What's new

How do you feel... (1 Viewer)

James W. Johnson

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2001
Messages
1,055
offensive? I have read some offensive stuff here at HTF and that was nothing in comparison to some stuff I have read here. Obviously I did not find it offensive because I wrote it.

Oh well , Its your forum do whatever pleases you.


Well buying a "van full" and returning them is a little bit extreme.
 

DanJV

Grip
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
23
Good discussion.....:emoji_thumbsup:

Personally, if the store's policy is XX day return period, I don't see an issue. IT's their policy...not mine. Matter of fact, CC makes a point of actively advertising the policy...you don't even need a receipt because they keep a record of it. They even agressively advertise that they don't even want to know the reason you're returning it.

On the other hand, I don't walk into a store and pick something off the shelf that I'm not seriously considering keeping. It's way too much of a hassle setting-up and tearing down my HT to swap gear in and out just to see if I like it.

I do some research (here and elsewhere), decide whether the piece is something I may want. Buy it and bring it home. If it doesn't perform like I expected, I don't have any issues whatsoever in taking it back.

Taking that a step further, there are many internet only A/V companies that urge you to try their products in your home for xx days with the promise of taking it back (of course you pay for shipping) if you don't want it any longer (within the return period).

Why would you buy something with the intention of taking it back to begin with? That's a major hassle in my estimation with no particular bennefit. But, if that's "your thing" and the store's policy is they will take it back, where's the issue?
 

jimGR

Auditioning
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
1
Hi, I'm new here and this is my first posting.I may have a somewhat different perspective on this as I was involved in retail sales of electronics for nearly 25 years.I'm frankly appalled that a publcation such as the one mentioned would do such a thing.I'd also like to point out that this can involve much more for the salesman & the store than just loss of commission.Typically retailers track returns by stores & by sales people.Sales people who run too high a percentage of reurns to sales to can be and are terminated.Store managers whos stores fare similarly are also subject to to termination.Returns shrink profit margins and are used as an indication of customer service levels.These things help prevent sales people from saying things like "ya, it'll do that" & getting you out the door with the items.Stores want return business and poor qualifying and product knowledge on the part of their sales people can cost them a loyal customer.Of course returns also raise the cost of an item on the shelf to the consumer much as shoplifting does.This is not to in anyway imply that there are not legitimate reasons for returns.I thankfully have been out of the business for a few years.Sorry to rant, Jim
 

mackie

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Messages
568
I'm returning something tomorrow. I explained what I was wanting to accomplish to the sales person, and he told me the idea should work. However, it didn't, so I'm sending it back. If the plan would've worked, I'd be in business and would have never thought of returning it.
 

Michael R Price

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
1,591
Chu,

OK, that makes sense. I probably will never purchase a new piece of audio equipment, so I hadn't thought much about this ethical dilemma. It seems to me that it depends on the store's understanding of the buyer's intentions. Let me explain... At many hi-fi shops they understand that the customers may buy their equipment for extended at-home auditions. In that case it is completely reasonable to buy a product and try it out because you know that part of your cost for the item goes into the dealer being able to provide that kind of service. This makes sense for things like exotic equipment where they might have a sonic signature depending on the other equipment they're connected to, or that sort of thing. However, in the case of larger electronics stores (especially those without restocking fees) I believe the store has set its policy so that people would only buy equipment with the *intention* of keeping it. I would not go to purchase some product at a chain electronics store without knowing exactly what I wanted ahead of time, or understanding the risk that the product I buy won't perform exactly as I want. Buying something and knowing you will probably return it is perfectly legal, but to me it is somewhat abusive of the store's policy because they allow your purchase on the basis that you want to keep the item. I can understand wanting to return a product because it didn't live up to personal expectations, but this seems to be the buyer's own fault and the best decision in my opinion would be to just cut your losses and sell it on the used market. Returning it to a store for a full refund has nothing to do with the store misrepresenting the product or selling a defective one, but rather with your mistake purchasing it in the first place. The store should not have to pay for your mistakes in judgement unless you both understand that they are willing to.
 

Chu Gai

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
7,270
Its one of those things that I wished I hadn't read on their website. Just leaves me with a bad taste.
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
I should think a solution to this problem (to avoid the ethical issue raised here) would be for the publication to either buy the unit and sell it later on the used market (best solution) or at least negociate an understanding with various stores (as not all brands are available from one store) to pay a kind of "rental fee", with the understanding upfront that the unit will be returned (not as good as buying, but better than what Chu describes as current practice).

After reading this thread, I've tried to come up with a justification for this practice and the best I can do is the following:

The publication does not want to feel pressure to provide a positive review, which might well be the case if the manufacturer provided the unit in question. This is why, for example, Consumer Reports (for all the flaws in some of their testing methodology) always purchases the units anonymously prior to testing. I've always assumed that CR then sells the units on the used market--though someone should find out if they also return things after purchase (probably difficult with cars, but easily done, as we have learned, with audio gear). Perhaps the publication in question feels they would be under pressure from the stores to avoid negative reviews of the products they sell, and so avoid the "rental fee" approach I mention above.

I don't think my reasoning excuses the behaviour (I don't work for them, BTW, just so everything is clear), but it might well be the rationale behind it.

Perhaps they'll read this and feel compelled to modify their policy. I guess it would be up to the publication to cover the expense incurred by the reviewers (who are scattered across North America) as my understanding is none of the reviewers does this work as their primary job.
 

Sam A

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
149
I bought a PS2 from best buy the day after thanksgiving and returned it for a FULL REFUND at the end of their 'holiday' time. she asked why I wanted to return it and I said, cause im done playing Vice city, and she gave me all my $ back. do I feel bad? no, id like to do it every year.
 

