Is this Barnes & Noble crazy or am I?

[BCHH]

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.

Of course, that's exactly what one would expect.

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.

Is that the store's policy, or were you off following your own? Because I have received price adjustments at many stores like Best Buy, Wal Mart, Target, Kohl's, Penney's, Menard's, Home Depot and no doubt others. If it's not their official "policy" to grant price adjustments you'd never know it because I've not been denied an adjustment, nor been given any grief about it at any of those places.

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.

Did you miss the part where the OP stated the clerk TOLD him (Nemo, just assuming, my apologies if I assumed incorrectly) after the sale the DVD's were going to be at an even better price the next week? Simply because you have a hard-on for people wanting to get the best value for their dollar, that doesn't make it wrong.

Perhaps you are making so much money that you can afford to give it away, and congratulations if that's the case, but keep in mind not everyone is so fortunate.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

much charisma, yes.

care to take a stab at the substance of the post?

No not really, since it is simply someone puffing out their chest and writing their fantasy of how they'd like to teach a retail store some sort of lesson. The only way you'd have free time to do all that would be if you didn't have a job.

In your dreams.

 

[Little Nemo]

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.

And if I can't find it and don't buy it, does that mean the store won?

That's the part I don't understand. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the retail trade but I thought the store wanted to sell its products. So when it had a customer who was holding DVD's in his hand at a cash register and wanted to buy them, why were the store's employees saying they couldn't sell them to me?

 

[bengangmo]

Are you nuts? Do you shop at all? As others in this thread have already said, this is a VERY common practice. I have never been denied a price adjustment, anywhere.

I don't know this for fact but I suspect the practice was invented by the retail chains to keep consumers coming back. There are 5-10 chain "department stores" within five miles of my home, all in direct competition with each other. They all want your money and they will go to great lengths to get it and keep you from going somewhere else.

It's not at all unusual (around here, at least) to find store "A" selling something for less than store "B", and have "B" match the price just by asking them.

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.

 

[cosmosdan]

I work in customer service, and have to put up with people like this all the time. You made a conscious, educated decision when you bought the DVDs and got the third one for free, or whatever. The clerk went out of his/her way to let you know about an upcoming sale.

If you work in customer service and don't understand why this customer is right, the store is wrong and was stupid to boot, then you must suck at your job. I worked retail for over 20 years. They were crazy and the customer was right. There was no scam.

If they said yes, then, what is to stop you 6 months later from showing up with your unused DVDs to try and con them into another sale?

How about a time limit on return policies and our any possible price matching policy which is pretty dam common. You sure you work in customer service because I'm thinking you're making that up to jump n here and dump on someone

 

[bengangmo]

Tangential anecdote -- but it does have the "crazy policies" angle...

A while back a local chain bookseller (Whitcoulls, for fellow NZers) was having a 50% off sale on paperbacks.

I selected a total of 9 books and walked to the checkout. Three checkouts were open and ready, and no other customers in sight. Put the 9 books on the counter and was told by the pleasant and slightly embarrassed looking assistant that they had strict orders that during the sale period they could only process 3 books at a time, and that I'd then have to go to the back of the (non-existent) queue for the next 3.

After a moment of looking like a concussed fish and trying to wrap my head around the Dilbert-esque policy I plonked 3 books in front of each of the 3 checkout operators who happily each processed a sale... and they even passed a bag from one to the other so that all 9 novels ended up in a single container.

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!

 

[Rumor_Watkins]

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.

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?)

 

[cosmosdan]

And if I can't find it and don't buy it, does that mean the store won?

That's the part I don't understand. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the retail trade but I thought the store wanted to sell its products. So when it had a customer who was holding DVD's in his hand at a cash register and wanted to buy them, why were the store's employees saying they couldn't sell them to me?

It may be a fact that the store was going from some profit to zero profit by going from 33% off to 50% off but that's beside the point. They should follow their own policies with a smile and a thank you because good customer service and good PR are worth something. Customers relate retail bad experiences more often than they do good ones. You may save the store a few bucks by drawing a hard line but you've probably cost them more in future sales.

In this case there was no policy to override. They decided to refuse to sell an item to a customer willing to buy it for reasons we don't know.

