You are. Apology accepted
How about a group hug everybody?
where do you get the sense that I would like to be inconvenienced myself just to enjoy causing a line to build up or to piss off the staff?
apology accepted 
…okay, because I currently have no life, I looked up the returns policy of most of the big NZ DVD retailers. The Warehouse, Whitcoulls, Real Groovy, Harvey Normans, Dick Smiths Electronics, Borders NZ, all have the same policy: they will not accept DVD returns unless they have to in compliance with the Consumer Guarantee’s Act. In simpler words, they will not accept a return of a DVD for any reason whatsoever.
The two exceptions I found were two American-originated companies: K-mart NZ, which has a “change of mind” policy on DVD’s, which would exclude the transaction as posited by the OP (as long as the shrink-wrap and security seals are in place), and Electronic Boutique, which is the only company that actively markets and promotes a price-matching policy with other retails stores (but makes no mention of price-matching its own discounts.)
Invariably in a thread like this you will get people like me or **bengangmo ** (an ex-pat Kiwi) not understanding this at all. **bengangmo’s **reaction was the same as mine: but when I noticed that people were agreeing with the OP I needed to check to see if this was an American-only phenomenon. (I note the Canadians have weighed in, and this appears to be common in Canada as well.)
You’re crazy. The OP isn’t scamming OR freeloading. That particular Barnes & Nobles store is being retarded. I have done exactly what the OP described with unopened DVDs, they adjusted my price at the counter (I signed a few credit card slips) and sent me on my way.
The only time I had a problem with a return was with a Benneton outlet in DC and I think the only reason was because they were about to close the store and everyone in the store was about to lose their job.
Nope I’m not nuts, I gots me about 5 years of customer service experience (or more, plus another 30 as a consumer).
When I was doing customer service, if the item was still in original packaging, I would be quite happy to return if you changed your mind, decided it was too expensive, accidently bought two etc etc.
I won’t do a return for you and then immediately resell at the lower price. If you want to TRY to get the lower price, you can takes your chances after I restock the item.
What was done in this case, was effectively “reserving” an item that was going to come on sale, I won’t take “reservations” for items that are coming on sale later - this is unfair to the rest of the customers…they should also be given a reasonable chance to get the item.
Heh…this is soooo NZ customer service at work…even if management is screwed up the rank and file will co-operate to give you what you need!
Why, as a business or a representative of the business, do you feel you ought/should be able to play Constable of Morality and Fairness - Retail Products Branch?
A sale is a sale - what do you care if it’s sold back to the returning customer or not? You don’t, rationally. (frankly, it has risk to it, even if it is on sale, because you’re not guaranteed the sale by re-shelving it - so it’s extra specially irrational - unless you get your jollies from sticking it to customers?)
Nothing makes me the morality police or anything else. I just feel like its “gaming the system” to do this.
I get that in the US it’s standard practise, and on that basis, in this instance B & N is crazy.
However, if I was managing my store in my homeland I wouldn’t allow it.
I would allow you to return the item for any number of reasons, or no reason at all if you simply told me it was an illconsidered opinion, you changed your mind, you thought the money better spent etc etc.
If you bought the items, with the full intent of bringing them back to me a week later when I would be offering a lower price - sorry no deal. You like them today, you buy them today. You wanna wait till they go on sale, then wait till they go on sale.
As to why I would turn away money? I wouldn’t neccessarily, to me this is basic ethics, if I am having such a good sale - I want all my customers to have equal opportunity. If word got around my “customer community” that I was allowing people to do this, I may well end up costing myself more in lost goodwill by the customers that were “cheated” then I loose from the OP.
Although I do feel there is a little bit of cultural disconnect here - in my cultural context, I feel that the OP is somehow cheating. Now of course in the US, this is the way it is, so in that sense it’s all cool and hunky dory, ya know, like when in Rome - do as the Romans do.
Do also note that as the value of the item goes up, and it moves from being (what I see) as an FMCG item to a Consumer Durable item the more flexible I would become in this area.
Now that I have typed an essay defending myself - is anyone wiser or have I just been masturbating myself in self-importance?
the latter
it seems that you’re just plain upset that the customer is using your return policy to pay less than what he would pay for the product, but cloaking it in some concept of “fairness” to your other customers.
The solution, of course, is to tweak your return policy.
And, a few other points:
You’re saying that you’ll engender ill-will among your customer base if they find out that your sale is being usurped by people buying a week ahead of time? The solution, of course, is to bring in more inventory. Which has the added benefit of helping out your bottom line, too.
You’ll take the return if they lie to your face and say they don’t like the product, but if they’re honest with you, you’ll tell them to pound sand? I mean I understand if they’re honest, they have to go back and take one off the shelf, but that, to me, seems to be rewarding having them lying to you.
Basically, if there’s no stock for me to take from, you sold out anyways, so my behavior clearly wasn’t upsetting the “other” customers, and maybe your inventory manager should be buying more to maximize (y)our profit. If there is stock for me to take from, you’re going to piss me off (and other consumers so situated) by playing “fairness” games or you’re just going to get me to lie about the reasons for the return, which may be bad for you in the long run if you’re receiving bad feedback from your customers regarding which products they want you to have in stock and why.