John Garcia

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 24, 1999
Messages
11,571
Location
NorCal
Real Name
John
One of the shops I deal prefers to let you borrow open box items they have already. If you want something they don't have an open box of, you basically have to buy it and return it. If you are up front and tell them this is what you are after, they may go for it.

Another place I deal with allows in home demos, but the ONLY lend out items that are on display, and usually only for a very limited time.
 

ChristopherDAC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
3,729
Real Name
AE5VI
Actually I believe Consumer's Union generally keeps its junk to run longevity tests on. This is why Consumer Reports is so expensive.
Still I think that an audio reviewer ought to buy whatever it is honestly, or else borrow it explicitly. Surely there is a dealer somewhere who would like to have a line at the bottom of the review, "-Equipment provided by Svalbard's Home Elektrix of Peoria". That way there's no manufacturer pressure, and the store can tell curious customers that the lines they carry have been checked for soundness... unlike those other stores. :D
 

PeterK

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
519
I am against people "renting" tv's for the superbowl and then returning them. I am ok with returning something you never really indended on buying in the first place but somewhere you got the idea that you should. for example, when I bought my subwoofer, I was getting all excited and ended up getting conned by the salesman into buying a $50 "subwoofer" cable. I got home and took it out of it's package and hooked it all up, after a few day I relized that I could just be using an a/v cable I have sitting in a drawer. So I took the cable back without the packaging and got my $50 bucks back. I don't know what the store did with the cable but they couldn't be able to sell it again. I don't feel bad though because I never really intended on buying the cable in the first place.
 

Tingwe

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
56
if someone were to return a brand new product, how would a store normally sell it as? an open-box item? how soon can we purchase that "open-box" item? does it normally go through inspection, et al? what if a buddy of ours is not satisified with an item and returns it to say circuit city, can we line up right after him and purchase said item as open-box/not new? :b
 

Lev-S

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
324
This stems from a real conversation that I overheard recently...

Lady: I'de like to return this product.
Manager: Ma'am, you purchased this product 4 months ago.
Lady: But it's broken. It doesn't work on my Mac.
Manager: Yes it does, it says it does right there on the box.
Lady: No it doesn't! I had the staff from *insert renowned university here* look at it! Are you a *insert renowned university here* technician?
Manager: No ma'am, but I am A+ certified. And that is besides the point-
Lady: Whatever, I want my money back.
Manager: Our return policy is 30 days. Its been 4 months! You have to contact the manufacturer if the product is defective.
Lady: Unbelievable. Is their another manager.
Manager: I'm the store manager.
Lady: Is there a number I can call?
Manager: Look, if it will make you happy, I'll refund you what you paid through store credit.
Lady: I want my money back.
Manager: You aren't getting it back, you're well outside policy.
Lady: I'm going to make sure your boss hears about this! This is horrible service! Never shopping here again! Crooks!

See? Maybe you guys have it backwards! We need LONGER return policies with ZERO restocking fees! :D
 

gregD

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
420


Yeah, real classy...


Presumably the point of this discussion is the ethics involved in buying then returning gear for the sole purpose of reviewing it... the rationale being an unbiased review.

But why should a retailer pay for that?... you could argue they ultimately benefit in potential sales on the heels of reviews... but what if the lines they've commited to are deemed to be clunkers by the reviewers?

I'm no saint, and I'm interested in getting a lot for a little, but in my little world, you've ultimately gotta pay if you want to play... if ethics really are on the front burner (HA! -- it's 2004), then maybe consumers should chip in for authorative unbiased reviews of some sort... as opposed to net-surfing virtually cost-free, something everybody here just takes for granted.

On the other hand, in the case of DVD players... they are built so shabbily and full of bugs anymore, they almost beg you to buy-and-return by any means possible...
 

Chu Gai

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
7,270
That was basically the point Greg. Now I can see returning something in those instances where due to unforseen financial matters, the purchase has become a burden. Like some here, its the intent that matters to me.

I've got no idea what Secret's cash flow is and how they work the books. There are things within the law, borderline, and clearly outside of the law. For example, the IRS frowns upon business that never show a profit and whose income is used solely to fund a hobby that is in some way tied to the business. More than a few cable or wire mongers have generated an income solely for the purpose buying audio equipment. The IRS lets it slide for a little while, but if it continues, you can be damned sure you're in for an audit.

I'd personally be happier if Secrets were to find a better means of obtaining their players.
 

Shane Martin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 1999
Messages
6,017
Chu,
In the case of Kris Deering, I think what he is doing is a service to the rest of us. So to me his means justify his end but I would tend to agree with you that he should have sold the players outright to someone as a used item and recovered a chunk of his expense.

MOST of the time though I know he gets his players from the manufacturer like the current dvd player benchmark(except for the Cambridge).
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
If he does get his DVD players from the manufacturers, then this discussion of ethics, while not moot, would not seem to apply to him. It appears the Cambridge was one machine bought by someone to "test drive" at home and this person lent it to Kris for the shootout (Kris having stated the Cambridge was unknown to him). The person who lent the Cambridge to Kris told me he bought it based on my comments and decided to let Kris give it the "torture test". I don't know if the person who bought the Cambridge never intended to keep it (nor is it any of my business) but regardless of his intentions, Kris should not be assumed to bc complicit in the other person's actions, if those actions were "unethical", as defined in this thread, which we don't know to be the case. (I am NOT the "other person", in case anyone is wondering). I think perhaps the comment Chu read may have been blown out of proportion, though Chu's larger point of "unethical" behaviour regarding purchases one never intends to complete in good faith is still on point.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,815
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top