesn’t give the best sizing information because the products are sold from such a wide array of independent boutiques worldwide, it would be hard to achieve. So I return more to them. Doesn’t seem to worry them - they still offer me extensive privileges. 

Brands aren’t always consistent through all of their products as you said, so a brand sizing guide is too blunt a tool. Saks gives rudimentary information (“Item is about xx long and model is 5’9” tall) and that fit predictor tool which doesn’t work, for me, anyway!  Nordstrom offers the ‘true to size’ sort of thing, which is only marginally useful. I can only think as you say that it must suit them in some respect to deal with the returns more than to measure every product in detail to help us reduce them.

They certainly know how to keep my relationship with them going ...


----------



## DD101

I guess the stores really need to dive deep into why there are so many returns. If it's simple abuse, out of control impulse buys where that shopper returns almost everything, then cut them off for a while......maybe they can redeem themselves at a later point in time.

If it's someone like me who will sometimes buy the exact same thing in 2 different sizes - then they can easily figure out how to help this shopper - provide measurements.

Force the clothing manufacturers to be precise and consistent with sizes (ie: they all measure the same).


----------



## Annie J

Lake Effect said:


> And this is meant respectfully, it could speak to mental health and impulse control regarding spending, accumulating tendencies, etc.


Yes absolutely. @3threebabies wrote a good post about this a couple of pages back.


----------



## Annie J

JazzyMac said:


> Adding measurements would TOTALLY decrease returns.  And yet, the brand stores still don't do it.  I wonder why.  Is it that making a return to a store adds a repeat customer?  If we were to purchase based the perfect measurements and the best design, I imagine stores might lose their customer base.  Hm, that's something to ponder.



I’d completely forgotten something else. There’s a growing number of online retailers offering a ‘try before you buy’ service. You order without paying, they’ll run a soft credit check via a payment services provider, they deliver, you send back anything you don’t want, and only after a set period are you charged for what you keep (30 days with TopShop). They can refuse you the service if they decide it’s being unprofitably overused. TopShop screenshot below. Seems reasonable to believe they view offering such an easy way to buy and return as beneficial to business, given they’re not even worried about whether you pay before you’ve decided to keep something?


----------



## sdkitty

DD101 said:


> Wow what a heated topic!  I live very close to a Nordstrom, they are my favorite store and I'd say 95% of all my clothing comes from here. That said, my store does not carry a lot of what I want or see online. I look online and then I click to see if it's available at my store, and typically it isn't. So I order online.
> 
> Now 1 of 2 things happen next. If it's a brand I am familiar with, I can easily order my size and it will fit and I will be happy. But sometimes it's a new brand I am not familiar with, I really like the item and don't want to risk them selling out of the size that will fit me, so I order in 2 sizes and return one. Because I live so close I will usually return it in person.
> 
> If you are having online shopping, then this will happen (ordering 2 in 2 different sizes). No one likes to do this....I know I don't, but I have to in order to get the one that fits me.
> 
> What I never understood is why measurements are not included with the description. Nordies is usually great about stating how long a blouse or top is. But how wide is it? How long or short are the sleeves? (I have long arms),  How wide are the sleeves? (I once bought a jacket online from Nordies and the sleeves were unbelievably narrow and tight). If the proper measurements were provided, I honestly feel this would help decrease the number of returns. This would be especially helpful because sometimes a brand will change fit models, and the fit of the item will be way off from what it used to be (this has happened to me with jeans).
> 
> Now people who return because they just wants to take a picture in it, or just abuse the return policy for whatever reason - they should be easy enough for the store to spot and ban. But like another poster said, if the stores weren't making money by selling online they would stop. And as another poster said, free shipping really isn't free. We all pay for it one way or another.
> 
> Oh and I will just add one more thing......I used to love shopping in the mall - loved it! But as they add onto the already sprawling malls, we loose parking spots. And if parking isn't easy, I won't go. Also I find more and more these days sales people who are borderline rude at times, busy chatting with other sales people, or don't care at all and must really dislike their job. These are things that have kept me from the malls.....and I live in an area where we have several malls to choose from within minutes of each other.


I order very little clothing online but whenever possible if I think there is any chance something won't work out, I buy from a company that has a local store so I can return there.  There are a lot of companies that sell items on their websites that the stores don't carry.
I'd rather drive to the store and get the return done.  Yes it might cost a couple of dollars in gas but I don't have to pay return shipping and I know the transaction is done.  I'm usually going to have some reason to be driving that way other than this one return anyway.
What I return most often is cosmetics.  Drugstore cosmetics don't have testers so there is really no way to know if they will  be right unless you've purchased the same item in the same color before.  Ironically NR is an exception on this one.   Pretty much every drug store and retail chain accepts returns on makeup.  But not NR.


----------



## Annie J

Annie J said:


> I think I will step back now, I seem to be returning to the same points





jellyv said:


> Good LORD I need a nap.
> --
> I think Nordstrom is a slow hand with banning. It takes really becoming noticeable to them. And it's their corporate call how they execute this, period full stop.



Lol!  Yes, I feel quite exhausted myself with answering another poster’s complete misunderstanding of my earlier post, in my one that you selectively quote. I had been hoping to bring some cool logic to the discussion by highlighting that there’s actually very little to disagree about, and to encourage mutual respect. 

You only quoted part of my sentence, of course. My actual words were: 



Annie J said:


> I think I will step back now, I seem to be returning to the same points because some have been misunderstood.



I posted again at length because I preferred not to let the misapprehension stand or the whole effort would have been wasted. As I said, I have no intention of reiterating the thoughts again now that I’ve hopefully addressed misunderstandings of them.  I’m still interested to take part in the discussion as other points arise.


----------



## Annie J

sdkitty said:


> I order very little clothing online but whenever possible if I think there is any chance something won't work out, I buy from a company that has a local store so I can return there.  There are a lot of companies that sell items on their websites that the stores don't carry.
> I'd rather drive to the store and get the return done.  Yes it might cost a couple of dollars in gas but I don't have to pay return shipping and I know the transaction is done.  I'm usually going to have some reason to be driving that way other than this one return anyway.
> What I return most often is cosmetics.  Drugstore cosmetics don't have testers so there is really no way to know if they will  be right unless you've purchased the same item in the same color before.  Ironically NR is an exception on this one.   Pretty much every drug store and retail chain accepts returns on makeup.  But not NR.


This makes sense. It’s funny, as far as I can see in the UK not many places will accept cosmetic returns though, or maybe I just don’t shop at those places. Most of the shopping I do online is at online-only retailers, and it works conveniently for me because they send couriers for returns, so I don’t have the bother of the post office. I’m often immobilised so the whole delivery/simple returns policy is a huge consideration for me.


----------



## JoeyLouis

My return rates were lower before Marie Kondo came into my life. 

I am now in between sizes and have to buy two pairs to figure out which will fit. Sometimes the quality or look is not as expected. Going to the store is overwhelming for me, so I buy online. Plus there is more selection online. So yeah, I buy online and return. If Nordstrom one day rejects me as a customer, I will be a little hurt. But I’ll move on to the next retailer.


----------



## Annie J

JoeyLouis said:


> My return rates were lower before Marie Kondo came into my life.
> 
> I am now in between sizes and have to buy two pairs to figure out which will fit. Sometimes the quality or look is not as expected. Going to the store is overwhelming for me, so I buy online. Plus there is more selection online. So yeah, I buy online and return. If Nordstrom one day rejects me as a customer, I will be a little hurt. But I’ll move on to the next retailer.


It’s overwhelming for me too, I have quite limited mobility and stamina for physical shopping. And I’m always in between sizes.  So simple returns policies are essential if I’m ever going to buy anything much ever, really.


----------



## sdkitty

JoeyLouis said:


> My return rates were lower before Marie Kondo came into my life.
> 
> I am now in between sizes and have to buy two pairs to figure out which will fit. Sometimes the quality or look is not as expected. Going to the store is overwhelming for me, so I buy online. Plus there is more selection online. So yeah, I buy online and return. If Nordstrom one day rejects me as a customer, I will be a little hurt. But I’ll move on to the next retailer.


not sure I understand Marie Kondo reference......would this make you buy less?


----------



## rutabaga

I think Marie Kondo makes you think hard about what to keep and what to return, e.g. will this bring me joy? If not, return it. Doesn’t help that items are often not as pictured online. 

I know I’m picky. If what I’m trying on isn’t better than what I currently own, I won’t buy it. When I shop in store I often go in the fitting room with ten items and none of them will work out. That would translate into a 100% return rate if done online.


----------



## sdkitty

i*bella said:


> I think Marie Kondo makes you think hard about what to keep and what to return, e.g. will this bring me joy? If not, return it. Doesn’t help that items are often not as pictured online.
> 
> I know I’m picky. If what I’m trying on isn’t better than what I currently own, I won’t buy it. When I shop in store I often go in the fitting room with ten items and none of them will work out. That would translate into a 100% return rate if done online.


same......I try on lots of items that don't look good....if you can tell looking on a hanger then how can you tell from a picture?


----------



## honey52

classybags4ever said:


> It’s insane. They seem like profession Instagram influencer types who are gaming the system.


 
Hoping so but consider if you like only did anniversary sales. You bought 10 things each year for 10 years. And only kept 1-2 things per year from that sale . That would kinda be in the 90’s percentile.


----------



## honey52

honey52 said:


> Hoping so but consider if you like only did anniversary sales. You bought 10 things each year for 10 years. And only kept 1-2 things per year from that sale . That would kinda be in the 90’s percentile.




Or more realistically if you bought 5 things during each anniversary sale, and decided to keep only 2-3 per year over a span of 10 years you’d be more or less in the 50% return rate. 

And if you really were shopping for let’s say a dress for a wedding and bought 4 and chose the best out of the 4, rendering 3 returns and 1 purchase, you just upped your ante.


----------



## SomethingGoodCanWork

ultravisitor said:


> Here's the thing: a company can change its policies when it wants. It can enforce its policies however it wants. Customers do not have to like that. If a customer is doing something that is pushing away a customer who they feel is abusive, then it's quite likely the intent. They want you to stop what you're doing and/or go away. You are not that special to them. Yes, you are entitled to shop just as any other customer is, but if the company feels you are not worth the effort, then they don't care about pleasing you anymore.
> 
> It is nothing but willful ignorance masking entitlement to think that it is acceptable to buy a bunch of things and return 50% or more because "hey, that's shopping and the shipping is free and the customer is always right". I bet a lot of the people who think that way are also the *Beckys* who always need to speak with management for petty issues that they cause.
> 
> And the whole "if I don't allow customers to shop however they want, then I may go out of business" line is completely ridiculous. Customers who abuse return policies because "hey, it's their fault they made that the store policy" are costing the company money. If someone's concern is truly making sure that the company is able to stay in business, then they will not force the company to incur all sorts of fees because they insist on taking advantage of a store's generous policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop misrepresenting the issue. No one said that customers are not entitled to shop online for things they cannot easily find in their own areas. You know as well as I do that was not the real issue being discussed. An honest approach to the discussion will recognize that the issue is that some people think that, because they cannot easily find some things, they have to end up shopping in an unreasonable manner that is abusing a company's policy.
> 
> And no one is actually saying that they think people should absolutely not buy anything online unless they are sure they are going to keep it. Again, that is being reductive of the overall argument.


Who are these "Beckys" you write about? You seem to not approve of them?


----------



## Annie J

SomethingGoodCanWork said:


> Who are these "Beckys" you write about? You seem to not approve of them?


A photo of an alleged Becky has been posted on page 6.  They certainly look scary. I try not to let myself think about them too much or I might have nightmares. 

My Becky knowledge is limited, but I have found a bit of information online. I’ll try to condense it: 

Disambiguation: Other subspecies of shopper who make returns for justifiable reasons according to retail policies are sometimes erroneously confused with true Beckys.  Also, some individuals who exhibit occasional Becky-like behaviour are not generally considered true Beckys but may have developed Becky-mimicking behaviour as a result of the powerful environmental influences of social media and retailer strategies engineered to encourage high levels of shopping generally. People in this latter group are likely to be capable of halting further decline if approached with warnings and advice. 

Beckys can be antisocial, this is widely accepted even by those who are not too alarmed by them. They are often characterised as ‘entitled’. They are believed by some to have significant effects on prices generally. This has not been objectively confirmed beyond doubt in peer-reviewed studies, largely because the calculations are more complex than at first sight, though some commercial interests have conducted their own private research which indicate some impact, and have developed successful anti-Becky mitigation measures to limit potential damage in the case of widespread exposure to Beckys, while retaining good business health. Some return policies were not Becky-proof, but more modern policies are evolving even as we speak.  There is speculation that some retailers still prefer to retain a liberal policy because it is good for business overall, Beckys notwithstanding. 

Some consumers believe Beckys may actually even have some minor positive effects on the retail environment as some Beckys quite commonly insist on their consumer rights to a very high degree. 

For those who are not professional retailers but are very concerned about the impact of Beckys, simple recommended techniques for dealing with Becky anxiety include thought-stopping of catastrophizing responses and/or gradual exposure which can both help to reassure that the aggregated actions of Beckys do not have quite the powerful and far-reaching effects we are afraid of, but are a natural part of retail ecology, kept in check by the adaptations of the industry.  This method proceeds along similar lines to dealing with fear of bugs, fear of flying, etc. 

