Online retailers

[pp05]

What are peoples views of return policies by online retailers?

For example: You buy a TFT screen which you don't end up needing, you might have used it it for all of 2 mins.. and you wish to return it only to find out by the guy on end of phone you can get a refund only if you haven't used it.

[MD]

errrm put the shoe on the other foot for a second - you own an onine retailer - people keep borrowing things from you and you never actually sell anything - would you be happy?

Just a thought.....

[Choo Choo]

^ My thoughts exactly, and it's the same for high street shops too. They aren't try and buy shops.

If a person makes an uninformed/wrong purchase, but has already used it, why should the shop take it back and sell it at a loss as b-grade/preowned stock?

[Trippledence]

I think the distance selling act is sufficent really, most places will more than abide my it if you dont take the pi** with returning things that are blatently used and unwanted after a few days.

[Jonny]

If you don't need it, why buy it?

If you do buy it, at least leave it in the box, I can't see you getting a better deal turn up within "2 mins" of you turning it on.

Like Matt says - put yourself in their point of view. Imagine if you bought a new CPU off a retailer, only to have them phone you up shortly after delivery and say "Actually, have your money back, we'd rather keep our CPU".

You just can't do it.

[TamDigital]

I agree, but having managed a retail outlet which had a policy of no argument about any returned products within 10 days of purchase, I have to say that only a very small minority took advantage/the pi**.

What I would argue with (and I thought you were going to bring it up in your OP) is having to pay the cost of returning faulty product and/or having to pay for support calls. I recognise, however, that most reputable e-tailers refund the cost of postage on return.

I think there is a case for forcing e-tailers to supply a free phone support service, some only provide premium rate phone numbers.

[harry1]

bet hes glad he said that lol

agreed matt

[pp05]

Some good points, but at the sametime if the stock is looking exactly how it was delivered then they can resell it no?

[mart_haj86]

They could do but being an online retailer they would have to take your word for it being in perfect condition.

[TamDigital]

Some good points, but at the sametime if the stock is looking exactly how it was delivered then they can resell it no?

Yes indeed, and with a fairly inexpensive shrink wrapper, you'd never know the difference.

[Saracen]

....

What I would argue with (and I thought you were going to bring it up in your OP) is having to pay the cost of returning faulty product and/or having to pay for support calls. ......

You don't have to pay the cost of returning faulty products. If a company supplies faulty goods, they are in breach of contract and are liable for such costs.

Of course, they won't necessarily accept a customer's word that goods are faulty. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a customer has damaged goods themselves .... such as by not knowing that a CPU only goes in the socket one way round, and if you shove it in any other way, by brute force, you'll bend a pin. Or, the customer thinks goods are faulty simply because he doesn't know how to use them.

But, if goods are genuinely faulty, then the liability for that falls on the (business) supplier. It is also an exception to the provision in the Distance Selling regs, where generally (provided it's in thir terms) the supplier can require the buyer to pay the cost of returning unwanted goods. If those unwanted goods are also faulty, the DSR explicitly requires the supplier to pay the cost of collection, or reimburse the buyer if he returns them.

As for support, I disagree. I don't see why the person needing support shouldn't pay for it. After all, someone has to pay for it. The supplying company have to pay the very high costs of providing support, so either it comes out of profit (which means it'll get reflected in price and all customers pay for it), or it's paid for on-demand, by those that need it.

An example - Intuit's software support for Quickbooks accounting software. Basic installation/upgrade support is free, but help on using the product is not. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, an support manager will tell you customers won't bother to try to work it out for themselves, or RTFM, if they can just ring support and ask. Secondly, I, as a Quickbooks user, know how to use the software. I don't want to pay a higher price for the product in order to cross-subsidise teaching some other customer how to use it. We each pay for the product. Then, we each pay for whatever support we need. We both pay for what we need, and it's perfectly fair. What isn't fair is expecting me to pay to teach others how to use their software.

[TamDigital]

You don't have to pay the cost of returning faulty products. If a company supplies faulty goods, they are in breach of contract and are liable for such costs.

Of course, they won't necessarily accept a customer's word that goods are faulty. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a customer has damaged goods themselves .... such as by not knowing that a CPU only goes in the socket one way round, and if you shove it in any other way, by brute force, you'll bend a pin. Or, the customer thinks goods are faulty simply because he doesn't know how to use them.