Just my .02
No worries, but do note (if I read correctly) the OP took the last piece of each title. Which is probably why I would “hold the line” so to speak.
if there were a bunch more on the shelf, then functionally it makes no difference at all and to save myself work I would close one eye.
And (to me) anyway, a return policy is there to help the customer that (for whatever reason) made a mistake, not to save the customer money…
But what the hey - I don’t live in the US, I don’t manage a CD store and I am not really likely to at all…
Sorry I missed the edit window, I don’t have to “cloak it in fairness”.
I quite genuinely feel that its not quite right or kosher. I would be pissed that the customer has “gamed the system”…not about the money so much, but that they took me for a fool, frand used a policy that is genuinely aimed at those that make a mistake to instead “reserve” items ahead of a sale - if I wanted to take reservations on a sale, I would put that policy in place. I don’t want it done through the back door.
He took the last, though, during the original sale, right? (At this point I’m muddled on the facts myself)
But I just still don’t get what you’re going to accomplish to your wider customer base by letting them know that Customer X won’t be getting his price match, oh no, just so we can be fair to the one person who happened to be in the store when the sole remaining copy of Product X was re-shelved 
And he did make a mistake - he paid too much for the product when he later discovers that you would’ve sold it for 50% less to him
But, I can seee your perspective on this. I think, looking at the bigger picture, it’s an attitude which has guided the US retail market in the last 20 years or so (not suggesting your opinion is old hat). Mom and Pop stores didn’t have these cushy sales deals with the manufacturer like the big box chains do - so they can’t offer as generous return policies as BigBox does. Which puts them out of business. You guys still seem to be in Mom & Pop mode, probably due in large part because a lot of your goods are imported and it’s not a large enough market where the manufacturer is willing to take them back or lose your (the retailers) volume.
Yeah, see, I don’t think return policies are genuinely aimed at anything. They’re generic blanket policies that apply regardless of the reason - as they should be. I don’t want uncertainty when I buy a product, only to discover that I can’t return it due to the vagaries of this particular clerk or manager.
The other part is that running return policies like this give retailers an edge, too. As was mentioned upthread, even though you’re giving this policy to 100% of your customers, only (say) 66% of them may actually follow through with making the trip to get the price adjustment. Those that don’t, it’s pure gravy that they paid the extra $ under the belief that they were going to get their money back, and those that do, you’re still profiting.
Quite possibly - I dun really know.
But Banquet Bear and myself are remarkably close on the issue, like her (I think BB is a she) it wouldn’t even occur to me to go ask for a further discount. Either buy or not…simple.
But it would be groovy (for the customer) if we followed your customs…although I still say that its some kind of abdication of something by the consumer, but if I can use the policies like that to my advantage then I would be stoopid not to…and not many people call me stoopid.
I always thought it was silly to have policies and then look for reasons not to follow them if you might lose a buck. Special circumstances like close outs are fine but other than that, follow your own policy with a smile. If you think you’re being taken advantage of, change it.
I doubt that it’s gravy. Margins in retail are pretty slim because of competition. Often sale items make no profit , in hopes people will buy other items or just get to know the store.
I once had a customer ask to get last weeks sale price on an item and I said no. His rationale was that if we can afford to sell it last week for $50 less then we can this week too. Still no. Sales aren’t designed to maximize profits through selling the sale items.
I’ve noticed what an item is worth is often a matter of perception. Once a customer fixes a price in thier mind they decide that’s all it’s worth. Sales used to create a perceptoin of money saved. It’s worth X but it’s on sale for less. Still works a bit I guess but I think now a lot of people just won’t buy unless it’s on sale and the altered perceptiopn is it’s only worth the sale price.
I think this is the easiest route but I also think it’s fair for the store to say.
“It takes us a day to process returns. Would you like to come back tomorrow and chance that it’s still here, or would you like to keep it at the sale price you already paid” to prevent future sales reservation purchases.
Most major retailers have a policy of not telling the customers that a specifc item will be on sale next week. We want to sell it today.
Why didn’t you just return them on the spot and come back for them later? Sorry if this was already covered; not flipping through four pages of a thread on something so trivial.
As I said , American consumers are spolied rotten and have come to have certain expectations that make it hard for smaller businesses to compete. I’d like to see return policies shift a bit to return more of the responsibility back on the customer, but competition is such that it doesn’t happen often. Once WalMart and maybe a couple of other large companies own almost everything I expect policies to change.
I guess the big question for me still is whether these titles were available during the 50% off sale.
If the titles that were being returned were ready and available to be purchased out on the floor (identical copies), then I would have returned them for the customer and then let them go out and buy identical titles at the new sale price.
If those titles were no longer available during the 50% off sale I would have returned them but then placed them in the back room for the day making them unavailable for purchase.
(Seperate but related abuse of return policy):
Before the advent of the “restocking fee” people were free to take home an item, try it out, and return it in it’s opened box and get a full refund. The store then took these returned items and had to sell them at a discount as “open box” product.
Scammers got wise to this, would buy a DVD player, open it, return it for a full refund, and come back the next day when the unit was returned to the floor as an “open box” item and repurchase it at the discounted price.
How did retailers react? Restocking fee!