Those with intractable Becky phobia and who still suffer uncomfortable stress responses despite all other measures are able to practice avoidance. Some find buying and returning only online helps, and others that blocking suspected Beckys on social media reduces stress levels.


----------



## A1aGypsy

The term “Becky” is often used in a dehumanizing derogatory way to refer to  woman, especially in incel groups or on reddit.

I’m not one to tell others how to speak but I find it’s use around here a bit disturbing, personally.


----------



## Annie J

A1aGypsy said:


> The term “Becky” is often used in a dehumanizing derogatory way to refer to  woman, especially in incel groups or on reddit.
> 
> I’m not one to tell others how to speak but I find it’s use around here a bit disturbing, personally.


Thanks for posting that!  I didn’t know it myself. I’m not on any social media apart from this and haven’t come across this term elsewhere, maybe it’s more common in the US than the UK, or just more widely known by younger people than me. I clearly should have done more actual research before posting using the term from the post where it first appeared a few pages back, and I’m sorry I didn’t. My intentions were quite the opposite of pejorative. I was responding to someone else’s humorous response to an earlier post where the term was indeed used in a pejorative and categorising way.

Unfortunately the time has expired for editing that post, or I’d go back and add a disclaimer about the word!

I was aiming to make gentle fun of the use of the term and take some of the sting out of exaggerated categorising generalisations about people and about the issue discussed in this thread. I hope that’s still clear and that nobody thinks I was intending to stereotype and be pejorative about anybody that term gets commonly used against. 

I would also find the term or any other like it disturbing and apologise if it looked as if I was using it that way: it was not intended.


----------



## 3threebabies

I am Gen X, definitely not a millennial; but I have worked at a relatively high level in luxury boutique fashion (shoe and handbag girl heaven) in extremely affluent NYC suburbs. If I have ever seen reference to Betty before, it was in passing as a pejorative. I have never heard it as a an official term in marketing or any other aspect of retail selling. In my experience, retailers work more to bring in new buyers than worry about discouraging bad ones. Which supports most of my thoughts for this thread. Nordstrom takes banning very seriously and does not enforce lightly.

Based on its use here, I would say that flippant use of the term Betty is an example of entitlement and self-centeredness to the nth degree. Ironically, the behavior that those who scurrilously use the term wish to prevent. I would definitely not place @Annie J or @A1aGypsy  in that category. They used the term for informative and educational purposes.

ETA. I put wrong gen reference! Silly me!


----------



## Annie J

3threebabies said:


> I am Gen X, definitely not a millennial; but I have worked at a relatively high level in luxury boutique fashion (shoe and handbag girl heaven) in extremely affluent NYC suburbs. If I have ever seen reference to Betty before, it was in passing as a pejorative. I have never heard it as a an official term in marketing or any other aspect of retail selling. In my experience, retailers work more to bring in new buyers than worry about discouraging bad ones. Which supports most of my thoughts for this thread. Nordstrom takes banning very seriously and does not enforce lightly.
> 
> Based on its use here, I would say that flippant use of the term Betty is an example of entitlement and self-centeredness to the nth degree. Ironically, the behavior that those who scurrilously use the term wish to prevent. I would definitely not place @Annie J or @A1aGypsy  in that category. They used the term for informative and educational purposes.
> 
> ETA. I put wrong gen reference! Silly me!


Thank you, @3threebabies.  I agree with you completely!  I was tickled by @SomethingGoodCanWork’s neat response to the use of the term, and my post was meant humorously (if anyone gets my humour except me!) to support the idea, among others, that’s it’s unlikely that retailers are really terribly troubled by any type of customer behaviour that gets mentioned here anyway.  It’s interesting to hear from someone who has worked in the business that retailers are more interested in expanding customer bases than discouraging bad customers; it’s what I thought must be the case.

The ‘Becky’ doesn’t really exist as a category and it’s unpleasant to negatively stereotype in this way. I wish I’d made that clearer in my ‘Becky’ post. Everyone’s an individual and there are many complex factors behind any behaviour, even those who act in apparently excessive ways.  And a lot of the shopping patterns also disapproved of here don’t come anywhere near anything unreasonable anyway.


----------



## loogirl

Annie J said:


> I think it’s a shame people are being so scathing of each other at times here, because we all visit this forum because we share interests. It seems unnecessary. This is an important topic because it has environmental repercussions. But the business issues and the impact of one customer upon another seem straightforward to me and I think we’re seeing a false dichotomy between returners and non-returners which is causing feelings to run high.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the quote above is your point of view, @ultravisitor.  However I do feel this view is somewhat mistaken. I would rewrite it like this:
> 
> ‘I choose to run an online retail business, and I have made a business decision to have a fairly liberal returns policy so that customers will feel confident to buy in the first place, thus enabling my business to thrive and continue to offer purchasing opportunities to both those who return and those who never or rarely do. If I only sold to those who don’t return, or very rarely return, my customer base would shrink dramatically and I would probably have to reduce the range of products I make available to any customers and may even go out of business. Some customers return a lot more than they buy. Monitoring customers like that is my job as a fair part of what makes my business viable. Customers who tell me that they would like to receive a polite warning that they are returning more than my business can sustain and may be banned are saying “I am as entitled as any other customer to take up your commercial offer to sell to me online and for me to make returns according to your policy when the items I ordered are unsuitable. I am not myself an online retailer, so I do not know exactly at what level any returns I make under your policy will start to make your business unsustainable, so I will be grateful if you would let me know if I am making too many returns for your purposes before you ban me outright.  Otherwise, I will continue to purchase under your considered and legal terms and conditions including the returns policy, mindful of your business needs but not privy to them, and you will be respectful of me as a customer unless I fail to respond to your courteous warning, in which case you will be perfectly entitled to ban me as a nuisance to your business.”’
> 
> 
> 
> But it won’t make sense if that item can’t be found in a store, or if you can’t get to a store. It may be true that nobody is ‘entitled’ to have any particular item but they are perfectly entitled to accept a retailer’s offer to buy it online and return it if it’s unsuitable.
> 
> If businesses were not happy to accommodate returns they would not offer it. Nobody forces a retailer to sell online. They do it because it’s profitable and offering easy returns actually makes it more profitable, and it keeps the online offer available to all customers. They decide on the right balance to keep the business going and will no doubt alter policies when necessary.  You would be unlikely to see prices drop much if at all if returns were banned or reduced much more than they already are, because the business would probably struggle to make a profit anyway.
> 
> @ultravisitor, my intention is not to single you out but I thought some of your points were representative of the some of the main arguments people have been making.
> 
> There has been rather a lot of talk about ‘entitlement’, mostly on the side of “People these days think they should be able to have everything they want,” or “It was your choice to live in the remote countryside. Just because you live far from a store it doesn’t entitle you to shop at any particular online store.”  Well, it doesn’t disentitle you, either. It’s probably actually a legal matter whether anyone is NOT entitled to shop at a particular store; all variables taken into consideration, we are all as entitled as each other. The person who lives far from a store is no less entitled to shop at any particular online store than any other customer. They are also perfectly entitled, as we all are, to return goods in accordance with the return policy, regardless of how little anyone else returns, and retailers are equally entitled within the terms of their policy to refuse to do further business with a customer who does not abide by the contract. (Disclaimer: local laws may apply which affect the legal entitlements).
> 
> Are we not confusing two different uses of the word ‘entitlement’?  There’s entitlement under law and in contract, and there’s entitlement as in ‘a sense of entitlement’, which is connected with excessive consumption. They are not the same thing but the confusion seems to be fuelling a lot of unnecessary argument and disrespect to each other.
> 
> I think actually we may all be on the same side because we all like to be able to shop online. This argument over returns is a false one. Those who object if they eventually get banned, following polite warning for a truly unreasonable rate of returns, and think they should be allowed to carry on regardless are being extreme one way - because it’s a business matter, not a moral one - and those who think you should never order anything online unless you are certain you will keep it are extreme the other way. If either point of view were put into action as policy, online business would collapse anyway. The middle ground is just a matter for the business to decide upon in a pragmatic way.
> 
> Morality comes into it only when we start to consider environmental cost.



Dude! Some chick in this thread admitted she bought things JUST TO LOOK AT THEM. With NO intention of ever buying it. She is using online shopping as window shopping. The environmental impact alone for this sickness is enough to shut this crap down. And it is a sickness. No one needs to shop at Nordstrom, it doesn’t need to framed as a basic human right here.


----------



## Annie J

loogirl said:


> Dude! Some chick in this thread admitted she bought things JUST TO LOOK AT THEM. With NO intention of ever buying it. She is using online shopping as window shopping. The environmental impact alone for this sickness is enough to shut this crap down. And it is a sickness. No one needs to shop at Nordstrom, it doesn’t need to framed as a basic human right here.


All those points are covered in my posts and it is not being framed as a basic human right but as a conditional consumer right.  

Also with regard to the particular lady who was willing to own up and post that, she said she now saw that it wasn’t a good thing to do, which was very open of her.  She had no objection that I can see to Nordstrom taking action to prevent her making further purchases, and I expect Nordstrom is comfortable with the outcome.

Most of the vilification that has appeared here is based upon people feeling their own shopping experience, not the environment, is being adversely affected by some other people’s shopping habits.
For my thoughts and other people’s on environmental impacts, you could read the posts if inclined.


----------



## A1aGypsy

I feel like I am in a Twilight Zone episode.


----------



## sdkitty

A1aGypsy said:


> I feel like I am in a Twilight Zone episode.


LOL
this thread does go on and one


----------



## Annie J

A1aGypsy said:


> I feel like I am in a Twilight Zone episode.





sdkitty said:


> LOL
> this thread does go on and one


I know, you’re right. I shouldn’t have given in to the impulse to respond to the Becky thing. Mea culpa for prolonging the agony and apologies for any unintended inadvertent endorsement of stereotypes I wasn’t familiar with in my attempt to debunk the concerns and sorry if I dragged @SomethingGoodCanWork’s subtler post into it.


----------



## SomethingGoodCanWork

Annie J said:


> I know, you’re right. I shouldn’t have given in to the impulse to respond to the Becky thing. Mea culpa for prolonging the agony and apologies for any unintended inadvertent endorsement of stereotypes I wasn’t familiar with in my attempt to debunk the concerns and sorry if I dragged @SomethingGoodCanWork’s subtler post into it.


Absolutely no need for apologies, Annie


----------



## Roie55

I have seen an article appear in my FB feed twice now about this phenomenon. States that returns are costing US retailers 369 billion. Yes that number was stuck in my head. This does have massive unnecessary environmental impact. Its a subscribed link but i have used my 30 day free trial already
https://www.businessoffashion.com/a...y0g8kJMtyNIl5XnOP0B-e38oZ9cURa2aPMlhKbs3p17oE


----------



## Annie J

SomethingGoodCanWork said:


> Absolutely no need for apologies, Annie


Thank you


----------



## Annie J

Roie55 said:


> I have seen an article appear in my FB feed twice now about this phenomenon. States that returns are costing US retailers 369 billion. Yes that number was stuck in my head. This does have massive unnecessary environmental impact. Its a subscribed link but i have used my 30 day free trial already
> https://www.businessoffashion.com/a...y0g8kJMtyNIl5XnOP0B-e38oZ9cURa2aPMlhKbs3p17oE


I expect that’s an interesting read. We’ve seen the subject arise often in the last five years or so in the mainstream media in Europe and the UK. I don’t worry about the big businesses because they can alter their strategies as they need to to survive, as any business has to, but it does mean that smaller businesses find it harder and harder to compete, and several traditional physical stores have disappeared or are struggling. The real worry though, of course, is the the environmental one, which is huge, and down to our massive overconsumption generally, returns being one part of that.


----------



## againstandforward

This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells. I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :

$150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
$ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
$120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
$300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
$60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them 
$300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
$200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
$250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed)
$60 Chanel foundation that the “Chanel artist” “matched” me with that turned out to be 3 shades too dark.

Also, there was a Vince Coat I really liked and bought it full price for $ 750. Next day I was In Nordstrom Rack, and there was the same Coat in my size for $299. Was I supposed to not return the more expensive one because of “environment” issues or because it “hurts Nordstrom’s business”? I am sorry, I earn my money working hard and I am entitled (!) to spend it for something I am 100% satisfied with. 

Of course, it is Nordstrom’s right to ban me from even entering their store, it is a private business after all. But is it fair? No. They spend enormous money sending free stuff to stupid rich bloggers who promote that stuff. Then we, normal people with regular paychecks, go and spend our money buying that stuff. It turns out to be not as expected - and we are supposed to not be able to return that? Especially after every Nordstrom employer says, if your size in not in stock:“oh, let’s order it online and if it doesn’t fit - just return it for free!” They set this rules, and they are banning people for following them?

I know I could shop elsewhere (and probably would after they ban me), but Nordstrom still carries a lot of stuff that I like, such as Barefoot Dreams, Rag and Bone, Hanky Panky, etc. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of returns before you find brands that you trust, and even then, there has been a huge decline in quality in brands like J Crew, Madewell and Vince, which still make returns possible until retailers also do something about this and address their suppliers instead of their customers.


