They try to draw the line, imo, at a point in time that is either within the product’s return period, or within a time where most people wouldn’t have gotten substantive use and enjoyment from the product. Opened it up and 5 days later it’s on super sale? Yeah, we can help you out. Open it up, and 90 days later it’s on super sale? Sorry. You got your economic value out of it.
I don’t see it as coddling buyer-versus-buyer competition so much as them striving to make you feel that they will do right by you, so that you return to the store for your next round of purchases.
I remember reading some undercover writer’s experience at wal-mart, and their overriding concern and message to their new hires was that Wal-Mart did not want to do anything, I mean anything to upset a customer. Because they knew that from the first day that someone walked through their doors, if they kept shopping there, they would drop a quarter of a million bucks in their stores in their lifetimes.
The reason they do this vis-a-vis other sites, however, is completely different. It’s because they need to convince you that their search engine will yield you the best rates possible.
Isn’t that what the free market’s all about? As long as there’s no deceit or coercion, people are supposed to maximize their own advantage. It seems sort of lopsided if the idea becomes that businesses are supposed to maximize their advantage and customers are supposed to just take what they’re offered without question.
That said, I don’t see how other buyers are involved. I have no concern if they’re doing the same thing I’m doing and getting the same savings.
Valid points.
But again, for those who still haven’t got it, the issue in this particular case isn’t whether the store will refund my money. They’ve consistently said they would. The issue is the store wants to put conditions on that refund. They’re saying they’ll give me my money - but then they want to tell me I can’t use that money to buy something that they’re willing to sell to anyone else. I say that policy is unreasonable.
I wasn’t talking about you, specifically. Just responding to spark240 on how long they should honor future price adjustments.
I agree with you - I think they’re nuts and way wrong. I would also agree with the other poster that thinks this is just employees fucking with you, or, my own read, is that maybe one manager really wanted to get his hands on some criterion collection that you happened to clean them out of.
Let me ask this for those who feel Barnes and Noble has a valid point.
Suppose the fifty percent off sale wasn’t at Barnes and Noble. Suppose it was at their rival Borders.
Now I go back to Barnes and Noble and they agree to refund my money. But I mention the reason why I’m returning the items. And they say, “We’re willing to refund your money. But not if you’re going to just go and spend that money buying the same movies at Borders.”
Do people feel that’s reasonable? That a refund can be made conditional on a promise not to spend it on something?
No not really, since it is simply someone puffing out their chest and writing their fantasy of how they’d like to teach a retail store some sort of lesson. The only way you’d have free time to do all that would be if you didn’t have a job.
I hate* to tell you this, but the literal meaning of the word “shock” has nothing to do with electricity. One might say the origin of the word (“collision”) precludes its modern definitions from being literal, but if so, there’s no question that “electric shock” is figurative.
yeah, some asshat retail employee claiming that they would refuse to adhere to the return policies of their company because they stupidly claimed they were being scammed, and then pat themselves on the back by claiming they’d be able to flummox said customer into buying more things is just one of my buttons. :rolleyes:
you probably couldn’t sell toilet paper to someone with diarrhea, though, so maybe I should’ve held off on the button pushing.
I think you need to stop for second before continuing to argue about B&N’s bad faith corporate police regarding returns. It is, I believe, very unlikely this is really B&N corporate policy. It is far more likely you got stuck with group of part timers who were shining you on, or possibly you were being dealt with by some very poorly informed or trained personnel.
You really need to nail down what the truth is. B&N retail policy as you described it being dictated to you is contradictory to 99.99% of large box retail policies in the US. The likelihood this is real vs being bad info you received is pretty small IMO.
That would illegal. And is completely different from not having a price adjustment policy on previous purchases, which B&N doesn’t seem to have.
Expecting them to honor a policy they don’t have is like those assholes who bring an unpriced item up to the cashier and expect it to be free. The first clerk last week was wrong. It sucks that you went back to the store and wasted your time, but c’est la vie.
While I know Wal-Mart is extremely liberal with their return policy, a quarter of a million dollars requires someone to spend $100 a week at Wal-Mart every week for 50 years. That is only possible if someone is a grocery shopper at Wal-Mart and even then it seems high.