News story: Banned from Amazon for returning 37 things

I guess this is what happens when someone becomes more trouble than they are worth one way or the next...

Banned From Amazon for Returning 37 Things »

 

He returned 37 of 343 things, which is over 10%, and they no like. Over 10% sounds a bit much.

 

Last time we discussed this, we found out we have members right here who have been banned for too many returns. http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/amazon-account-closed-part-2.371258/

Shouldn't this be in MARKETPLACE DISCUSSIONS also ?

.

 

Talk about being anal. Returning 37 things? Really?

 

Amazon firmly believes in viral advertising of these policies in a hope to scare other customers away from returning anything.

Stay away from Amazon Warehouse orders if you care about condition and want to minimize your returns. I've found their product grading system to be suspect and highly erratic.

 

Over 10% of his items were returned? Sounds excessive to me. I don't fault Amazon for banning him, though I don't think it's proper for them to keep any gift card balance and to not refund some prorated amount paid for Prime.

 

The Amish teach us how to treat those who have been banned from Amazon for misbehavior. We must shun them, less their misbehavior spread among us like the plague. Flee from them . . .

 

With that rate a ban is deserved. Buyer should be discouraged from breeding to.

 

ha ha, how very true. Furthermore, with a world population that's 7 billion and counting, he's not the only one that should be discouraged from breeding

 

Sounds good to me!

 

I'm glad my wife doesn't buy clothes from Amazon. If she did, she'd be long gone.

 

Every time someone on these boards talks about being anal about their music and returning tons of stuff to Amazon, they get warned (by myself and others) that they can get banned. And then a few others will chime in "oh no, don't worry, I've returned stuff and they don't ban you..." Well, yeah, they do. Not for the occasional return as part of a lot of purchasing. But you can get banned.

Same thing with calling Amazon for a "price adjustment" because something went down in price after you bought it. They do not do this as a matter of policy, but will make a LIMITED number of such adjustments as a customer service courtesy. But once you use those up, you're done. Which means, you shouldn't waste them on saving a dollar or two.

 

And the guy who got banned said here

James C. L. on Twitter »

that he doesn't consider > 10% returns a big deal.

Well, if this were a B&M store, and the returns were restockable items in new condition, he could have a point.

But Amazon pays two way shipping on all those returns. So > 10% returns means they are likely losing a HUGE amount on his account.

 

Yes. I don't understand how some people don't get that Amazon isn't going to want to retain a customer on which they are losing money due to excessive returns.

The bottom line is that if you are extremely picky about the condition of a jewel case or cardboard box that some discs come in, then you should probably shop at your local store so you can inspect your items prior to purchase. Expecting 100% perfection (or even greater than 90% perfection) for stuff that's being shipped via USPS, UPS, FedEx, or some other more local carrier is foolish. I am NOT referring to significant damage, but when I see posts about people complaining about cracks in standard jewel cases I just scratch my head.

 

Ha...Yes. When I read those "got the CD, there was a small crack in the jewel case so I returned it" posts, or the ones about "I got the LP and when I viewed it in harsh light I could see a surface scuff that I couldn't hear so I returned it" posts all I think is 'I am glad that person isn't buying anything from me...'

 

I'm actually surprised by a lot of the comments here. I think it's pretty bad PR for Amazon to ban a customer over returns.

Can you imagine if Walmart or JCPenney or (insert chain depart store) did the same thing.

Returns are party of business. Period. I think Amazon needs to deal with this issue in a more responsible way.

 

Where exactly in the linked article did it say that the items were returned due to issues with jewel cases?

We don't know the specifics of this situation, so I'm just very surprised that most people commenting here seem to be on the side of Amazon rather than the customer.

 

Should they keep customers that they lose $$ on?

 

It's quite different to accept returns at a brick and mortar store. Even then, though, most stores have started collecting a lot of information from customers who return items (I think Best Buy now insists on seeing a driver's license), presumably so they can better track the volume of returns.

No store exists to lose money serving its customers. No store in its right mind is going to have such generous return policies that a significant number of people will end up causing the store to lose money. It's why Costco changed its return policy on some items (notably expensive electronics); some people were previously returning their large TVs every year for full refunds and then buying the latest model. And the Gap used to have an unlimited return policy whereby you could return obviously worn out merchandise for a full refund as long as it had a Gap label.

 

It depends on the circumstances. If there was no fraud involved, I would be inclined to say yes.

It seems to me that we know very little about the specifics of this case.

It seems to me that Amazon is getting a lot of bad PR due to this case which may ultimately be far more damaging than any loss incurred from the 37 returns.

 

Why should it b&m be different than Amazon vis a vis returns?

Again, we don't know why the guy returned 37 items. If they were defective or not in the condition that they were listed as, then I think he had every right to return them.

Do you accept defective items from Amzaon?

 

No, I don't know the specifics of that guy's situation. Regardless of what they were, though, I simply believe that returning 10% or more of what one purchases is excessive. I have a return rate nowhere near that. If I had to guess, my return rate is probably under 1%. It's pretty simple: Make sure you actually want what you buy before you buy it, and don't be so OCD that the least little bit of a "blemish" will cause you to return an item. A minor dent on the corner of a box set? I'll live with it. A dent in the artwork in a cd case? I'll live with it. A box of protein bars I decided to try but ended up not liking? It's my mistake for ordering a box of something without knowing whether I'd like it, so I'll throw the remainder away (or suffer through eating them) and not buy them again.

What do I return? Electronics items that are supposed to be new that are obviously used. Clothing that I don't like since Amazon does offer "free returns" on clothing in order to entice people to buy clothes online, but even there I try to only buy stuff I know I'm going to want to keep. I don't buy stuff just to get it delivered and then contemplate whether I want to keep it. People who want to shop that way should be supporting local businesses where they can try on and/or visually inspect items in person.

 

Honestly? With a straight face you can suggest that businesses should continue to sell to customers on whom they are losing money? That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

With the amount of information that we know, absolutely.

It seems to me that we have very few details about this case. All we know is that the guy ordered over 300 items and returned slightly more than 10%.

Do we have any information about his previous history with Amazon?

Do we have any information about what type of items he returned?

I'm just amazed at the amount of people jumping to conclusions and passing judgement when very few facts about this case have been made available.

 

Well, you are passing judgment as well, it's just that your judgment is favorable to the banned previous customer and against Amazon. I'm simply willing to believe that a business would rather have a customer base and is only going to reject someone's business when either the cost of serving that customer exceeds the profits they bring or for some other reason that customer is too difficult to serve.