----------



## 3threebabies

againstandforward said:


> This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells. I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :
> 
> $150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
> $ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
> $120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
> 2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
> $300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
> $60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them
> $300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
> $200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
> $250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed)
> $60 Chanel foundation that the “Chanel artist” “matched” me with that turned out to be 3 shades too dark.
> 
> Also, there was a Vince Coat I really liked and bought it full price for $ 750. Next day I was In Nordstrom Rack, and there was the same Coat in my size for $299. Was I supposed to not return the more expensive one because of “environment” issues or because it “hurts Nordstrom’s business”? I am sorry, I earn my money working hard and I am entitled (!) to spend it for something I am 100% satisfied with.
> 
> Of course, it is Nordstrom’s right to ban me from even entering their store, it is a private business after all. But is it fair? No. They spend enormous money sending free stuff to stupid rich bloggers who promote that stuff. Then we, normal people with regular paychecks, go and spend our money buying that stuff. It turns out to be not as expected - and we are supposed to not be able to return that? Especially after every Nordstrom employer says, if your size in not in stock:“oh, let’s order it online and if it doesn’t fit - just return it for free!” They set this rules, and they are banning people for following them?
> 
> I know I could shop elsewhere (and probably would after they ban me), but Nordstrom still carries a lot of stuff that I like, such as Barefoot Dreams, Rag and Bone, Hanky Panky, etc. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of returns before you find brands that you trust, and even then, there has been a huge decline in quality in brands like J Crew, Madewell and Vince, which still make returns possible until retailers also do something about this and address their suppliers instead of their customers.


I am sorry that you were offended. I don’t believe that anyone, even those who were nasty, expected or justified Nordstrom banning those who return for quality issues. In fact, several people mentioned Nordstrom tightening return policies the last several years. Though I can not speak for certain, I doubt Nordstrom would ban for damaged returns. If they were to ban for such, that could be one of the situations in which they would reconsider. Nordstrom is revered in retail for their customer service policies that treat customers with respect (but do not see customers as infallible). Standing behind their product for defects is part of that reknowned customer service. They have modified defect policy to say something like at our discretion. You were allowed to return your defects. I think that means a lot. I do know from personal experience that Nordstrom (at least in my local store) no longer considers shoe defects to be a customer service issue. They provide no recourse for valid defects and no longer even offer a repair option much less returns for brand new luxury items. I believe I heard the same regarding handbags but have heard nothing similar for apparel items like those you mention. 

The only major companies I have heard that ban people for returning for any reason was Amazon and Target/Walmart. The latter I believe only look at shorter windows, and I think the ban may just be for a short time.

Edited because reply sent while I was editing original post.


----------



## Annie J

againstandforward said:


> This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells. I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :
> 
> $150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
> $ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
> $120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
> 2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
> $300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
> $60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them
> $300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
> $200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
> $250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed)
> $60 Chanel foundation that the “Chanel artist” “matched” me with that turned out to be 3 shades too dark.
> 
> Also, there was a Vince Coat I really liked and bought it full price for $ 750. Next day I was In Nordstrom Rack, and there was the same Coat in my size for $299. Was I supposed to not return the more expensive one because of “environment” issues or because it “hurts Nordstrom’s business”? I am sorry, I earn my money working hard and I am entitled (!) to spend it for something I am 100% satisfied with.
> 
> Of course, it is Nordstrom’s right to ban me from even entering their store, it is a private business after all. But is it fair? No. They spend enormous money sending free stuff to stupid rich bloggers who promote that stuff. Then we, normal people with regular paychecks, go and spend our money buying that stuff. It turns out to be not as expected - and we are supposed to not be able to return that? Especially after every Nordstrom employer says, if your size in not in stock:“oh, let’s order it online and if it doesn’t fit - just return it for free!” They set this rules, and they are banning people for following them?
> 
> I know I could shop elsewhere (and probably would after they ban me), but Nordstrom still carries a lot of stuff that I like, such as Barefoot Dreams, Rag and Bone, Hanky Panky, etc. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of returns before you find brands that you trust, and even then, there has been a huge decline in quality in brands like J Crew, Madewell and Vince, which still make returns possible until retailers also do something about this and address their suppliers instead of their customers.




I’d completely ignore the sweeping generalisations some people make here.  Reasonable people know there’s no call to be so scathing.

There are many valid reasons for returns, even for 100% returns. Your post started me thinking, and I was about to post on the differences in UK/US approaches, because not all the things you listed would be accepted for return in the UK. I might put it below later. Nordstrom offered the policy. What I don’t understand is why they don’t just refuse returns when they consider the reasons invalid. It would probably never get to the point of a ban with most people, if they did that. If it’s the case that you returned everything you ever bought from them, that might be a red flag for them, but if the returns were all for reasons of damage/faultiness, and if they were properly registering the valid reasons for the returns (and we’re all also allowed a few “It just didn’t suit me”, as long as it’s returned according to the policy offered and in new condition), it shouldn’t come to this even if it was every single item. Seems lazy of them, if they’ve just banned on the rate without considering the reasons, and an odd way to go about maintaining their reputation for customer service: they’d rather ban a perfectly reasonable and potentially good future customer than deal with the hassle of assessing return reasons as they come in. I haven’t shopped at Nordstrom often so this is not from direct experience, but it makes Nordstrom sound very unattractive.

If I were you I’d write detailing the reasons for your returns and point out that this is basically not a very nice way to treat a previously loyal customer.


----------



## sdkitty

againstandforward said:


> This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells. I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :
> 
> $150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
> $ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
> $120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
> 2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
> $300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
> $60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them
> $300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
> $200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
> $250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed)
> $60 Chanel foundation that the “Chanel artist” “matched” me with that turned out to be 3 shades too dark.
> 
> Also, there was a Vince Coat I really liked and bought it full price for $ 750. Next day I was In Nordstrom Rack, and there was the same Coat in my size for $299. Was I supposed to not return the more expensive one because of “environment” issues or because it “hurts Nordstrom’s business”? I am sorry, I earn my money working hard and I am entitled (!) to spend it for something I am 100% satisfied with.
> 
> Of course, it is Nordstrom’s right to ban me from even entering their store, it is a private business after all. But is it fair? No. They spend enormous money sending free stuff to stupid rich bloggers who promote that stuff. Then we, normal people with regular paychecks, go and spend our money buying that stuff. It turns out to be not as expected - and we are supposed to not be able to return that? Especially after every Nordstrom employer says, if your size in not in stock:“oh, let’s order it online and if it doesn’t fit - just return it for free!” They set this rules, and they are banning people for following them?
> 
> I know I could shop elsewhere (and probably would after they ban me), but Nordstrom still carries a lot of stuff that I like, such as Barefoot Dreams, Rag and Bone, Hanky Panky, etc. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of returns before you find brands that you trust, and even then, there has been a huge decline in quality in brands like J Crew, Madewell and Vince, which still make returns possible until retailers also do something about this and address their suppliers instead of their customers.


seems like you had some very legit returns and some that other retailers might not have accepted.  Even Zappos who has wonderful CS won't take back shoes that have been worn.


----------



## Annie J

3threebabies said:


> . Standing behind their product for defects is part of that reknowned customer service. They have modified defect policy to say something like at our discretion. You were allowed to return your defects. I think that means a lot. I do know from personal experience that Nordstrom (at least in my local store) no longer considers shoe defects to be a customer service issue. They provide no recourse for valid defects and no longer even offer a repair option much less returns for brand new luxury items. I believe I heard the same regarding handbags but have heard nothing similar for apparel items like those you mention.



Is that actually legal, then, in the States?  It seems such an odd thing for a retailer to be allowed to do. Remind me never to buy shoes from Nordstrom!  The buyer would be legally entitled to full refund for anything defective in the UK. Before 2015, this legal protection lasted for 6 months after purchase. Now it lasts for the reasonably expected life of the product in both EU and UK. There might be some other considerations such as wear and tear, repair options and so on, but the basic protection is there. The protection is even stronger if you’re buying online, you are always entitled to refund for any reason at all within a timeframe, subject to the goods being returned in the same condition as sold (condition not relevant with defective or not fit for purpose goods).

So as more experiences get posted, I’m wondering if some differences of opinion here are based on really different perceptions in different countries of what it is valid to return. Your post earlier in the thread, where you mentioned the woman who returned shoes whose soles she had slashed to be anti-slip. Did she just try to return, or did she actually get her refunds?  Would a US retailer actually take those back just because they have a liberal return policy?  In the UK they would always have been immediately refused if they were not in the condition they were sold in, unless they had some actual fault that she didn’t discover till after slashing them, meaning a true defect rather than something that just turned out to be unsuited to the buyer.

A lot of cosmetics would be final sale in the UK, unless they are very clearly still sealed and untouched, and even then often they’re not returnable. I got the impression somewhere that things can be tried and returned in the US, if you don’t like them? Unlikely to happen here, unless genuinely faulty/dangerous or as a goodwill gesture. I think you’d be well within your rights to return a foundation which had been supposedly blended to match but turned out completely wrong, it’s not what you were sold. A top whose colour transferred, that’s faulty beyond a doubt.  I don’t think I’d be able to get any UK store to accept back a sweater that had pilled after as long as a year, or a coat that shed on other clothes after wearing, unless unusually excessive. I’m not saying that @againstandforward who returned those shouldn’t have, just that it’s different here, and if Nordstrom said they would take such returns, then they should.  I expect there are conditions in the T&Cs about their right to ban you, but if most of the returns were perfectly valid, that shouldn’t be a reason, and they could always refuse to accept things back if the reasons were not valid?

So I’m genuinely wondering, are we all talking about the same thing when we talk about a liberal return policy?  It might explain some differences of opinion. I was interested because I’m occasionally in the US and also have shopped at Nordstrom online from here, assuming the policy to be similar to the UK’s. It sounds a little to me now as if they have operated a madly liberal return policy far beyond legal requirements (which seem to be laxer, however, than in EU and UK?). During this time they also often let customers be the ones who suffer from it by sending out damaged returns or shop-soiled goods as new to other customers, if what people say on this forum is true. It does sound very much as if Nordstrom has been encouraging this extraordinarily easy returns culture for its own reasons, so in the interests of goodwill alone it would be decent of them to tread lightly in their approach to a customer returning a lot. Now they’ve started to calculate that it’s no longer beneficial to them, those who got used to the old policy are being caught up in a change of culture. So it would be nice if Nordstrom gave people the benefit of the doubt with a courteous nudge before banning. I get the impression they don’t always?  I’m wondering if there could even be a case for holding some companies responsible for encouraging an addiction, like a tobacco company?  I wonder if we’ll ever see a law suit?

Of course there are outliers like the kids who habitually buy, Instagram and return, that may be a thorough nuisance. But (gasp) even they’re human too and are getting influenced in their immaturity by powerful external forces. My response to the ‘Becky’ stereotype used by a poster on page was intended to try to debunk it a bit (intended to be done humorously but maybe my British humour doesn’t translate). But meantime other basically reasonable people who may have returned a lot, having been given active encouragement by Nordstrom because ultimately the policy worked (for a time) to Nordstrom’s advantage, are being made to feel like criminals for taking Nordstrom up on its offer.  Why can’t Nordstrom refuse to accept invalid returns, before they start issuing bans?  Don’t they do that?  I don’t understand.  I think that just makes me not like Nordstrom. Yes, to those who would chime in here, Nordstrom can change its policies, no, Nordstrom doesn’t have to be nice to customers who’ve returned a lot, no, the customer doesn’t have to like it. But actually you know, most people have just been doing what the shop encouraged them to (makes customer base bigger, encourages customer loyalty, encourages more spending and is likely on balance to result in bigger profits, cost of returns is a manageable overhead, not an absolute loss to the company). So it would be really nice for us to be thoughtful towards those people here, just as thoughtful as @3threebabies has been.

And whisper it: if I’d returned 10 out of 10 items of moderate value for quite valid reasons, especially for anything that wasn’t as it appeared on screen (think bulldog clips at the back of dress) faulty or not fit for purpose, if they ban me, if I’d not already given up on them, but in the next months I was set to buy four £5000 handbags (I can dream!), 10 pairs of shoes and start rebuilding my designer wardrobe ... now I’ll go to Net-a-Porter instead because they’re quite keen to have my money and don’t make a fuss if a whole run of items ordered didn’t work out.

Above all, it’s the ecological issues that are desperately in need of addressing (though I doubt that has yet been Nordstrom’s first concern, except for potential public image reasons and also is an overall consumption issue).

Edited to add, it’s been pointed out to me that the poster had not said she had been banned, I misunderstood. So please read this post and my previous one in that light. I would still make the points about refusing invalid returns before warning, and warning before banning  Thanks @sdkitty.


----------



## sdkitty

Annie J said:


> I’d completely ignore the sweeping generalisations some people make here.  Reasonable people know there’s no call to be so scathing.
> 
> There are many valid reasons for returns, even for 100% returns. Your post started me thinking, and I was about to post on the differences in UK/US approaches, because not all the things you listed would be accepted for return in the UK. I might put it below later. Nordstrom offered the policy. What I don’t understand is why they don’t just refuse returns when they consider the reasons invalid. It would probably never get to the point of a ban with most people, if they did that. If it’s the case that you returned everything you ever bought from them, that might be a red flag for them, but if the returns were all for reasons of damage/faultiness, and if they were properly registering the valid reasons for the returns (and we’re all also allowed a few “It just didn’t suit me”, as long as it’s returned according to the policy offered and in new condition), it shouldn’t come to this even if it was every single item. Seems lazy of them, if they’ve just banned on the rate without considering the reasons, and an odd way to go about maintaining their reputation for customer service: they’d rather ban a perfectly reasonable and potentially good future customer than deal with the hassle of assessing return reasons as they come in. I haven’t shopped at Nordstrom often so this is not from direct experience, but it makes Nordstrom sound very unattractive.
> 
> If I were you I’d write detailing the reasons for your returns and point out that this is basically not a very nice way to treat a previously loyal customer.