OTOH it's reasonable to have 1 day hold on returns to discourage this type of return if you really think it helps the bottem line, but none was reproted here and I don't know of anybody who has a policy like that.

 

[cosmosdan]

I know. Some of you are saying it doesn't have to be an either/or issue.

Barnes & Noble was having a sale on DVD's last month. If you bought two, you got a third one of equal or lesser value for free. Which is essentially a third off if you pick them right.

I bought six DVD's last week that happened to all be Criterion DVD's. After I checked out the clerk told me that they would be having a sale on Criterion DVD's the following week with all of them being half off.

I was a little annoyed he waited until after I had checked out to tell me the items that I had just bought were going on sale the following week. But I figured it was no big deal. I just left all of the DVD's and the receipt in the bag in my car.

Today I went back to the same Barnes and Noble. I confirmed that I could return them all for the price I had paid for them. So I said I wanted to return them all and then buy them all back at the sales price.

And they said I couldn't do that. I went through three levels of managers and they all refused.

They all agreed I could return the DVD's and get my money back. And they obviously agreed I could buy DVD's at the sales price. They even agreed that if I returned the DVD's I had bought they would just reshelf them and put them back for sale. But they said I couldn't buy back the same DVD's I returned.

Obviously I could have gotten around this. I could return the DVD's and then sneak back into the store in disguise a few hours later and buy them back. I could return the DVD's at one store and buy the same movies at another store. I could give somebody else the money and have them buy the DVD's for me.

But this was just so stupid. Can anyone come up with any reason why this policy would make any sense? Right now I'm half way tempted to return all of the DVD's after the current sale ends and keep my money. "There, you didn't sell them to me for a third off. You didn't sell them to me at a half off. You didn't sell them at all."

They were crazy, and stupid, and doing a bad job in terms of customer service and good will. You are correct. I have over 20 years experience in retail with some major retailers and this would be a bad call on thier part by any standard.

Couple of things
Some companies don't have a price matching policy and some do and they very in details, but they need to understand that thier return policy becomes a default price matching poicy within the store as in the exact example you are giving.

The clerk made a mistake{even though well intentioned} by telling you about the sale. Stores want to make the most profit they can reasonably make today. In general you don't avoid a sale for more money today by telling a customer it's on sale next week when you'll make less profit. If they find out you honor your store return policies with a smile, you thank them for thier patronage and you allow them to save a couple of bucks.
I can't believe anyone with any retail sense or in upper management would encourage alienating a customer over a couple of bucks when they are making a perfectly reasonable request. I can't imagine they have some official policy about not allowing customers to buy the the same item they just returned for less. Maybe they do, I've seen some stupid policies over the years.

 

[bengangmo]

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?

 

[Little Nemo]

OTOH it's reasonable to have 1 day hold on returns to discourage this type of return if you really think it helps the bottem line, but none was reproted here and I don't know of anybody who has a policy like that.

But how does a hold benefit the store? They could sell it to me today or put a one day hold on it and hope I come back tomorrow and buy it. (I'm asking you rhetorically. I realize you're just mentioning this policy as a possibility not actually advocating it.)

I'll admit (before others point it out) that selling it to me might appear to have its uncertainties - the store could say they sold it to me once and I returned it so selling it to me is not a sure thing. But I think the circumstances made it clear that was an unusual situation and was not going to happen again. So why would the store want to forego a certain sale today for a possible sale tomorrow?

 

[cosmosdan]

This is really simple. Ir isn't even crazy, though it's pretty stupid. They are viewing this as one complicated transaction, and their accounting/cash register software can't process it.

The can't push the right buttons to make it happen. The cashier who would give you credit for the return is probably not the same person who would re-enter the items into inventory to prepare them for resale.

I doubt it. Every POP software system I've ever used has a simple way to handle this type of transacction. even if you have to do two easy transactions . one a return and one a sale, it's simple.

 

[Hampshire]

But how does a hold benefit the store? They could sell it to me today or put a one day hold on it and hope I come back tomorrow and buy it. (I'm asking you rhetorically. I realize you're just mentioning this policy as a possibility not actually advocating it.)

Because like it or not, by doing this for you and others it encourages the behavior. It becomes one of the little loopholes customers exploit until it becomes a big loophole. Why bother selling DVDs at 30% off when all our customers that buy them bring them back when we run a 50% off sale to rebuy them? Solution, don't honor the sale on previous purchases.

