Ahhhhhhh now these details make a difference. If it says in the promo that there are no returns for that sale then you are out of luck even if you didn’t see it. Then it’s a matter of a specifc promotion detail overriding the general return policy. Happens a lot because customers tend not to read the details, which incidently, is not the stores fault.
However, if they made the decision to bypass that promo detail and allow you to return them it’s petty to not go the whole way and argue that you can’t buy them again. Maybe that was payback for being a pain. I understand that to.
The level of pig-headed stupidness in this thread is mind boggling. If nothing else, B&N has received a boatload of badwill over a few bucks, in addition to be willing to incur the extra cost of re-shelving items rather than turn around and selling them again immediately. Why in the world would anyone defend this policy? Brick and mortar stores are fighting for their lives. They don’t need to shoot themselves in the foot at the same time.
[QUOTE]
. The question is, did anyone explain that your purchase was part of a special promo and not part of the standard return policy?
The fact that they eventually agreed to give you a refund is understood but my question is did you know either before the sale or when you came back, that the sale you had taken advantage off had the added detail of NO Returns. THat makes a difference. Did you have to talk to several people just to get them to agree to accept the return?
In retail management sometimes the inexperienced cashier would tell a customer they could and would do something that they shouldn’t be doing. A simple mistake. Occasionally a customer would argue that since an emplyee said they would do it I was somehow bound by their offer. It’s not true.
If you knew it was a no return deal and asked if they’d make an exception because you didn’t know or whatever that’s fair and reasonable. If you badgered several of them into accepting a refund and they decided to repay your badgering by not selling them back to you I have some compassion for them.
How about the ones I just mentioned. Did you know at any time that the sale you took advantage of had a no returns add on?
Did they immediately immediately agree to take them back or was part of your talking to several people getting them to agree to take them back and override the specific sale policy.
A store is not obligated to sell to you. It is transaction between private actors. Short of discrimination on certain axes, they are free to send you packing wit the same money you came in with.
As someone who worked in American retail for years I like your return policy better. I think it places the right amount of responsibility on the consumer to do a bit of research and make sure they are buying something they really want to keep rather than try out.
As I said, American consumers are spoiled rotten by far to liberal return policies. It’s interesting what that kind of thing will do to general perceptions and expectations. If an American store had the kind of reasonble policies you describe the aberage consumer would think they’re assholes becaue they have $10 to spend and deserve to be treated better.
I’ve had customers bring stuff back they’ve had for months and get huffy when they’re told they can’t return it.
The line is drawn at the end of the stated return period. Before that you can return things, they said so. After that you cannot. Once you have your return money back you can do whatever you want with it.
Perhaps but in the US it’s understood that you can return it because “I changed my mind” Other cultures have had other policies and other general expectations for a long time and the public reacts differently.
In the US, if a customer said “Nothing wrong with it , I just changed my mind” they wouldn’t expect to be questioned. It sounds to me like in NZ the policies and expectations would be different.
We post our return policies. If thiers say, “you can return or exchange items that are defective for X days” then you might expect to be asked, “whats wrong with it?”
IMO policies like that, set by the boys in the offices instead of people who actually deal with customers , are part of the problem. I suppose in the end it’s just a number on the bottem line and that’s what counts but those policies encourage a certain percentage of the public to pull some shit they shouldn’t get away with. I’ve dealt with the “if I raise a stink I’ll get something” customers and blatent thieves trying to use that type of policy to screw the store. I’ve seen public expectations change over the years and not nessecarily for the better.
and here’s the specific question I’ll again just so it doesn’t get missed and because you haven’t speifically addressed it even though a poster pointed it out.
That first sale, the buy two get one free sale, was there a no refunds add on to that specific promotion?
If there was then please elaborate on when you found out and how that fit into the conversations you had with several people.
Why would that make a difference? First off, I think Little Nemo has already answered that no one ever pushed back on the refund. It didn’t seem to be an exception.
But let’s suppose it was. Once they decided they’d do so, LN’s question would stand–isn’t the qualifier they attach to it illogical? It makes no sense to say, yes, we’ll give you your money back, but since we’re making an exception for you, you can’t use the $$$ (in a single transaction) to make a perfectly legitimate purchase of the items you’re returning. They might just as well have said, “Well, we’ll make an exception and give you your money back. But since it’s an exception, first you’ll need to walk backwards ten steps humming Yankee Doodle.” Uh, why?
I think a lot of people in this thread come from areas where return policies are not so liberal, and they just can’t get past that point. Try to. If the store is gladly returning your money, how in the world–by what logic?–does it make sense to say you can’t now buy the same items based on the current sale? Don’t answer the question of whether or not you would have such a return policy, or if they could legally make such a restriction. LN’s question was, who is illogical (crazy, actually), and the answer is B&N. This makes ZERO sense. It serves only to aggravate someone.
That’s a negotiation between the store and the customer and dictated in part by the specific terms of thier return policy. Whether someone is being too cheap or frugal is a matter of opinion.
In most retail in the US if the return policy allows you to save a couple of bucks by returning it and buying it opn sale , that’s accpetable.
None of the employees I talked to said anything to indicate the refund itself was an issue. If they had said “Sorry, you bought those during a sale and we don’t do refunds after the sale is ove.” I might not have liked it but I could have accepted it as a consistent policy.