I don't think this poster has been banned....seems she is just saying she could be banned (if I'm reading correctly)


----------



## Michelle1x

againstandforward said:


> This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells. I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :
> 
> $150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
> $ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
> $120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
> 2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
> $300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
> $60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them
> $300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
> $200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
> $250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed)
> $60 Chanel foundation that the “Chanel artist” “matched” me with that turned out to be 3 shades too dark.
> 
> Also, there was a Vince Coat I really liked and bought it full price for $ 750. Next day I was In Nordstrom Rack, and there was the same Coat in my size for $299. Was I supposed to not return the more expensive one because of “environment” issues or because it “hurts Nordstrom’s business”? I am sorry, I earn my money working hard and I am entitled (!) to spend it for something I am 100% satisfied with.
> 
> Of course, it is Nordstrom’s right to ban me from even entering their store, it is a private business after all. But is it fair? No. They spend enormous money sending free stuff to stupid rich bloggers who promote that stuff. Then we, normal people with regular paychecks, go and spend our money buying that stuff. It turns out to be not as expected - and we are supposed to not be able to return that? Especially after every Nordstrom employer says, if your size in not in stock:“oh, let’s order it online and if it doesn’t fit - just return it for free!” They set this rules, and they are banning people for following them?
> 
> I know I could shop elsewhere (and probably would after they ban me), but Nordstrom still carries a lot of stuff that I like, such as Barefoot Dreams, Rag and Bone, Hanky Panky, etc. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of returns before you find brands that you trust, and even then, there has been a huge decline in quality in brands like J Crew, Madewell and Vince, which still make returns possible until retailers also do something about this and address their suppliers instead of their customers.



You know, based on this, I would expect that you would be banned from Nordstrom shortly.  You have some legitimate points about decline of quality, but it is not just Nordstrom, it is the industry as a whole - Fast Fashion and globalization has destroyed the markups in retail, many things are made more cheaply than before- but if you happen to have any receipts from 10 years ago, you will discover than prices have actually GONE DOWN.

Used makeup, shoes and sweaters that fell apart after 1 year would be considered a sunk cost for Nordstrom (many things are created to last only one year)- they would need to make up for that on margins elsewhere, which are becoming non-existent.  In general I think returns of worn clothing will probably become a thing of the past for everybody.  Mis-shipments, wrong color etc are fine to return.


----------



## Annie J

sdkitty said:


> I don't think this poster has been banned....seems she is just saying she could be banned (if I'm reading correctly)


Ah ok. Thanks! Please read my previous posts in the light of that!


----------



## Annie J

Michelle1x said:


> You know, based on this, I would expect that you would be banned from Nordstrom shortly.  You have some legitimate points about decline of quality, but it is not just Nordstrom, it is the industry as a whole - Fast Fashion and globalization has destroyed the markups in retail, many things are made more cheaply than before- but if you happen to have any receipts from 10 years ago, you will discover than prices have actually GONE DOWN.
> 
> Used makeup, shoes and sweaters that fell apart after 1 year would be considered a sunk cost for Nordstrom (many things are created to last only one year)- they would need to make up for that on margins elsewhere, which are becoming non-existent.  In general I think returns of worn clothing will probably become a thing of the past for everybody.  Mis-shipments, wrong color etc are fine to return.


Yes certainly in the UK I’d never expect to return anything used unless actually faulty. And I believe it’s fine to do the odd few returns within policy because item just didn’t suit you or you had to order multiples for comparison in the mix. They have to factor that in online. It must make a big difference on that, what price point we’re talking about. When you see such huge numbers of high end designer clothes etc go into sales at 40% off, you’ve got to believe there’s quite a large profit margin at full price, and also a decent one at 40% off, or these retailers would not have taken on the stock in the first place. The more disposable end of the market must be different to at least some extent, with narrow margins. (“Disposable”: Oh, our poor planet!)


----------



## 3threebabies

Annie J said:


> Is that actually legal, then, in the States?  It seems such an odd thing for a retailer to be allowed to do. Remind me never to buy shoes from Nordstrom!  The buyer would be legally entitled to full refund for anything defective in the UK. Before 2015, this legal protection lasted for 6 months after purchase. Now it lasts for the reasonably expected life of the product in both EU and UK. There might be some other considerations such as wear and tear, repair options and so on, but the basic protection is there. The protection is even stronger if you’re buying online, you are always entitled to refund for any reason at all within a timeframe, subject to the goods being returned in the same condition as sold (condition not relevant with defective or not fit for purpose goods).
> 
> So as more experiences get posted, I’m wondering if some differences of opinion here are based on really different perceptions in different countries of what it is valid to return. Your post earlier in the thread, where you mentioned the woman who returned shoes whose soles she had slashed to be anti-slip. Did she just try to return, or did she actually get her refunds?  Would a US retailer actually take those back just because they have a liberal return policy?  In the UK they would always have been immediately refused if they were not in the condition they were sold in, unless they had some actual fault that she didn’t discover till after slashing them, meaning a true defect rather than something that just turned out to be unsuited to the buyer.
> 
> A lot of cosmetics would be final sale in the UK, unless they are very clearly still sealed and untouched, and even then often they’re not returnable. I got the impression somewhere that things can be tried and returned in the US, if you don’t like them? Unlikely to happen here, unless genuinely faulty/dangerous or as a goodwill gesture. I think you’d be well within your rights to return a foundation which had been supposedly blended to match but turned out completely wrong, it’s not what you were sold. A top whose colour transferred, that’s faulty beyond a doubt.  I don’t think I’d be able to get any UK store to accept back a sweater that had pilled after as long as a year, or a coat that shed on other clothes after wearing, unless unusually excessive. I’m not saying that @againstandforward who returned those shouldn’t have, just that it’s different here, and if Nordstrom said they would take such returns, then they should.  I expect there are conditions in the T&Cs about their right to ban you, but if most of the returns were perfectly valid, that shouldn’t be a reason, and they could always refuse to accept things back if the reasons were not valid?
> 
> So I’m genuinely wondering, are we all talking about the same thing when we talk about a liberal return policy?  It might explain some differences of opinion. I was interested because I’m occasionally in the US and also have shopped at Nordstrom online from here, assuming the policy to be similar to the UK’s. It sounds a little to me now as if they have operated a madly liberal return policy far beyond legal requirements (which seem to be laxer, however, than in EU and UK?). During this time they also often let customers be the ones who suffer from it by sending out damaged returns or shop-soiled goods as new to other customers, if what people say on this forum is true. It does sound very much as if Nordstrom has been encouraging this extraordinarily easy returns culture for its own reasons, so in the interests of goodwill alone it would be decent of them to tread lightly in their approach to a customer returning a lot. Now they’ve started to calculate that it’s no longer beneficial to them, those who got used to the old policy are being caught up in a change of culture. So it would be nice if Nordstrom gave people the benefit of the doubt with a courteous nudge before banning. I get the impression they don’t always?  I’m wondering if there could even be a case for holding some companies responsible for encouraging an addiction, like a tobacco company?  I wonder if we’ll ever see a law suit?
> 
> Of course there are outliers like the kids who habitually buy, Instagram and return, that may be a thorough nuisance. But (gasp) even they’re human too and are getting influenced in their immaturity by powerful external forces. My response to the ‘Becky’ stereotype used by a poster on page was intended to try to debunk it a bit (intended to be done humorously but maybe my British humour doesn’t translate). But meantime other basically reasonable people who may have returned a lot, having been given active encouragement by Nordstrom because ultimately the policy worked (for a time) to Nordstrom’s advantage, are being made to feel like criminals for taking Nordstrom up on its offer.  Why can’t Nordstrom refuse to accept invalid returns, before they start issuing bans?  Don’t they do that?  I don’t understand.  I think that just makes me not like Nordstrom. Yes, to those who would chime in here, Nordstrom can change its policies, no, Nordstrom doesn’t have to be nice to customers who’ve returned a lot, no, the customer doesn’t have to like it. But actually you know, most people have just been doing what the shop encouraged them to (makes customer base bigger, encourages customer loyalty, encourages more spending and is likely on balance to result in bigger profits, cost of returns is a manageable overhead, not an absolute loss to the company). So it would be really nice for us to be thoughtful towards those people here, just as thoughtful as @3threebabies has been.
> 
> And whisper it: if I’d returned 10 out of 10 items of moderate value for quite valid reasons, especially for anything that wasn’t as it appeared on screen (think bulldog clips at the back of dress) faulty or not fit for purpose, if they ban me, if I’d not already given up on them, but in the next months I was set to buy four £5000 handbags (I can dream!), 10 pairs of shoes and start rebuilding my designer wardrobe ... now I’ll go to Net-a-Porter instead because they’re quite keen to have my money and don’t make a fuss if a whole run of items ordered didn’t work out.
> 
> Above all, it’s the ecological issues that are desperately in need of addressing (though I doubt that has yet been Nordstrom’s first concern, except for potential public image reasons and also is an overall consumption issue).
> 
> Edited to add, it’s been pointed out to me that the poster had not said she had been banned, I misunderstood. So please read this post and my previous one in that light. I would still make the points about refusing invalid returns before warning, and warning before banning  Thanks @sdkitty.


@Annie J once again a well thought out and written post. 

Companies like Nordstrom, LL Bean and Costco did have open return policies that created a culture easy to be manipulated. States do vary on specific consumer rights, but retailers and wholesalers do not have universal policies regarding defects. There is definitely an element of buyer beware in a lot of instances. And, yes, in 2002 I gave that woman a full refund on her credit card for her slashed up unworn shoes. In the exact same situation today, there would be no discussion. The shoes would be hers to keep. She would probably try to “charge back”  with her bank and might be successful depending on card t&c.


----------



## Allisonfaye

ultravisitor said:


> All true, but people have entitlement issues.



Well, pretty much our whole culture now has entitlement issues so it makes sense.



jellyv said:


> Two _separate_ businesses, _separate _inventory. The stores are pretty much shells of their former selves, so if you go there you'll have the opportunity to try on two things, in the wrong colors.



Agree. Stores rarely have sizes anymore. If I had a nickel for every time a SA said to me, 'We don't have that size but I can't order it'. I always say no. I can do that myself and then I don't have to feel all guilty if I return. And the return thing rate is often why I say no.


----------



## sdkitty

this thread bought to mind for me that NR doesn't take back cosmetics.  since they are like any other retailer when it comes to DS cosmetics and have no testers this makes no sense to me.  They are the leader in CS yet they are not competitive with drug stores, WM, TJ Maxx or Target, when it comes to this one thing
I sent an email to management with this question.  I don't think one customer is going to change their policy but wonder if they will respond in some way.


----------



## meluvs2shop

Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!


----------



## LucyOnLuxury

meluvs2shop said:


> Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!



Yes. I had that same thought.


----------



## Roie55

LucyOnLuxury said:


> Yes. I had that same thought.


same - if you have worn it for a year then you got your money worth. The nerve to return it after a year. Thats entitlement.


----------



## Annie J

3threebabies said:


> @Annie J once again a well thought out and written post.
> 
> Companies like Nordstrom, LL Bean and Costco did have open return policies that created a culture easy to be manipulated. States do vary on specific consumer rights, but retailers and wholesalers do not have universal policies regarding defects. There is definitely an element of buyer beware in a lot of instances. And, yes, in 2002 I gave that woman a full refund on her credit card for her slashed up unworn shoes. In the exact same situation today, there would be no discussion. The shoes would be hers to keep. She would probably try to “charge back”  with her bank and might be successful depending on card t&c.


That’s kind of you, @3threebabies. I expect a valid alternative response would be “Another rather long post” 

Sounds as though it’s been quite difficult to get a balance for consumers and retailers alike with varying state laws in the US. The uniform legal underpinning of consumer protection in the UK and in Europe forms a useful solid basis for individual retailer policies and brings a lot of clarity to the situation, making each side very aware of both their rights and their responsibilities.


----------



## Annie J

meluvs2shop said:


> Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!





LucyOnLuxury said:


> Yes. I had that same thought.





Roie55 said:


> same - if you have worn it for a year then you got your money worth. The nerve to return it after a year. Thats entitlement.



It seems it’s just not going to be possible to appeal to people not to be summarily judgemental of fellow TPF members who have been open enough to post about their returns in this thread, or to talk about those members as though they’re not here.

The lady who wrote that already said she felt upset by all the accusations in the thread.

She clearly believed the return of the pilled sweaters was justified on grounds of quality, and while I wrote myself that you probably wouldn’t be able to do it after as long a year in the UK, there would still be statutory grounds for it if the item hadn’t lasted in good condition for its reasonably expected lifetime. The customer would be  _entitled_ to her money back. Imagine if these sweaters had been cashmere and silk, and advertised or sold by a sales assistant as investment pieces, for instance. A year’s wear wouldn’t seem like much of an investment. This could happen and make the return entirely justifiable. Besides, Nordstrom could easily have refused the return if they felt it wasn’t a reasonable belief that the sweaters should last longer. The fact that they took the sweaters back was a signal to the customer that Nordstrom accepted that it was reasonable.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion but it would be great if we could be moderate and not pass judgement on individuals who are actually participating in the discussion.


