Can’t remember offhand, but I read it in a manual.
Well, thanks for that. I’m sure some people would lie, but some wouldn’t (myself included), so I suspect it would deter some use of the service (and some stores to require a reason, so its not like its totally crazy to think BB might if they were concerned about it).
The same is true of a lot of things in retail. Stores use loss-leaders, for example, to get people in the store. If you go in and just buy the loss-leader and leave, then your disadvantaging the store, and they presumably push those costs to the “honest people”. But I hardly think people would call that stealing.
Taking advantage of BB’s return policy is the same. They use a generous return policy to get people to buy things. Some people take advantage of it and they loose money, most people don’t and they gain more money then they lose. But its just business. If they felt they were loosing out due to it, they’d change the policy.
Cite?
And what the hell does socialism have to do with this thread.
Take your assenine political commentary to Great Debates, or at least to a thread about politics, instead of dropping a steaming turd in this thread.
Theft = bad. Therefore, socialism = theft. Or something. Gotcha.
I agree with this, but I don’t know that it makes aggressively using the return policy an ethical thing to do.
Their policy is in place in order to increase profits based on the observed behavior of customers. A store might let itself be victim of unethical behavior if it ultimately leads to profit.
Being allowed/legal is not the same thing as being ‘right’.
And, I think the loss-leader analogy is a bad one, as I don’t think it’s possible to view ‘which item I choose to buy from you at a price you decide’ through the lens of ethics.
“Here, buy this item from me for $10.”
“Ok.”
“Hey, it actually cost me $11 to make that. You’re stealing!”
. . . doesn’t quite work.
Learn to spell asinine before demonstrating that trait?
To those who can write/read, the concept at hand is the “teachable moment.” The OP provides an isolated example of how human selfishness can threaten to ruin an apparently-beneficial/utopian system (liberal refund policies). I extended that lesson to other situations/economic schemes in life. This is often how people learn. I’d use the word “heuristic” if I thought you’d know what it meant, but I don’t.
Well, ethical sort of makes it sound like its somehow actively moral. I don’t think its unethical anyways. Its a business transaction, and in business transactions I feel ethically bound not to defraud or steal from anyone. But otherwise I’m not on some sort of moral mission for the betterment of mankind, I go to Best Buy (I rarely go to Best Buy, its usually a ripoff, use Newegg, kids) to get stuff for me. If that helps BB’s bottom line, thats nice, but its not why I’m there. They aren’t a charity case.
This is getting kinda divorced from the post I was originally responded to. Anne said it was stealing. Obviously she didn’t mean that in the legal sense, but in the moral sense. Certainly there are things that are legal but unethical, so thats fine.
But stealing obviously suggests she thinks it unethical because it hurts BB. If it helps BB, then I don’t really see the relevance to the conversation.
I don’t see how “I buy from you at the price you decide” as different from “I buy from you under the terms of the return policy you decide”.
Well, yea. Its ridiculous. That was my point.
The “borrowers” just tuck the tag into the armhole or if it’s too far down they slip the tag off the plastic connector thingy and slip it back on when it’s time to bring it back.
When I worked retail I was in the department next to women’s dresses and the ladies who worked there used to say it almost wasn’t worth the bother of putting the disclaimer tags on the dresses.
THe worst case of “wear and return” I ever heard of came from the dress department. Their buyer sent around an email to every store in the chain because two women had bought a dress to put on their deceased mother in the coffin, and said that they were going to return the dress after the funeral :eek:
I’m sure the store will accept it after it comes back reeking and stained with embalming fluids. (Not that any reputable funeral director would do that, anyways!)
LOL
Likely source at Snopes.
Actually, considering that one of the assistant managedouches once made me take back a pair of boy’s pants that were covered with dog hair and had a big piece cut out of the back waistband that the customer claimed “were bought that way and no he didn’t wear them,” I can easily see them taking back a dress that smelled of formaldehyde. And which was probably cut up the back and pinned to the body.
Yeah, but that’s a story about a girl who unwittingly buys a dress taken from an embalmed corpse and dies mysteriously.
This was a couple of cheap bitches who were supposedly willing to bury their mother naked to save $100. I don’t know who heard them (since it was at another store in the chain) or if they ever tried it, but I met enough wierdoes during my 10 years there that I believe someone would do that.
Oh come on, I can’t agree with that.
If a store advertises “30 day return policy, no questions asked!” it’s a selling point. They’ve run the numbers, and they’ve decided that having a policy like that is an advantage to them even if some people use it as a rental system.
I know I’m more likely to buy things from Amazon because I know they’ll take them back, no questions asked, and most of the time pay for shipping back. Sometimes I buy things just to test them out - most recently I ordered several of their Kindle models because I wanted to see which one I would like the most. I even chatted with them about it. I have absolutely no intention of keeping 4 Kindles; at most I’ll keep 2, and I may not keep any. Amazon has no issue with me doing this, and I don’t see it as unethical to the least.
In the same way, Mr. Athena often tries out guitars. He’s never had a problem with a guitar dealer sending him a guitar, he tries it out, and sends it back if he doesn’t like it. The guitar dealers offer a few days to evaluate their products, and they have absolutely zero issues with him using it even if he tells them there’s very little chance he’ll keep the guitar.
These policies are there because they bring business to the store; if they were losing money or otherwise hurting the business, they wouldn’t offer them.