 

[Rumor_Watkins]

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 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

 

[bengangmo]

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 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...

 

[cosmosdan]

...is this another one of those bizarre American-centric things? Let me get something straight: you bought something on special, found out that it would be cheaper next week, bought it anyway, then went back the week after to get a bigger discount?

where are you from? Do they have return policies or price mtching? No doubt the American consumer is spolied rotten but the OP dod nothing wrong by taking advantage of a sale.

 

[BCHH]

Because like it or not, by doing this for you and others it encourages the behavior. It becomes one of the little loopholes customers exploit until it becomes a big loophole. Why bother selling DVDs at 30% off when all our customers that buy them bring them back when we run a 50% off sale to rebuy them? Solution, don't honor the sale on previous purchases.

I doubt this scenario is going to present a rampant problem. More often than not, when someone buys a DVD they're going to watch it within a few days. I suspect the crowd that is holding on to them, unopened, until the end of the return period, hoping for a payday via a better sale price, is a very small group.

 

[sachertorte]

I find this thread fascinating. I skipped the last page, but did anyone point out that if the OP was trying to scam BN, that giving a full refund benefits the scammer NOT BN?

A scammer would be doing something like swapping the disks for fakes or whatever, by allowing the price adjustment, BN would insulate themselves from a scam. In other words the disks stay bought. By insisting on a return only policy, they are giving away MORE MONEY.

That's the key right there. If there was a "scam" involved then the doors should close on the return period. It baffles me. I see no method by which the OP could benefit more by being allowed to buy the DVDs. In fact, the correct policy should be adjustment only (no returns outright)!

So to those who are tossing around the word "scam," I'd like to know the details of this scam and how it would work -- specifically, how allowing the return but not allowing the sale prevents loss in some way.

I can't believe we needed 4 pages for this!

 

[Little Nemo]

Was there anything printed on the back of the receipt?

Yes there was. And hazel-rah was right about it being fourteen days. Here's the entire notice:

Return Policy

With a sales receipt, a full refund in the original form of payment will be issued from any Barnes & Noble store for returns of new and unread books (except textbooks) and unopened music/DVDs/audio made within (i) 14 days of purchase from a Barnes & Noble retail store (except for purchases made by check for purchases less than 7 days prior to the date of return) or (ii) 14 days of delivery date for Barnes & Noble.com purchases (except for purchases made via PayPal). A store credit for the purchase price will be issued for (i) purchases made by check less than 7 days prior to the date of return, (ii) when a gift receipt is presented within 60 days of purchase, (iii) textbooks returned with a receipt within 14 days of purchase, or (iv) original purchase was made through Barnes & Noble.com via PayPal. Opened music/DVDs/audio may not be returned, but can be exchanged only for the same title if defective.

After 14 days or without a sales receipt, returns or exchanges will not be permitted.

Magazines, newspapers, and used books are not returnable. Product not carried by Barnes & Noble or Barnes & Noble.com will not be accepted for return.

As I've stated none of these restrictions applied to me. The DVD's I was returning were all unopened, I had the original receipt, I had not paid by check, and it was within fourteen days (and still is).

 

[hazel-rah]

The DVD's I was returning were all unopened, I had the original receipt, I had not paid by check, and it was within fourteen days (and still is).

All DVDs purchased as part of the Buy 2 Get 1 Free promotion are nonrefundable. That won't be printed on the back of the receipt, but it's posted on signage in the department during the sale, and all the music employees are well aware of the policy. Exceptions are frequently made, however, as in your case. It's important to note here that allowing refunds in cases like yours is not an unofficial policy, it's an exception that we make for customers on a case-by-case basis. Some managers, such as mine, will almost always do it. Other managers I have known will never do it.

The refusal to let you repurchase the returned DVDs at 50% off makes absolutely no sense, and is not official B&N policy or something that I've ever heard of occurring before. It's inexplicable, and in my experience, stupid. I talked it over with my manager yesterday, in fact, and he thought it was stupid too.

It's probably worth mentioning that if you wait until after the 14-day period to try and do the return again, your chances of success will drop considerably.