----------



## Annie J

sdkitty said:


> this thread bought to mind for me that NR doesn't take back cosmetics.  since they are like any other retailer when it comes to DS cosmetics and have no testers this makes no sense to me.  They are the leader in CS yet they are not competitive with drug stores, WM, TJ Maxx or Target, when it comes to this one thing
> I sent an email to management with this question.  I don't think one customer is going to change their policy but wonder if they will respond in some way.


Seems crazy not to offer testers. I accept I can’t return cosmetics I’ve bought online where testers aren’t possible, unless there’s something actually wrong with them. Don’t think I’d buy anything in store if no tester was available, apart from regular items I already know. That must translate to lost sales and a lot of fed up people with once-used cosmetics kicking around their bathroom cabinets!  They ought to take notice of you. You never know, they might take notice of one customer when she has a very valid point. I actually did manage to get the allergy labelling more detailed on a large chocolate manufacturer’s packaging years ago, because my letter got through to the right person at the right time. It’s since changed again because the legislation finally caught up with understanding of anaphylaxis (though the change I wanted was to get it more nuanced just so anaphylaxis sufferers would have wider choices as well as being safer; the subsequent law has made it safer but blunter. Obviously the safety is most important though!).  If they’re cracking down on returns it would be good if they offered you a better chance of the product working for you by making testers readily available in store.


----------



## Stansy

meluvs2shop said:


> Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!


A friend of mine used to work for a very renowned department store here and they would accept every single return: worn prom dresses, smelling and with underarm stains. Heck, they even had to accept an H&M cardigan! This is crazy as the cost for this has to be bourne by all customers.....


----------



## Lake Effect

If a retailer has a return policy that is essentially , we want you to be satisfied , period , and they take things back after being obviously worn, after periods like a year, well then, yes, things are going to be returned in whatever time frame that consumer has an expectation for that item to last, wear a certain way etc.
So I have a few different points here.
If I bought many items from a brick and mortar or online store and had to return them for reasons I felt were legitimate quality issues, I’d would consider looking for a place to shop with better quality items. Returns can be time consuming. And if that store makes returns easy, there is still a quality issue. And if I was banned from returns, because of returning things I felt I had a legitimate reason to, I would have no trouble leaving them behind . I might miss them at first, but if I pay money and the quality /service isn’t there, what’s the point. So if I got banned from any store for any reason, I might not like it, lol, cause it’s still a relationship, but will go find another vender to give me the quality I seek.
I heard a wise young woman say many years ago, we vote with our money with every purchase we make. For example, when I read about the quantity of pesticides that go into cultivating cotton crops worldwide, I made a decision to buy jeans at consignment, thrift shops whenever possible. Not to get sidetracked with my personal views, but you get my point . I refuse to spend my money if I cannot get the service or quality I desire. Or a product that is produced in a way I would rather not support. I will abide by a company’s rules, ie return policy, but if the quality is not there, it’s not there.
So edited to add, if I keep spending money on products from a retailer and the quality is not there, I feel like I am sending them the the message, keep selling me poor quality products.
Another point, I did make a conscious decision I mean, 20 years ago, lol, to buy sweaters and bathing suits specifically from 2 retailers with a satisfaction guaranteed policy (that I saw what I considered an abusive return with my own eyes, that I wanted to lean over to my fellow consumer and say, are you freaking kidding me). Because I was tired of buying cheaply made bathing suits that came undone at the seams after a few wearings (20 years ago, most retailers would not take a used bathing suit back) and washable sweaters that would unravel after a few washes. And I returned 0 bathing suits to them ! And 1 sweater and 1 fleece top that had been worn. (Shout out to the Gap - I miss your knits from the 90’s, machine washed and dried , lasted forever. And then I still gave them to my sister)
Another side note, I kept a trusty portable sewing machine my mom bought when I was 10, if only to make simple seam repairs on new and old items I desired to keep. Delighted a girlfriend gave me a new portable machine she no longer uses.
The issues of consumerism and packing materials have already been discussed.


----------



## Annie J

Stansy said:


> A friend of mine used to work for a very renowned department store here and they would accept every single return: worn prom dresses, smelling and with underarm stains. Heck, they even had to accept an H&M cardigan! This is crazy as the cost for this has to be bourne by all customers.....


Yes, it is crazy. The store could be refusing returns of items which are used but not faulty, or otherwise turned out to be unfit for purpose as sold in wear, then there would be no cost to be passed on (or perhaps more accurately, that particular predictable overhead could be reduced). It seems pretty easy to solve with a better policy.


----------



## Lake Effect

A1aGypsy said:


> I feel like I am in a Twilight Zone episode.





sdkitty said:


> LOL
> this thread does go on and one


That would be the Internet  
*Imagine my emoji is the ominous laughter of Vincent Price at the end of “Thriller”*


----------



## Annie J

Annie J said:


> That’s kind of you, @3threebabies. I expect a valid alternative response would be “Another rather long post”


I mean to my overlong post, of course!  I’ve never been known to use two words when two hundred will do


----------



## Melissa Ann

Just a thought, perhaps something not yet discussed.  If one lives in a rural area with few retail choices, online shopping is a Godsend I’m sure.  And free shipping/returns is probably very handy.  But not really a necessity.  

While folks who live in big cities have more choices, they pay dearly for those choices in a higher cost of living.  Living in a rural area, I would pay for shipping to get the same choices without having the high cost of living associated.  It’s a choice.  I pay for shipping to return though I have lots of choices.  It makes it less likely I will return, but I do think it is fair.  

(This reminds me of people at work who need to leave early bc they have a 2 hour commute.  As if I am just lucky with my 30 minute commute, not that I pay more to live closer bc my choice is that time is more important than money.)

I think retail is starting to wise up to revenue versus profit.  And online is not as profitable as it is revenue generating.  At any rate, anyone offended by any post here is not likely to be the type of shopper Nordstrom is banning.  Those folks are probably oblivious.


----------



## 3threebabies

Melissa Ann said:


> Just a thought, perhaps something not yet discussed.  If one lives in a rural area with few retail choices, online shopping is a Godsend I’m sure.  And free shipping/returns is probably very handy.  But not really a necessity.
> 
> While folks who live in big cities have more choices, they pay dearly for those choices in a higher cost of living.  Living in a rural area, I would pay for shipping to get the same choices without having the high cost of living associated.  It’s a choice.  I pay for shipping to return though I have lots of choices.  It makes it less likely I will return, but I do think it is fair.
> 
> (This reminds me of people at work who need to leave early bc they have a 2 hour commute.  As if I am just lucky with my 30 minute commute, not that I pay more to live closer bc my choice is that time is more important than money.)
> 
> I think retail is starting to wise up to revenue versus profit.  And online is not as profitable as it is revenue generating.  At any rate, anyone offended by any post here is not likely to be the type of shopper Nordstrom is banning.  Those folks are probably oblivious.


@Melissa Ann A lot of wisdom is your post.


----------



## sdkitty

Melissa Ann said:


> Just a thought, perhaps something not yet discussed.  If one lives in a rural area with few retail choices, online shopping is a Godsend I’m sure.  And free shipping/returns is probably very handy.  But not really a necessity.
> 
> While folks who live in big cities have more choices, they pay dearly for those choices in a higher cost of living.  Living in a rural area, I would pay for shipping to get the same choices without having the high cost of living associated.  It’s a choice.  I pay for shipping to return though I have lots of choices.  It makes it less likely I will return, but I do think it is fair.
> 
> (This reminds me of people at work who need to leave early bc they have a 2 hour commute.  As if I am just lucky with my 30 minute commute, not that I pay more to live closer bc my choice is that time is more important than money.)
> 
> I think retail is starting to wise up to revenue versus profit.  And online is not as profitable as it is revenue generating.  At any rate, anyone offended by any post here is not likely to be the type of shopper Nordstrom is banning.  Those folks are probably oblivious.


I guess there is rural and then there is rural.  We had considered moving to an area where there are no dept stores other than Dillards and Penneys.  I thought once in a while I'd drive a couple of hours to the nearby major city.  But maybe some of the rural areas are really far from a big city.
I still don't think that means you have to order a bunch of stuff just to try on a regular basis though.


----------



## ultravisitor

sdkitty said:


> I still don't think that means you have to order a bunch of stuff just to try on a regular basis though.


Well, yes. But see, some of these people think they get to shop that way because of where they have chosen to live. They don't seem to understand the idea of not being able to get whatever they want. Good grief, they even think it's reasonable that, after wasting a company's money on endless returns, the company still owes them any sort of  explanation or warning before cutting them off.


----------



## Annie J

Lake Effect said:


> If a retailer has a return policy that is essentially , we want you to be satisfied , period , and they take things back after being obviously worn, after periods like a year, well then, yes, things are going to be returned in whatever time frame that consumer has an expectation for that item to last, wear a certain way etc.
> So I have a few different points here.
> If I bought many items from a brick and mortar or online store and had to return them for reasons I felt were legitimate quality issues, I’d would consider looking for a place to shop with better quality items. Returns can be time consuming. And if that store makes returns easy, there is still a quality issue. And if I was banned from returns, because of returning things I felt I had a legitimate reason to, I would have no trouble leaving them behind . I might miss them at first, but if I pay money and the quality /service isn’t there, what’s the point. So if I got banned from any store for any reason, I might not like it, lol, cause it’s still a relationship, but will go find another vender to give me the quality I seek.
> I heard a wise young woman say many years ago, we vote with our money with every purchase we make. For example, when I read about the quantity of pesticides that go into cultivating cotton crops worldwide, I made a decision to buy jeans at consignment, thrift shops whenever possible. Not to get sidetracked with my personal views, but you get my point . I refuse to spend my money if I cannot get the service or quality I desire. Or a product that is produced in a way I would rather not support. I will abide by a company’s rules, ie return policy, but if the quality is not there, it’s not there.
> So edited to add, if I keep spending money on products from a retailer and the quality is not there, I feel like I am sending them the the message, keep selling me poor quality products.
> Another point, I did make a conscious decision I mean, 20 years ago, lol, to buy sweaters and bathing suits specifically from 2 retailers with a satisfaction guaranteed policy (that I saw what I considered an abusive return with my own eyes, that I wanted to lean over to my fellow consumer and say, are you freaking kidding me). Because I was tired of buying cheaply made bathing suits that came undone at the seams after a few wearings (20 years ago, most retailers would not take a used bathing suit back) and washable sweaters that would unravel after a few washes. And I returned 0 bathing suits to them ! And 1 sweater and 1 fleece top that had been worn. (Shout out to the Gap - I miss your knits from the 90’s, machine washed and dried , lasted forever. And then I still gave them to my sister)
> Another side note, I kept a trusty portable sewing machine my mom bought when I was 10, if only to make simple seam repairs on new and old items I desired to keep. Delighted a girlfriend gave me a new portable machine she no longer uses.
> The issues of consumerism and packing materials have already been discussed.





Melissa Ann said:


> Just a thought, perhaps something not yet discussed.  If one lives in a rural area with few retail choices, online shopping is a Godsend I’m sure.  And free shipping/returns is probably very handy.  But not really a necessity.
> 
> While folks who live in big cities have more choices, they pay dearly for those choices in a higher cost of living.  Living in a rural area, I would pay for shipping to get the same choices without having the high cost of living associated.  It’s a choice.  I pay for shipping to return though I have lots of choices.  It makes it less likely I will return, but I do think it is fair.
> 
> (This reminds me of people at work who need to leave early bc they have a 2 hour commute.  As if I am just lucky with my 30 minute commute, not that I pay more to live closer bc my choice is that time is more important than money.)
> 
> I think retail is starting to wise up to revenue versus profit.  And online is not as profitable as it is revenue generating.  At any rate, anyone offended by any post here is not likely to be the type of shopper Nordstrom is banning.  Those folks are probably oblivious.



Plenty of good points from @Lake Effect and @Melissa Ann!

I am quite sure the big retailers are totally wise to the equation as you say, @Melissa Ann, and are going to work this out one way or another and don’t need me or anyone else to sort it out here, lol!  In the meantime it’s an interesting discussion, though, isn’t it, because it eventually leads to the heart of things we’re going to have to wise up to ourselves in terms of ecological concerns?

Interesting comparison, maybe, with what you say about being happy to pay more for shipping and returns, with something one of the resale sites in Europe has just done:  I sell my no-longer-wanted designer items on Vestiaire Collective, based in France. Ironically, or appropriately, for this thread, one reason I sometimes end up doing this is the 1 month return window (for unused tagged items only) on most of the European-based retail sites I shop from (returns for faulty items would be accepted later of course). Sometimes it’s not till after the month is up that I realise it’s a bad fit, duplicates something I’d forgotten I had, or something along those lines, generally while the item is still new with tags, and I’m always selling at a considerable loss. But it’s better than nothing and somebody gets to enjoy it for a fantastic price.  Anyway, I digress ... They have just completely shifted how they take commission and allocate costs. Shipping sold items to them for quality control and onward shipping from their nearest hub was and is covered in the commission they charge the seller. Commission used to be really high, it’s much lower now, though sellers aren’t earning more, just the same, because they dropped the prices on the site; lower cost to buyer, presumably in hope of increased sales (there’s also a new authentication fee to the buyer but it’s small in comparison to the price drops). For the hub to buyer stage, there used to be a flat shipping fee, or a flat fee based on item cost, I’m not certain which, I think it was worldwide, maybe with minor variations, not sure. Now they’ve changed the shipping fee to reflect the actual cost of shipping to final destination, depending on which quality control hub it’s shipping from after receipt from the seller: Paris, New York or Hong Kong.  At the same time they’ve changed the way import duties are paid from choice of flat fee or paying via DHL, which previously could result in higher charges than actual import duties for some, and this will now be calculated and paid at checkout at the true duty cost, or much closer thereto, as I understand it. So ... shipping costs have gone down a little for most people, but up a little for a minority. I think shipping will still be somewhat averaged out for the destination country and item value, but it’s closer to representative of that particular real cost than it used to be. Basically similar to your point, @Melissa Ann?  Some people are unhappy about these changes because they now pay more.