Is that what was said? I saw they all agreed to do a refund but I’m wondering if the word “eventually” was left out. It makes a difference . The impression was that the discussions with several people were all about the 2nd purchase being a no go. I’m wondering if the discussions included overriding the details of a specific promotion since it hasn’t been spelled out.
I do see your point and think the easiest thing after agreeing to do the refund was to follow through and do the 2nd sale as well. Being in retail it does make sense from a human interaction perspective. A customer asks you to override the policies of a previous sale so they can save $10 and you give them a polite no. They decide to continue to argue the point and want to talk to your manager and then thier manager, over this same $10. They’ve been told no politely several times and refuse to let it go.
I’ve had this happen and my response would be to make a final call one way or the other.Smile and tell them you’ll do it with the undertstanding that it’s a special exception and they should not expect it again, or, I might say, Sorry no exceptions, no refunds, and I have no more time to argue the point, and then walk away. In most cases because of corperate, it’s best to give in , but sometimes you just don’t wanna.
The third path is to say, out of frustration and being tired of crap “tell you what, if you insist on a refund you can get it , but I’m not selling you these again at the sale price.” It may be petty but if you’ve been arguing over $10 for several minutes it’s already petty. You may just want to fuck with them like they’ve been fucking with you. Not professional , but human.
Because you pissed them off by not accepting a polite no or two and continued to argue the point. It’s aggravating when customers think that by insisting and nagging they can eventually get thier way. Sometimes hoops are just to let them no it can’t be all thier way.
If you determined that a customer was going to be a persistent pain in the ass then it’s okay to say “Here’s your refund, now take your business elsewhere” and it feels good to.
i’m not saying that’s what happened. I was just intrigued by the details and how they were avoided. I repeat, in most cases it’s simpiler to cave and do what they want, but my experience allows me to understand the possibilities.
I noticed in retail that a lot of staff and management had a hard time politiely shutting down a customer who wanted to argue. It’s not impossible. Stay clam and say “No!, End of discussion” and don’t feel obliged to stay around. You can walk away.
So, as far as you know, there was no “no refunds” stipulation for the buy two get 1 free sale? You weren’t aware of it when you made the purchase, and nobody mentioned it when you asked to return them?
…
Listen, I don’t think that’s what happened, but if it did, that I can understand at least a little better. “Sorry, sir, I wish we could do more,” with a shit-eating smirk on one’s face could be a very satisfying conclusion to an exchange with a royal-pain-in-the-ass customer. But I would still think that the response to a real smacked-ass customer looking for an exception would be a politely worded, “screw off–nothing for you.” Granting an exception, then attaching a non sequitur of a qualifier to it doesn’t seem likely to me, not with the facts as presented. (And, again, it doesn’t seem to be an exception at all, and I don’t want to suggest I think Little Nemo was a pain-in-the-ass customer.)
Little Nemo, whatever you do, I hope that you returns those DVDs.
In a way, the policy makes sense for them to make it difficult to do what you’re doing. Because they know that there will be some amount of people who won’t want the hassle of returning it and then purchasing it again later. That’s why companies do mail-back promotions. The amount of people who are willing to mail back information for a cash back is surprisingly low. I remember a statistic that I read about it (that I can’t find right now).
I just had a similar thing happen to me at Border’s a couple weeks ago. At Border’s, they send you discount coupons all the time, pretty much every week. I took a 40% off coupon and bought an item. For some reason, that I can only attribute to fatigue and hunger, I also bought an item at full price at the same time, even though I knew that I could just wait another week for another coupon. And sure enough, the next day, there was another 40% off coupon in my e-mail. So I called the store and asked if I could return the item (and I asked if I could return it when I bought it and they said yes) and then re-buy it at the 40% off price. And they said I couldn’t. Of course, I could do what you’re suggesting which is to return the item and come back later and bring the 40% off coupon to get the discount. I also know that Amazon has the same item at 32% off, so I could just return the regularly priced item and buy it at Amazon for 32% off. And I seem to recall that Amazon owns Border’s, so I’d just effectively be doing the same thing – returning the item to the store and buying it from another part of the store.
But alas, I did neither of these things. I just kept the book. It was just a few dollars, and at the end of the day, I couldn’t be bothered. And that’s how Border’s made a few dollars off me and lost some good will. I’m not happy about the outcome, so I wouldn’t suggest you doing the same.
Now that Nemo has responded I don’t think that’s what happened either. I have no idea why any retailer would do a legitimate reurn and then refuse to sell something else. If it’s an exception return that makes a little more sense to me.
Maybe it’s as one poster suggested, that they were either just entertaining themselves at the customers expense or an employee decided they wanted those moveies and created a policy on the spot. It’s a bizarre thing alright.
If more than one manager was involved, both of these scenarios go right out the window. A single employee, acting alone, might do either of those things. After two or three managers get involved? Not a chance in hell.
Please…What kind of software being used today wouldn’t be able to handle a transaction as straighforward as ‘return item, purchase item’? That’s its purpose! It isn’t the software, B&N are being dicks, plain and simple.
As others have already said, many other stores do price adjustments all the time. I would return all the DVD’s and suggest they cram them someplace. It seems pretty obvious they don’t want your business, so why give it to them?