To think House of Fraser’s refund policy is another nail in their coffin

[Bearbehind]

I bought several expensive and heavy items online with the intention of choosing 1 and taking the others back to my local store for a refund

Turns out you can only exchange or get a credit note in store

If you want your money back you have to post it back at your own cost

Given the weight and value, I’m nearly £30 down for the pleasure.

Surely they can’t afford to piss customers off by refusing to refund in store - what difference does it make to them?

Very expensive lesson learned!

I will never buy from them again

It isn't a very savvy business strategy and so must, in reality, just increase the unit cost of every item, as the seller adds a small % increase to all items cover their return losses.

Of course it's business savvy if it makes people by the clothes!

Do you?, I have never paid to return anything to Amazon

Really @RingtheBells! I'm always charged. I always pick the 'don't want it anymore' option. There must be a better one to pick.

It's not the Amazon effect, it is distance selling law.

They can charge you to return though.

Another issue is the non-comparability of instore and online shopping. (Sometimes the bleeding obvious does need stating).

Once you start online shopping (or, speaking for myself at least) you also discover the wonder of online reviews and Q&As. Something Amazon has pretty much nailed. So not only can you browse and let Amazon curate your "personal shopping" experience ("People that viewed this also viewed ... etc") but when you pause on something that interests, you can read what others who possess the item say about it. And post a question if you need a specific point answered (which the vendor can respond to). All of which beats asking a random person in a store "Does my bum look big in this ?".

There's quite a few things I haven't bought, because the reviews made it clear that it either wasn't much cop, or suitable for what I wanted to use it for.

Clothes are especially vulnerable/amenable to such reviews, as the quality can be quickly discerned (or not as the case may be).

Really @RingtheBells! I'm always charged. I always pick the 'don't want it anymore' option. There must be a better one to pick.

Prime wardrobe doesn't charge but you have to pay to return other items. Clothes are treated differently because few people would buy something without trying it on.

@woodchuck99

Yes tbf I wasn't thinking about clothes.

Stuff I have returned to Amazon if not clothes is usually because it is faulty or damaged or crap, so not as expected so I would pick the faulty, damaged, does not work or not as expected type option in the list and then return is hopefully free. With clothes quite a few have free returns anyway and I would be inclined to buy those over one that are not

As I mentioned upthread the free PayPal returns is a good option to use with Ebay and some shops that charge, maybe that is an option with HoF, I don't shop with them now so don't know if they take PayPal.

faulty, damaged, does not work or not as expected type option in the list and then return is hopefully free.

The retailer is liable for the cost of returns. Whether upfront (as Amazon usually do it) or once they have received the item.

Once again, the community nature of Amazon/eBay (etc) kicks in, and retailers that play fast and loose with consumer law pretty soon find themselves with poor ratings and customers can decide for themselves. With the converse of retailers that offer good service (and I've had some outstanding online service) get a boost too.

Sorry, I've asked mn to delete my previous post. I misread the comment in haste and thought it was refunds for the goods (as per op) rather than credit notes, not refund for postage.

Totally. You have to make it work for your customer. Or you won't have customers.

Yes. As I said in the rest of the post you quoted from.

However the ‘what works for customers’ isn’t an absolute. What works best for me is. 10 minute delivery slot, same day, to wherever I am at that moment. What I am willing to accept, and at what cost, is quite different.

The (repetitive) point is that ‘what works for customers’ needs to balance against profitability. If you can’t get these into a decent balance then your business model doesn’t work and you either need to redefine your target market so you get the customers who fit your operations, or change your operations and/or cost. Or go out of business if you can’t make those changes - as so many are.

Sure most people are the same.

I’m not so sure. There are a lot of market segments that aren’t particularly price-sensitive.

And those (like me) for whom it’s a factor but not a decider, but for whom the cost of a postal return Is lower than the cost of transportation/parking at the major shops, without factoring in convenience and time.

Totally. You have to make it work for your customer. Or you won't have customers.

But it has to work for the business too. It's all very well saying it's all about pleasing the customer, but businesses have to make a profit or they're not going to survive.

I think you misunderstood me @myolivetree I undestand that free returns is attractive, but I also know that you pay for them in the cost of each item, as I pointed out in my previous post using Amazon as an example. You do pay in increased prices, via Prime etc etc

@woodchuck99 I understand that. My question was really about truly free returns, ones that don't recoup the costs via small price increases across their range. Why would a shop do that for real? It would only ever be a temporary measure or each online retailer would make very little profit / go bust - if the numbers I found earlier are to be even partially believed.

TANSTAAFL - as many social sci fi commentators would have said!

@CuriousaboutSamphire there is masses of margin for retail , most stuff is only 25 % cost or under. Footwear can be a massive profit, clothing nearly as good. I'm even worked in furniture and the cost was between 10- 19% of the full retail price. I know from working in brands a shoe maybe cost us £16 to make and was selling at £175, there are other costs of course, shipping, warehousing, staff, head office,advertising ... Obviously if you are buying in and selling another brand at rrp then your profit will take a small hit to offer free returns, but you are still making money. The more business the more money. Less stores means less costs.

@ticktockclockhunt that's true, I know it is, But those margins obviously don't cut it, or why are so many high street and on line retailers going to the wall?

On costs have to be met, no matter how you shift your stock.

There will be another revolution in shopping habits, but meanwhile we get a mixed bag of wants, needs and responses.

It's all very well saying it's all about pleasing the customer, but businesses have to make a profit or they're not going to survive.

@adaline No it's all about pleasing customers whilst making a profit.

I think you misunderstood me @myolivetree I undestand that free returns is attractive, but I also know that you pay for them in the cost of each item,

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Of course as I said everything gets paid for somewhere. But a savvy business model gives you free returns p+p upfront. Which saves time and hassle to the customer and makes purchases less risky. Of course the p+p price is spread over costs as a whole.

Look at the successful brands who do it.

I was questioning your idea that it wasn't very savvy.

No it's all about pleasing customers whilst making a profit.

Business is a multidimensional activity that crosses time and space. Good businesses accept that a little less profit now is equivalent to an investment in the future.

There are few good businesses around.

By the same token, good bosses realise that it's possible to pay staff more, without increasing the salary bill.

There are even fewer good bosses around.

I was questioning your idea that it wasn't very savvy. We were talking about 2 different things. Truly free and seemingly free returns, The first is not at all savvy, the second usual practice

I was pondering.... that's all!

Business is a multidimensional activity that crosses time and space. THAT!!! And the last sentence.

However the ‘what works for customers’ isn’t an absolute.

@JassyRadlett

Of course not. But 'convenience' is pretty much a basic premise.

With shops such as Next, John Lewis, H&M combining on line with bricks &mortar to offer the best of both.

Probably OP would say HOF was offering the worst of both.

@CuriousaboutSamphire I've never been in finance, but I know holding onto too much old stock caused issues/ penalties . So can only assume it's not selling through or enough. The big brand I was with had outlets to clear stuff. The outlets made the company masses, the stores like in Regent street made a loss, but they were showcases for the brand.

With shops such as Next, John Lewis, H&M combining on line with bricks &mortar to offer the best of both.

‘Convenience’ is deeply subjective. I avoid Next like the plague, for example, because I don’t find its set up particularly matches my own preferred way of shopping.

But yes, the HoF model isn’t convenient for the way OP likes to shop. Whether HoF is targeting OP’s segment is not known. If they are, they’re crap at it. If they’re not, they’re unlikely to be bothered that OP will in future choose a retailer with a model that is more convenient for her.

@JassyRadlett

Don't think HoF know who they are targeting.