It has obviously been done for business reasons in this case, nothing else.  With the retailers, my inexpert hunch about costs (shipping, returns, restocking etc) incorporated into prices or overheads is that this averaging probably makes the business smoother, more profitable and therefore readily available to all customers, and we can probably leave the businesses to work that out, as business conditions change; that it doesn’t matter too much how those costs are averaged out and it’s not as simple a calculation as it appears at first sight anyway, all of which has been previously discussed. That said, I personally would have no problem in principle paying a shipping fee that represented at least something closer to the actual cost and the correct duty, whether it goes up or down, rather than averaging out those sorts of cost, so long as the item price dropped a little to reflect that the customer rather than the retailer was now taking in that cost. So that I’d end up paying a bit more, another customer a bit less by reason of true shipping fees, but the retailer would still be getting the same average money for the item as before. Though to be honest I’m not truly that fussed either about paying more than my “fair share” of other customer’s habits, if it actually does enter the cost very significantly, I really don’t feel it matters all that much unless we’re talking about making essentials unaffordable, which I don’t think we really have been?  To an extent, these particular concerns about the possible monetary effects of one customer upon another feel to me like a kind of decadent last hurrah of consumerism.

But ... charging actual costs for shipping and return shipping could also be a model for charging environmental costs, which is something that however you look at it can’t ethically be averaged out, except for where life’s necessities are concerned, because the cost is the actual environmental impact that goes way beyond item prices, and the responsibility for the actual environmental cost may have to be taken by the individual occasioning it if we are to have a hope of turning the situation around. It’s far from being the only environmental cost, of course, it’s only the final stage, or the last stage before some sort of disposal or recycling; the production and pre-sale distribution of the goods is also an environmental cost and a responsibility which needs to be shared evenly among anyone buying the goods regardless of where they are. So, ultimately, it comes back to the real cost of all this consumption, returns being only a piece of the problem. Maybe at some point we will be shifting towards pricing and shipping structures that will truly reflect environmental cost.

My own failing, the environmental cost of my own purchases and resales is far from lost on me.  I am cutting back, not, so far, as well as I intended, but going in the right direction and making sure any new purchase is good quality with longevity. I suppose a lot of the stuff I’ve got rid of was older and just no good for me any more (no longer fits, no longer age-appropriate etc) so at least that’s being recycled to a new owner, either via resale or direct to Oxfam or similar, and I’ve always been one to repair and renew things, anyway, like you @Lake Effect (it’s really satisfying!).  Newer stuff other than what I truly need, well, slightly less satisfactory story.


----------



## Annie J

I’d like to add a couple of things to my previous post:



Annie J said:


> So ... shipping costs have gone down a little for most people, but up a little for a minority. I think shipping will still be somewhat averaged out for the destination country and item value, but it’s closer to representative of that particular real cost than it used to be. Basically similar to your point, @Melissa Ann?  Some people are unhappy about these changes because they now pay more.



I’d be happy enough to pay a bit more myself, like you, @Melissa Ann, but I see that at least one person who feels unhappy with the increased cost thinks she may no longer shop from this particular business based on this. There’s no reason to believe the business is trying to get rid of that customer by making these changes, they’re just shifting the costs around a bit. If that customer’s response is a common one, it does raise at least the possibility that sales might decrease as customer base shrinks, and could conceivably be regretted by the business if it translates to decreased profits, which it could, and by other customers if it means the business shrinks and makes less attractive offers because of it. Or, yes, it might increase profitability regardless of the shrinking customer base: but we don’t know that. What I mean to say is it’s not an obvious calculation at all, and the blame game between customers with differing habits isn’t necessarily on solid ground, environmental considerations aside (not meaning you were playing the blame game, @Melissa Ann, obviously quite the opposite with your thoughtfulness!)



Annie J said:


> But ... charging actual costs for shipping and return shipping could also be a model for charging environmental costs, which is something that however you look at it can’t ethically be averaged out, except for where life’s necessities are concerned, because the cost is the actual environmental impact that goes way beyond item prices, and the responsibility for the actual environmental cost may have to be taken by the individual occasioning it if we are to have a hope of turning the situation around.



The retailers also currently bear a significant amount of responsibility for this environmental cost because they push their products, including the free or standard delivery and returns, to all potential customers, and are therefore complicit in creating the activity. So overall it would appear that the balance of environmental responsibility is less than obvious.


----------



## Melissa Ann

@Annie J Agree on the ecological cost.  The number of boxes out on recycling day is unbelievable nowadays.  The concept of “recycling” fools people into thinking its no biggie.  I do reuse them boxes when I can, like when reselling, but the waste is tragic.


----------



## Annie J

Melissa Ann said:


> @Annie J Agree on the ecological cost.  The number of boxes out on recycling day is unbelievable nowadays.  The concept of “recycling” fools people into thinking its no biggie.  I do reuse them boxes when I can, like when reselling, but the waste is tragic.


Agreed.  And the fuel, and the environmental cost of production. All this _stuff!  _A lot of us have got carried away with it, retailers or consumers, whether high, low or non-returners. That’s the big thing.


----------



## againstandforward

againstandforward said:


> This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells. I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :
> 
> $150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
> $ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
> $120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
> 2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
> $300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
> $60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them
> $300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
> $200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
> $250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed).



I meant 1 WEAR, not 1 year! Sorry for not checking my post!


----------



## Annie J

againstandforward said:


> I meant 1 WEAR, not 1 year! Sorry for not checking my post!


Oh, @againstandforward, this is so funny!  That ‘year’ has caused such controversy!!  

Thanks for posting!!


----------



## DD101

againstandforward said:


> This thread made me really upset about all those accusations towards the people with high return rates, because I am one of them but for a reason that hasn’t been mentioned - *the decline in quality of goods that Nordstrom sells.* I’ve only been living in the US for 2 years, so my shopping history is short. Here is what I bought and had to return because of quality issues :
> 
> $150 Vince silk top in yellow color that actually colored the inside of my black blazer yellow
> $ 500 Rebecca Taylor dress in which the seams came apart after 1 wear
> $120 La Mer foundation that clogged my pores and looked worse than any drugstore foundation ever did
> 2 of $100 Madewell sweaters that started pilling after 1 year
> $300 Vince Coat that shed wool all over my white blazer I wore underneath
> $60 Wolford tights that came with a whole in them
> $300 Vince sandals that wounded my feet after 1 wear because the seams were too thick and I couldn’t feel that when trying them on
> $200 J Crew Coat that came in size 10 instead of the size 4 that I ordered
> $250 Eric Javitz hat that had curved seams on a ribbon (I would’ve kept the hat if the ribbon could be removed)
> $60 Chanel foundation that the “Chanel artist” “matched” me with that turned out to be 3 shades too dark.
> 
> Also, there was a Vince Coat I really liked and bought it full price for $ 750. Next day I was In Nordstrom Rack, and there was the same Coat in my size for $299. Was I supposed to not return the more expensive one because of “environment” issues or because it “hurts Nordstrom’s business”? I am sorry, I earn my money working hard and I am entitled (!) to spend it for something I am 100% satisfied with.
> 
> Of course, it is Nordstrom’s right to ban me from even entering their store, it is a private business after all. But is it fair? No. They spend enormous money sending free stuff to stupid rich bloggers who promote that stuff. Then we, normal people with regular paychecks, go and spend our money buying that stuff. It turns out to be not as expected - and we are supposed to not be able to return that? Especially after every Nordstrom employer says, if your size in not in stock:“oh, let’s order it online and if it doesn’t fit - just return it for free!” They set this rules, and they are banning people for following them?
> 
> I know I could shop elsewhere (and probably would after they ban me), but Nordstrom still carries a lot of stuff that I like, such as Barefoot Dreams, Rag and Bone, Hanky Panky, etc. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of returns before you find brands that you trust, and even then, there has been a huge decline in quality in brands like J Crew, Madewell and Vince, which still make returns possible until retailers also do something about this and address their suppliers instead of their customers.



I used to be a huge Nordstrom shopper......I still do make some purchases there, but as time goes on I also see the decline in quality of the clothing they sell.,.,hence I have started to shop elsewhere. Brands that I loved in the past I no longer bother with because they seem to be poorly made/poor quality, Vince is a brand I find this happening to also.

But then another issue I have encountered with Nordstrom is the photo of the clothing being worn, shows very differently on the model than on myself.  I have received things that were way shorter in length than what was depicted, sometimes they say the color is white, but what the send you is a light beige or a wheat color, etc. 

I hate to make a return because if I chose it I really want it. But sometimes the merchant is not providing the correct information, this has happened a lot. I have been avoiding Nordstrom lately.


----------



## fabae

DD101 said:


> I used to be a huge Nordstrom shopper......I still do make some purchases there, but as time goes on I also see the decline in quality of the clothing they sell.,.,hence I have started to shop elsewhere. Brands that I loved in the past I no longer bother with because they seem to be poorly made/poor quality, Vince is a brand I find this happening to also.
> 
> But then another issue I have encountered with Nordstrom is the photo of the clothing being worn, shows very differently on the model than on myself.  I have received things that were way shorter in length than what was depicted, sometimes they say the color is white, but what the send you is a light beige or a wheat color, etc.
> 
> I hate to make a return because if I chose it I really want it. But sometimes the merchant is not providing the correct information, this has happened a lot. I have been avoiding Nordstrom lately.



I agree with this post.  When you get it and the quality is far below what you expect from Nordstrom and it looks nothing like the picture, which is often a problem with Nordstrom....

Reading this thread makes me think it's time to start avoiding Nordstrom, too.  Might not be a bad thing...


----------



## lulilu

^^^ agree.  Between the unstated threat of being banned and the diminishing quality and caliber of products they sell, I have been avoiding Nordstrom.  Why risk it?


----------



## bella8

Roie55 said:


> same - if you have worn it for a year then you got your money worth. The nerve to return it after a year. Thats entitlement.


Totally agree


----------



## limom

I just looked at my own purchase history, I estimate that I return about 40% of my purchases.
I have yet to be banned. Of course, I return items right away and they are never worn.
As the other posters have mentioned there are not much stock in my size in my store. 
In my last order, I received a t-shirt when I ordered a skirt. Weird.
I went to the store to return the shirt,  as I was already counting on wearing the damned skirt and was told that it was an online only item.
I think I am going to try the order online and pick up in store shopping option, next.
As far as quality, the main problem for me is during the Nordstrom sales, the stuff simply is not the same, imo.
And to add further insult to injury, it often goes on sale for less a month or so later.


----------



## natalia0128

Have any Banned customers tried to shop at Nordstrom yet? What is happened when you place an order or pay for your stuffs?


----------



## rivoli

natalia0128 said:


> Have any Banned customers tried to shop at Nordstrom yet? What is happened when you place an order or pay for your stuffs?



This is a good question. Presumably, you can just decline to give your phone number if the sales associate asks and pay cash? And I assume it would be impossible to return because you do usually need to give a name?

This reminds me of the way that my mother used to shop. A very, _very_ long time ago before computers.


----------



## dmmiller

This thread made me think twice when shopping NAS.  I usually like to get shoes from the sale and I have a tricky foot to fit - sometimes I need a wide and have a narrow heel.  So this year, I took off the first early access day for cardholders and was glad I did.  I probably went through about 10 pairs of shoes to get 1 pair that fit well.  One throw I planned on purchasing was underwhelming in person.  It is about 3 hours for me round trip to go to the store.  Sadly as a plus-size women, there were very few items available in the store, but one item that I planned on getting didn't look great on me and was replaced by a different item that I would not have considered based on looking at the website.  It also helped with sizing if I decide to order more items.  I generally don't return a lot other than shoes, but after looking at this thread, I didn't want to increase my returns percentage.


----------



## rutabaga

My coworker went in to browse the NAS over the weekend and asked a SA if they were banning customers for returns. The SA denied that you could get banned.... which we all know isn't true. There’s a disconnect between corporate and what SAs tell you at the register.


----------



## happiness07

The entitlement ..phewww!I do alot of online shopping and get free shipping from Nordstrom so your telling me some people pay for this ?Honestly though with a 94% return rate your surprised you got banned?
I asked my friend /S.A about this ban & said he has seen it happen but in the 7 years he has worked there only twice .lol..


----------



## pjhm

happiness07 said:


> The entitlement ..phewww!I do alot of online shopping and get free shipping from Nordstrom so your telling me some people pay for this ?Honestly though with a 94% return rate your surprised you got banned?
> I asked my friend /S.A about this ban & said he has seen it happen but in the 7 years he has worked there only twice .lol..


I believe your friend. There’s got to more to this story. I’ve been buying on line and in their store for years and return what doesn’t fit, don’t like, etc. with no repercussions.


----------



## happiness07

pjhm said:


> I believe your friend. There’s got to more to this story. I’ve been buying on line and in their store for years and return what doesn’t fit, don’t like, etc. with no repercussions.