And, to be very clear, I’m not advocating doing this if you have to lie to do it, or if the goods aren’t in pristine condition when you return them, or if the store only offers it on defective or otherwise incorrect items. I’m just talking “30 day return policy for any reason” type of places. I don’t at all think it’s unethical to take them at their word for that.
I see your point.
Installing an air conditioning unit while yours is being fixed, and then taking it back (which is what started this) is certainly different than trying a couple of Kindles or guitars and returning the ones you don’t like. But that’s more in line with buying two sizes of jeans and returning the ones that don’t fit. I think we’ve all done similar things.
Considering all the places out there that will rent appliances, and tools, and yes, even formal clothes, I can honestly say I’ve never cheated the system by buying something I planned on using for a specific purpose and then returning it to get my money back.
I will buy something with the a return with no questions asked policy to try it out. Mostly its catfood. I always buy a small amount first. I have no guilt returning 3/4 of a 1 lb bag because nobody would eat it. I would feel that I had stolen if I was returning a lb of kibble in a 20 lb bag.
I never return canned food unless its unopened. That can just gets tossed.
The hardware stores charge a restocking fee for seasonal rentals. They know that people will buy snowblowers and generators for the storm and then return them. From what I understand, the restocking fees go up if the item has obviously been used for longer just trying it out.
This is not just a pet peeve of mine, it is one of the things I am very proud that I inculcated in my offspring. Honesty is not negotiable. If someone makes a mistake, it is your responsibility to correct it. It doesn’t matter if the person who made the mistake won’t get ‘punished’ for it or that the corporation who takes the hit is so big that it won’t notice it; it is the principle of the matter.
Stealing is wrong.
In an associated vein, I am a bit of a stickler about this vis-a-vis electronic thievery as well.
I am proud to have created software worthy enough of theft. I also have created music (none of which is apparently worthy of theft… but hey it is the principle that matters, right 
), and I disapprove strongly of illegally downloading software or music IF (and this is important) you can buy it by any other means. Orphanware (abandoned software) feels OK to me as does anything anybody posts (of their own) online with no provision to buy.
Opinions? Rants?
**[MODS]**Should I make a new thread for this?
The reason it becomes an ethical issue is that the existence of liberal return policies is reliant on the majority of people not abusing them. If a store has a loss leader advertised and everyone wants the item, they sell out and it’s no big deal. If a store has a liberal return policy and everyone abuses it, it becomes unprofitable to keep it in place, and the store has to start charging restocking fees or become extra-picky about things like tags and receipts, which is an inconvenience to the people who don’t abuse it. If enough people abuse return policies, it ruins everyone’s ability to take advantage of them legitimately.
It has nothing to do with Best Buy’s bottom line and more to do with the fact that people who don’t game the return system still like to be able to return defective or unsuitable items without getting grilled or paying for it. Since those people don’t control the store’s policies, their main recourse is social pressure applied to the “return thieves.”
Learn to spell “maixmum” and “justication” before demonstrating . . . whatever it is you’re demonstrating.
I’m glad that I chose to not point out your misspelling originally, because now you and not I can sound like the asshole who’s nitpicking someone’s spelling as a way to score ‘points’.
Anyway, you didn’t “extend the lesson,” as you did not in any way show how “return policy” and “Socialism” are related.
Some percentage of people will take advantage of other people. Always. Whatever governance they are living under.
So, if you want to teach, teach. Don’t just say, “See, people will steal, and socialism is about stealing too, so it will never work.” Actually work at it. Learn to illustrate connections and draw compelling connections. Flesh out your ideas and see where they hold true, and where they might be wrong, or where they might need more detail to be accurate or useful.
In other words, think before you speak, particularly if you’re going to take an unrelated thread and start trying to argue politics.
Your heuristic model is flawed.
That music… it wasn’t that 3:44 thing was it? I wouldn’t steal it either.
Now, you’re just being mean!
:mad:
But the scenario I posited was that everyone comes in to buy the loss-leader and then does the rest of their shopping elsewhere. In that case, the store will stop doing loss-leaders as a sales promotion, since they’ll lose money each time, and people that want to save money by buying loss-leaders will be “stolen from” since they won’t be offered anymore. I don’t see how that’s different then your scenario where everyone buys things from the store with the intent to return, so that BB has to change their return policy.
But no one thinks that people that shop around different stores to take advantage of loss-leaders are “stealing” or abusing it.
Well again, I don’t agree that using the return policy this way is “abusing it” or “illegitimate”. BB must be aware that its what some consumers do, but they don’t say not to in their (very prominently placed and fairly lengthy) return policy or take steps to prevent it. I think tthis is one of the uses they intend for their policy and have factored in its effect on their bottom line(and they may make money on it, since I bet a lot of people don’t end up returning even if they intend to, either from laziness or just because they like the item).
They aren’t babes in the woods, I’m sure they know what they’re doing by offering the policy that they do. And if they don’t, its not my job to go out of my way to help them out, just as I don’t pay a merchant extra if I feel he’s underpricing his goods. Again, I’m not shopping as a public service, I’m there to buy the things I need, preferably for as little money as possible. I certainly don’t lie or steal to do that, but I don’t feel that simply taking advantage of the (prominently placed and fairly lengthy) offers the merchant has is somehow unethical.