But, if goods are genuinely faulty, then the liability for that falls on the (business) supplier. It is also an exception to the provision in the Distance Selling regs, where generally (provided it's in thir terms) the supplier can require the buyer to pay the cost of returning unwanted goods. If those unwanted goods are also faulty, the DSR explicitly requires the supplier to pay the cost of collection, or reimburse the buyer if he returns them.

As for support, I disagree. I don't see why the person needing support shouldn't pay for it. After all, someone has to pay for it. The supplying company have to pay the very high costs of providing support, so either it comes out of profit (which means it'll get reflected in price and all customers pay for it), or it's paid for on-demand, by those that need it.

An example - Intuit's software support for Quickbooks accounting software. Basic installation/upgrade support is free, but help on using the product is not. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, an support manager will tell you customers won't bother to try to work it out for themselves, or RTFM, if they can just ring support and ask. Secondly, I, as a Quickbooks user, know how to use the software. I don't want to pay a higher price for the product in order to cross-subsidise teaching some other customer how to use it. We each pay for the product. Then, we each pay for whatever support we need. We both pay for what we need, and it's perfectly fair. What isn't fair is expecting me to pay to teach others how to use their software.

Distance Selling Regs? Are you in the US or are you quoting a UK law of some sorts?

I don;t really think any company or law maker would base their judgement on what 'any support manager', it would be a somewhat biased view. I would also say again that the percentage of those you state would not bother 'working it out for themselves' would be very small, notwithstanding that they should not have to work it out for themselves. If we've paid for the product, I don't see why we should be paying for help when we need it. And I don't think that there would be any huge influx of 'how does it work' calls for any decent and merchantable product if its accompanied by all that we would need to 'work it out'.

Perhaps I led you to believe that I meant 'lifetime ask a question support', whereas I really meant product guarantee support.

Another concern could be (as an example) mobile phone support. I think in the UK and on Pay As You Go services, you still have to pay for a customer support call. I think it should be free, its a subscription based service after all. Sky TV, as another example, should be free to call their customer service number, why should any paying contract client pay for those calls at any rate (with sometimes very long waiting times too)? To their credit, BT are free to call for customers

[Saracen]

Distance Selling Regs? Are you in the US or are you quoting a UK law of some sorts?

It's UK law. Most people call it the Distance Selling Act, but it isn't an Act, it's a Regulation implemented as a Statutory Instrument .... but it still has the full binding force of an Act. The full name is The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 and that link will take you to the full text if you want to read it. There are also countless consumer websites that'll give you an outline of the basic protections it offers to those buying "at a distance" ... i.e. not in a shop or face-to-face.

I don;t really think any company or law maker would base their judgement on what 'any support manager', it would be a somewhat biased view. I would also say again that the percentage of those you state would not bother 'working it out for themselves' would be very small, notwithstanding that they should not have to work it out for themselves. If we've paid for the product, I don't see why we should be paying for help when we need it. And I don't think that there would be any huge influx of 'how does it work' calls for any decent and merchantable product if its accompanied by all that we would need to 'work it out'.

Perhaps I led you to believe that I meant 'lifetime ask a question support', whereas I really meant product guarantee support.

Another concern could be (as an example) mobile phone support. I think in the UK and on Pay As You Go services, you still have to pay for a customer support call. I think it should be free, its a subscription based service after all. Sky TV, as another example, should be free to call their customer service number, why should any paying contract client pay for those calls at any rate (with sometimes very long waiting times too)? To their credit, BT are free to call for customers

I didn't suggest any law maker would base their judgment on a support manager, but company directors most certainly will be taking feedback from support managers if deciding company policy .... or rather, they will if they have any sense.

If by "product guarantee support" you mean queries over whether the product is faulty, or claims because it is, then I fuly agree with you. That should, ay most, be a standard phone call and charging a premium for it is unjustified, in my view. But I thought I made that clear with the Intuit example. That kind of support is free.

But believe me, a LOT of people would rather pick up a phone and ask support how to do something with a computer package than bother reading the manual. Support managers can give you the statistics (and in one or two cases, so could I, were it not a confidentiality breach to do so). When you buy a product, you're buying the product, not training on how to use it. If you want that, pay for it because, as I said, the alternative is that everybody pays for it, whether they need or want it, or not.

Using Sky TV as an example, my view is that if you're ringing to complain about a fault, or to order extra services, the call should indeed be free because it's part of the selling operation and should be covered by overhead. If you're ringing to ask how to change channel order, or add channels to favourites, then I don't see why I should cross-subsidise your training. Make that call chargeable.

Essentially, all I'm saying is that support is expensive for a company to offer, so someone has to pay for it. Why should those that don't need it subsidise those that do?