He said the same thing.I mean I just returned shoes from February-still brand new in the box and joked hope I don't get banned &he had no clue till I showed him this post..OP feel lucky guess


----------



## factchecker5

Look at the person Nordstrom hired to sign those letters (Adam Drake). He has criminal records. Google his background check. Nordstrom is an unethical company run by criminals.


----------



## lulilu

factchecker5 said:


> Look at the person Nordstrom hired to sign those letters (Adam Drake). He has criminal records. Google his background check. Nordstrom is an unethical company run by criminals.



Sounds as if you have a personal grudge against this person that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## amateurjeweler

I think the bottom line is that stores should notify customers before banning them when feasible. I don't think it's "babysitting," just good customer relations, especially when ban criteria are so opaque. On the other hand, I also think that a return rate of 90%+ is unreasonable, even if I can stretch myself to see how a fair-minded shopper could unwittingly reach it. Whatever happens, I hope they maintain their  policies, as it's one of the major reasons I shop there, and I keep most of the items I buy.


----------



## jblended

I got banned from Nordstrom Rack for no reason (I think it was in late 2018). I had made 4 online purchases (1 or 2 items each time) in that year and kept all of them, so they had no valid reason to ban me. I tried to checkout one day and my order kept getting cancelled.

Contacting CS was infuriating. They said it was a new company policy and my account had been permanently banned at their discretion, without any further explanation. Literally, the payments went through my CC immediately, and my previous orders were all received with no issues, they just randomly blocked me after my 4th order was delivered.

At the time, I was so irritated by the way CS had responded (their tone was far from polite) that I just said I'll gladly take my business elsewhere and left it at that.
I haven't shopped with them since because I'm not going to beg them to take my money , but I just can't understand why they'd ban someone with zero returns or cancellations on their account. I'm sure it was a technical glitch on their system but the fact that CS didn't bother to look into it put me off for good.

I do understand when someone has a 94% rate (and many social media influencers are abusing that return policy), then the company has to protect itself. But I do not fall into that category.


----------



## rutabaga

jblended said:


> I got banned from Nordstrom Rack for no reason (I think it was in late 2018). I had made 4 online purchases (1 or 2 items each time) in that year and kept all of them, so they had no valid reason to ban me. I tried to checkout one day and my order kept getting cancelled.
> 
> Contacting CS was infuriating. They said it was a new company policy and my account had been permanently banned at their discretion, without any further explanation. Literally, the payments went through my CC immediately, and my previous orders were all received with no issues, they just randomly blocked me after my 4th order was delivered.
> 
> At the time, I was so irritated by the way CS had responded (their tone was far from polite) that I just said I'll gladly take my business elsewhere and left it at that.
> I haven't shopped with them since because I'm not going to beg them to take my money , but I just can't understand why they'd ban someone with zero returns or cancellations on their account. I'm sure it was a technical glitch on their system but the fact that CS didn't bother to look into it put me off for good.
> 
> I do understand when someone has a 94% rate (and many social media influencers are abusing that return policy), then the company has to protect itself. But I do not fall into that category.



There's a thread dedicated to NR bans. Despite the name, Nordstrom and NR are two separate companies. I was also banned without warning and my online NR account was blocked, but I was able to create a new account. My mother was also banned, but she only made one order and randomly couldn't log into her account. The CS rep told her to create a new account with a new e-mail address.


----------



## limom

jblended said:


> I got banned from Nordstrom Rack for no reason (I think it was in late 2018). I had made 4 online purchases (1 or 2 items each time) in that year and kept all of them, so they had no valid reason to ban me. I tried to checkout one day and my order kept getting cancelled.
> 
> Contacting CS was infuriating. They said it was a new company policy and my account had been permanently banned at their discretion, without any further explanation. Literally, the payments went through my CC immediately, and my previous orders were all received with no issues, they just randomly blocked me after my 4th order was delivered.
> 
> At the time, I was so irritated by the way CS had responded (their tone was far from polite) that I just said I'll gladly take my business elsewhere and left it at that.
> I haven't shopped with them since because I'm not going to beg them to take my money , but I just can't understand why they'd ban someone with zero returns or cancellations on their account. I'm sure it was a technical glitch on their system but the fact that CS didn't bother to look into it put me off for good.
> 
> I do understand when someone has a 94% rate (and many social media influencers are abusing that return policy), then the company has to protect itself. But I do not fall into that category.


This is so odd.
Yes, some of the CS rep are truly condescending and down right rude... 
it is not like there is not one hundred other places to shop at


----------



## jblended

i*bella said:


> There's a thread dedicated to NR bans. Despite the name, Nordstrom and NR are two separate companies. I was also banned without warning and my online NR account was blocked, but I was able to create a new account. My mother was also banned, but she only made one order and randomly couldn't log into her account. The CS rep told her to create a new account with a new e-mail address.


Oh I'm sorry, I had no idea. I'll find that other thread and read on there.
Thank you for letting me know I'm not alone in that experience. 



limom said:


> This is so odd.
> Yes, some of the CS rep are truly condescending and down right rude...
> it is not like there is not one hundred other places to shop at


Precisely.


----------



## factchecker5

Do your fact checking before your opinions. He’s a VP of Nordstrom with criminal records.



lulilu said:


> Sounds as if you have a personal grudge against this person that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## Vlad

factchecker5 said:


> Do your fact checking before your opinions. He’s a VP of Nordstrom with criminal records.



Kindly stop spamming Nordstrom-related threads with these claims.


----------



## showgratitude

natalia0128 said:


> I read it online
> does anyone receive any kinds of letter like this . It sent with certified mail .
> View attachment 4421585


This reply might be 11 months too late but just sharing my .02-----
If it’s true that your returns are excessive, I can see why they sent this letter to you.  If you are interested to appeal and is able to appeal your case, well and good.  If not, consider it as good riddance.  Don’t lose sleep over it.  Anyway, what they sell there are wants and not needs.  Not like they sell N95 masks, ventilators, medicines, or canned goods that are essential to survival of human beings in this pandemic.  Save your money and just buy what you and your family truly need.  Hopefully you have 12-18 mos worth of living expenses.  Remember, the experts say that it will take about that long of a time (at least) to have a vaccine against the virus available---assuming there are no impediments.  Keep safe everyone!


----------



## Bj9999

I would like an update on this as well. I have a family member that this happened to after they ordered several formal dresses to try for an event. They don’t have a high stock of any formal dresses in stores in the area. It was a one time incident, not a repeat offender. They were shocked that they wouldn’t be able to shop there anymore. I was wondering if anyone had gotten this letter and had the ban lifted by Nordstrom after an appeal. Thanks!


----------



## starrynite_87

pjhm said:


> I believe your friend. There’s got to more to this story. I’ve been buying on line and in their store for years and return what doesn’t fit, don’t like, etc. with no repercussions.


I worked at Nordstrom for 2 years; the people I know that received these letters were being watched by loss prevention for a long period of time(to build a case)  due to fraudulent returns. It was rare, but during my time I had seen 1 person receive the letter and that was due to her returning stolen merchandise. They had been watching her and her sister for awhile; prior to her receiving the letter she was told she would not be able to return items without a proof of purchase in our department( accessories, sunglasses, and handbags); she would attempt to do returns in other departments and was able to get away with it twice, then it got to a point where she was handed the letter and was escorted out of the store. She attempted to sneak in a few times and the police were called since she was trespassing, so she started sending her sister to do the returns, not realizing she was also being watched.


----------



## Bj9999

starrynite_87 said:


> I worked at Nordstrom for 2 years; the people I know that received these letters were being watched by loss prevention for a long period of time(to build a case)  due to fraudulent returns. It was rare, but during my time I had seen 1 person receive the letter and that was due to her returning stolen merchandise. They had been watching her and her sister for awhile; prior to her receiving the letter she was told she would not be able to return items without a proof of purchase in our department( accessories, sunglasses, and handbags); she would attempt to do returns in other departments and was able to get away with it twice, then it got to a point where she was handed the letter and was escorted out of the store. She attempted to sneak in a few times and the police were called since she was trespassing, so she started sending her sister to do the returns, not realizing she was also being watched.



What about people who are banned for returning things and they have proof of purchase? For instance, everything I’ve ordered is documented in my account online. Never returned anything without a receipt. They usually look it up by credit card which is proof of purchase as well. Nothing fraudulent to see, they really did just ban because of returning too much stuff, particularly formal dresses which are more expensive items. Every single tag attached. When I questioned it they said they looked at my history and I returned 9/10 items, which personally I don’t think is accurate considering I get all my cosmetics there and they have never been returned. So they will ban you even if you aren’t doing anything fraudulent. And if I had a record of returning too much stuff then they could have alerted me a looooong time ago.


----------



## lakeshow

starrynite_87 said:


> I worked at Nordstrom for 2 years; the people I know that received these letters were being watched by loss prevention for a long period of time(to build a case)  due to fraudulent returns. It was rare, but during my time I had seen 1 person receive the letter and that was due to her returning stolen merchandise. They had been watching her and her sister for awhile; prior to her receiving the letter she was told she would not be able to return items without a proof of purchase in our department( accessories, sunglasses, and handbags); she would attempt to do returns in other departments and was able to get away with it twice, then it got to a point where she was handed the letter and was escorted out of the store. She attempted to sneak in a few times and the police were called since she was trespassing, so she started sending her sister to do the returns, not realizing she was also being watched.



Thanks for this! I've done a lot of online Nordstrom shopping recently and I'm in between sizes so I almost always buy two sizes and return one. This post had me sweating and nervous that Nordstrom wouldn't take my recent returns that I mailed back.


----------



## starrynite_87

Bj9999 said:


> What about people who are banned for returning things and they have proof of purchase? For instance, everything I’ve ordered is documented in my account online. Never returned anything without a receipt. They usually look it up by credit card which is proof of purchase as well. Nothing fraudulent to see, they really did just ban because of returning too much stuff, particularly formal dresses which are more expensive items. Every single tag attached. When I questioned it they said they looked at my history and I returned 9/10 items, which personally I don’t think is accurate considering I get all my cosmetics there and they have never been returned. So they will ban you even if you aren’t doing anything fraudulent. And if I had a record of returning too much stuff then they could have alerted me a looooong time ago.


At our store if there was an issue the department manager or MIC(Manager In Charge) should have pulled you aside and let you know that they would accommodate you that one time and moving forward you would no longer be able to do returns or you were a member if the public who was no longer allowed to step foot into Nordstrom. From what I was told by a friend from LP it was typically a 2 year ban. I worked at Nordstrom from 2014-2016 and they were really starting to crack down on returns due to switching banks for cardholders and the implementation of the chip. Most of the fraud happening was people using stolen credit cards to make large purchases and coming back the next day to return items for cash or on their debit cards. Right before I left, we were told to return items to the card items were purchased on or the customer would have to get it on a gift card.


----------



## tchan2022

lakeshow said:


> Thanks for this! I've done a lot of online Nordstrom shopping recently and I'm in between sizes so I almost always buy two sizes and return one. This post had me sweating and nervous that Nordstrom wouldn't take my recent returns that I mailed back.


Hello, I am also worried as I have had to return items as a result of their being sub par. A pair of shoes showed up very stretched, one bag had a warped handle, and another one was badly scratched to the point where the color was gone. When I order items it is with the intent of keeping them but this cannot be done if they are damaged. I do wish that there would be better quality control so that it would be easier to keep the items. I can't imagine that the expectation is that customers will keep these items.


----------



## Michelle1x

I've been reading this thread for a while- unfortunately I think the concept of returns are being curtailed everywhere.  The thin margins in retail just don't allow for all these returns anymore.
All these publicized cases of fraud where people buy a bag and return a fake from China, or they use a false debit card - are clouding the real issue which is that retail can't afford to take return hits anymore.

When I go to Nordstrom Rack I can see returns from the full line store being sold there, typically for 60% off and more.  That means if people are buying 2 pair of jeans and returning one for fit, the revenue received my Nordstrom is 70% of the price of those jeans, even if they buy the one item that fits at full price.  The other one is written down.

I know when I buy stuff online I don't like to receive any returned items.  I usually can tell if something is a return.  Anything returned is less desirable, in almost all cases.  Some things like makeup are thrown away (I can't believe anybody would try to return makeup anyway).
Even if a return comes back in pristine condition, the time it takes to process the return probably means the season has passed.

My guess is that Nordstrom will implement a policy where only full price items are returnable and only within a brief time period.


----------



## PurseUOut

I think much of this is due to the pandemic. U.S. shoppers do not realize how fortunate they are to have the return policies we do. It's almost unheard of in many parts of the world. Retail cannot afford to take a risk on returned merchandise, especially clothing and shoes which can't be sanitized and are willing to implement cost-cutting measures.


----------



## whateve

Michelle1x said:


> I've been reading this thread for a while- unfortunately I think the concept of returns are being curtailed everywhere.  The thin margins in retail just don't allow for all these returns anymore.
> All these publicized cases of fraud where people buy a bag and return a fake from China, or they use a false debit card - are clouding the real issue which is that retail can't afford to take return hits anymore.
> 
> When I go to Nordstrom Rack I can see returns from the full line store being sold there, typically for 60% off and more.  That means if people are buying 2 pair of jeans and returning one for fit, the revenue received my Nordstrom is 70% of the price of those jeans, even if they buy the one item that fits at full price.  The other one is written down.
> 
> I know when I buy stuff online I don't like to receive any returned items.  I usually can tell if something is a return.  Anything returned is less desirable, in almost all cases.  Some things like makeup are thrown away (I can't believe anybody would try to return makeup anyway).
> Even if a return comes back in pristine condition, the time it takes to process the return probably means the season has passed.
> 
> My guess is that Nordstrom will implement a policy where only full price items are returnable and only within a brief time period.


If I'm buying something online, I would only buy if I knew I could return. I imagine in some cases I wouldn't mind having to pay return shipping but that might deter me from purchasing.


----------



## Karen1206

MarthaWebster said:


> But a 94% return rate means out of 100 items you order, you might keep 6, that is a lot of admin and postage costs for the company


If Nordstrom is so proud of the fact that they have a ' lifetime return policy' and that is a selling point for them, they should not peinalize shoppers who utilise their policy. I think it is wrong of them.


----------



## Roie55

Karen1206 said:


> If Nordstrom is so proud of the fact that they have a ' lifetime return policy' and that is a selling point for them, they should not peinalize shoppers who utilise their policy. I think it is wrong of them.


Its a selling point as most people would be reasonable in their use of the policy, abusing it is not reasonable.


----------



## Kevinaxx

I have not shopped at Nordstrom in years, not since my early high school days and when I first started working in a large mall with Nordstrom’s and didn’t know any better.

i imagine their lax policy attracts more red then black imho and they’re not the only ones that have walked back a super lax policy…

personally I get people wanting to try between sizes, etc, but I only buy online if I’m sure, just because returning it would be a pain.

but at some point I think it’s reasonable for businesses to charge for shipping, or only allow store credit (refund is actually a privilege not a right), etc.

the only other business that allows folks to try on and stuff and return (within 14 days!) is apple and that’s because they’re sitting on a crap ton of cash because their margins are very Sweet.


----------



## Michelle1x

Karen1206 said:


> If Nordstrom is so proud of the fact that they have a ' lifetime return policy' and that is a selling point for them, they should not peinalize shoppers who utilise their policy. I think it is wrong of them.


I don't think they have a lifetime return policy anymore?  I haven't heard them advertise it in years.
On their site they now say "we strive to make our customers happy and handle returns on a case by case basis".

Personally I think returns are a thing of the past.  Poshmark actually banned a buyer for repeatedly filing "not as described" cases.


----------



## whateve

Kevinaxx said:


> I have not shopped at Nordstrom in years, not since my early high school days and when I first started working in a large mall with Nordstrom’s and didn’t know any better.
> 
> i imagine their lax policy attracts more red then black imho and they’re not the only ones that have walked back a super lax policy…
> 
> personally I get people wanting to try between sizes, etc, but I only buy online if I’m sure, just because returning it would be a pain.
> 
> but at some point I think it’s reasonable for businesses to charge for shipping, or only allow store credit (refund is actually a privilege not a right), etc.
> 
> the only other business that allows folks to try on and stuff and return (within 14 days!) is apple and that’s because they’re sitting on a crap ton of cash because their margins are very Sweet.


I just returned to a company who offered me a store credit for more than the amount of my purchase if I did that rather than get a cash refund. I think that is a good way to retain a customer, although I wonder how they would handle it if you also returned the thing you got with store credit.

There are a lot of companies that offer free returns, not just Apple. There are mattress companies that let you sleep on it for a month and still return. It is reasonable to allow returns for clothing; they would make a lot fewer sales if people didn't have that option.


----------



## Kevinaxx

whateve said:


> I just returned to a company who offered me a store credit for more than the amount of my purchase if I did that rather than get a cash refund. I think that is a good way to retain a customer, although I wonder how they would handle it if you also returned the thing you got with store credit.
> 
> There are a lot of companies that offer free returns, not just Apple. There are mattress companies that let you sleep on it for a month and still return. It is reasonable to allow returns for clothing; they would make a lot fewer sales if people didn't have that option.


I’ve not heard of such thing. Personally I don’t care for it but it’s not my business and it won’t really make a difference for me—I only buy what I want and store credit is a bit like gift cards, luckily I don’t get a lot of those but I have had one from anthro actually error me out when I tried to use it a couple years ago (much like cashier checks aren’t forever rather have a time limit of 7 years or so).

in that I rather have cold hard cash if I don’t like it AND their policy allows for a full refund.

if they don’t, I might still shop if I like it and want it but if I’m on the fence I probably wouldn’t though these days because I hate returning, I don’t even consider it much even if their policy allows for it.

that’s just me, I can be quirky/weird. But I always make sure I understand the rules and go by them when it comes to consumer discretionary goods. 

probably Also because I worked retail and have heard every excuse under the sun it seems. Gold goes to the lady who felt “pressured” to buy three items totaling well over $1k and was clearly used (light stain, dirt, etc) but then was adamant that it was “new” and not “used”.


----------



## whateve

Kevinaxx said:


> I’ve not heard of such thing. Personally I don’t care for it but it’s not my business and it won’t really make a difference for me—I only buy what I want and store credit is a bit like gift cards, luckily I don’t get a lot of those but I have had one from anthro actually error me out when I tried to use it a couple years ago (much like cashier checks aren’t forever rather have a time limit of 7 years or so).
> 
> in that I rather have cold hard cash if I don’t like it AND their policy allows for a full refund.
> 
> if they don’t, I might still shop if I like it and want it but if I’m on the fence I probably wouldn’t though these days because I hate returning, I don’t even consider it much even if their policy allows for it.
> 
> that’s just me, I can be quirky/weird. But I always make sure I understand the rules and go by them when it comes to consumer discretionary goods.
> 
> probably Also because I worked retail and have heard every excuse under the sun it seems. Gold goes to the lady who felt “pressured” to buy three items totaling well over $1k and was clearly used (light stain, dirt, etc) but then was adamant that it was “new” and not “used”.


I remember seeing several TV shows when I was growing up about women buying a dress for an event, wearing it once while hiding the tag, and then returning it. It was almost like the writers of those shows thought it was normal behavior.

I hate returning too. I try not to buy if I'm not pretty sure I'm going to love it. Sometimes returns are unavoidable because the item is damaged or missing some parts. Like once I bought a purse from Coach online and it came without the hangtag. They couldn't just send me the hangtag; I had to return and reorder. 

I live in an area without much retail so if I want something, unless I buy it on vacation, I have to buy online without being able to see it or try it on. Some people have the luxury of going to the store to make these decisions but I don't.  I'm going to end up with more mistakes than I would if I could always shop in person.


----------



## LemonDrop

I recently bought an item online from Nordstrom that came with a dry cleaning tag stapled to the size tag. It had none of the original tags on it. I am still shocked that someone took this back and resold it.


----------



## selcaj88

natalia0128 said:


> I read it online
> does anyone receive any kinds of letter like this . It sent with certified mail .
> View attachment 4421585


I know this is weird, but where did you read this? I think that my mom posted that? She received a letter from their legal team a few years ago banning her due to excessive returns.


----------



## Kevinaxx

whateve said:


> I remember seeing several TV shows when I was growing up about women buying a dress for an event, wearing it once while hiding the tag, and then returning it. It was almost like the writers of those shows thought it was normal behavior.
> 
> I hate returning too. I try not to buy if I'm not pretty sure I'm going to love it. Sometimes returns are unavoidable because the item is damaged or missing some parts. Like once I bought a purse from Coach online and it came without the hangtag. They couldn't just send me the hangtag; I had to return and reorder.
> 
> I live in an area without much retail so if I want something, unless I buy it on vacation, I have to buy online without being able to see it or try it on. Some people have the luxury of going to the store to make these decisions but I don't.  I'm going to end up with more mistakes than I would if I could always shop in person.


I have to admit, I sometimes take for granted how much retail availability there is in my area. You could have four Victoria secrets within a 10 block radius of each other.

Coincidently I was on Reddit and a post brought me down a rabbit hole. I can’t recall if shadow scores were mentioned or this NYT article but I find it interesting… never knew you could also request for your profile.

Obviously things like this exist internally (I always thought Citibank overnighting credit cards for free here or overseas was a common courtesy).

But still this was interesting. Another form of data mining and $ for information.













Also


----------



## whateve

Kevinaxx said:


> I have to admit, I sometimes take for granted how much retail availability there is in my area. You could have four Victoria secrets within a 10 block radius of each other.
> 
> Coincidently I was on Reddit and a post brought me down a rabbit hole. I can’t recall if shadow scores were mentioned or this NYT article but I find it interesting… never knew you could also request for your profile.
> 
> Obviously things like this exist internally (I always thought Citibank overnighting credit cards for free here or overseas was a common courtesy).
> 
> But still this was interesting. Another form of data mining and $ for information.
> 
> View attachment 5573027
> 
> 
> View attachment 5573028
> 
> 
> View attachment 5573029
> View attachment 5573030
> View attachment 5573031
> View attachment 5573032
> 
> 
> Also


wow, this is unsettling. I wonder if just by asking for the report, you can end up on someone's bad list. It makes me wonder if I shouldn't leave reviews.

I lost my credit card on vacation. We've been customers for a really long time, pay on time, and have an insanely large credit limit so I would think we would be on their "nice" list. When I called, the rep told me to just keep an eye on the charges to make sure there wasn't any fraud. He suggested keeping it open so we could continue using it on vacation (DH still had his card). When we got home from vacation, I called again and asked for a new card for me. I thought they would just issue a new card, but no, they canceled the account immediately, then told me it would take a week or more to get a new card. This rep said the first rep that had let us keep using it on vacation was wrong. I had to really press to get them to send it overnight. You would think it would be in their best interest to get us a new card immediately so we could start racking up more charges.


----------



## Kevinaxx

whateve said:


> When I called, the rep told me to just keep an eye on the charges to make sure there wasn't any fraud. He suggested keeping it open so we could continue using it on vacation (DH still had his card).


Sometimes it’s also about the rep you get. Granted nowadays your app can click the card off or freeze so most people that find a cc or steal a wallet won’t use the cc because it’s a forgone conclusion for the most part…

But that was super unprofessional imho.


----------



## BigPurseSue

whateve said:


> wow, this is unsettling. I wonder if just by asking for the report, you can end up on someone's bad list. It makes me wonder if I shouldn't leave reviews.
> 
> I lost my credit card on vacation. We've been customers for a really long time, pay on time, and have an insanely large credit limit so I would think we would be on their "nice" list. When I called, the rep told me to just keep an eye on the charges to make sure there wasn't any fraud. He suggested keeping it open so we could continue using it on vacation (DH still had his card). When we got home from vacation, I called again and asked for a new card for me. I thought they would just issue a new card, but no, they canceled the account immediately, then told me it would take a week or more to get a new card. This rep said the first rep that had let us keep using it on vacation was wrong. I had to really press to get them to send it overnight. You would think it would be in their best interest to get us a new card immediately so we could start racking up more charges.



The decline in (or lack of) customer service from your cc company may be due the pandemic. I think the cc companies have seriously slashed customer service the last few years, as have banks, and the lack of staffing and training are probably not going to return to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon. I recently had a similar situation in which Visa called me about a potentially fraudulent transaction and for the life of me I was unable to get a real person on the phone at Visa to tell me what it was about. I called back several times, went through the phone chain repeatedly, listened to endless ads for "exciting new Visa products," only to get a customer rep on the line who couldn't tell what was going on and told me to call the main number again. I finally called the credit union that had issued the card. They had always been super-helpful in the past whenever there was a fraudulent transaction on the card. Nope, they couldn't help me either. They don't "do" customer service for cards anymore, they only issue them. I think it's an industry-wide deterioration in customer service that we're experiencing.


----------



## sdkitty

BigPurseSue said:


> The decline in (or lack of) customer service from your cc company may be due the pandemic. I think the cc companies have seriously slashed customer service the last few years, as have banks, and the lack of staffing and training are probably not going to return to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon. I recently had a similar situation in which Visa called me about a potentially fraudulent transaction and for the life of me I was unable to get a real person on the phone at Visa to tell me what it was about. I called back several times, went through the phone chain repeatedly, listened to endless ads for "exciting new Visa products," only to get a customer rep on the line who couldn't tell what was going on and told me to call the main number again. I finally called the credit union that had issued the card. They had always been super-helpful in the past whenever there was a fraudulent transaction on the card. Nope, they couldn't help me either. They don't "do" customer service for cards anymore, they only issue them. I think it's an industry-wide deterioration in customer service that we're experiencing.


I actually had a good experience with Visa.  There was a fraudulent transaction which they caught and emailed me about.  I called them and got a person on the line to help me.  In general these days I find most CS are people working from home who don't have a lot of knowledge or experience though.  One of my biggest disappointments is Costco concierge service.  I've gotten a lot of help from them with computer issues over the years but the last year or two it seems the staff just isn't as knowledgeable.


----------



## Kevinaxx

sdkitty said:


> I actually had a good experience with Visa.  There was a fraudulent transaction which they caught and emailed me about.  I called them and got a person on the line to help me.  In general these days I find most CS are people working from home who don't have a lot of knowledge or experience though.  One of my biggest disappointments is Costco concierge service.  I've gotten a lot of help from them with computer issues over the years but the last year or two it seems the staff just isn't as knowledgeable.


The other thing to keep in mind is that call centers are generally probably not easy to work from so turnover is generally common and no doubt between that and the pandemic (harder to train workers remote vs in person) the type of CS can change depending on who you get.

But I find it also depends on how you handle the situation.


----------



## Swanky

Hi!
Veering off topic pretty well recently, friendly reminder to discuss being banned from Nords in this thread


----------

