[ADifferentKyle]

I see a few comments going both ways here - punish the returners, etc., but I don’t think punishment is really the right concept. When places like Zappos encourage people to buy extra just to return the excess, you can’t blame people for getting used to online shopping this way.

That said, I do agree with the general idea that serial returners should bear some of the additional costs (just not via punishment). I can’t recall the retailer, but I remember buying something from a brand that had the option of “free returns,” which, if selected, would add a small percentage onto the overall price. If you didn’t select it, returns would be even higher out-of-pocket. I think the idea was that not everyone who selected the option would actually return items, but having the option was a premium lots of folks would pay for.

[idkyall]

I believe you're thinking of jet.com? they used to give a % discount if you waived the right to free returns[1]

[1] https://www.enzasbargains.com/jet-com-return-policy/

[pc86]

I would love an option like this. I would gladly pay 1-2% extra on items I might return (and especially on something like shoes where I might buy two pairs to see which fits better if I can't find the brand locally) and keep the discount for things I know I won't.

My only concern with a system like this would be when you get an item that truly is defective/broken, are you expected to pay a return fee in those cases?

[barbazoo]

I don't get it, sorry. What would the money do? The damage is done, isn't it? I'm assuming often the item can't be sold again so it's just discarded, no? We can't pay the environment back for the damage we do by overconsumption.

[ADifferentKyle]

You’re right; the money is meant to make people think twice about the purchase. Like many people in the article, I would buy whatever with the intent of just returning whatever I didn’t need. The extra cost made me reconsider that option. It had a lasting impact on my online buying habits, even though it’s not available to me anymore and hasn’t been in some time (another commenter helped me recall this was jet.com, which was bought out ages ago).

[open-paren]

Jet.com, before it was bought by Wal*Mart, used to do this.

[ADifferentKyle]

I think this was it! Thank you, that was bugging me.

[deltarholamda]

>When places like Zappos encourage people to buy extra just to return the excess

Yeah, but Zappos just sprays some of that stuff they use for the rental shoes at bowling alleys, which as we all know makes the shoes pristine, in like-new condition. All shoe retailers use this eldritch magick, created by the great Druid Alchemists that built Stonehenge, so that's not a fair comparison.

[ADifferentKyle]

The fairness of the comparison doesn’t really matter because we’re talking about buyer expectations… My point was more akin to the one made in the article - regardless of she store methods, they’ve helped create the expectation and habit for the buyer.

[xp84]

I seem to remember Jet.com might have had something kind of like this, except I think it was defaulted to "allow returns" and they would offer you, on each line item, to for instance "Save $0.37 by waiving returns."

Jet also had a very neat logistics-driven feature where if you bought more things that came from the same warehouse they passed some of that savings onto you. So once you had in your cart, say, a box of paper towels, you might save $1.50 off of a box of crackers that they knew they could throw into the same box.

Marc Lore is clever and I was sad to see Jet.com go (though not sad for him since I think it was another great exit)

[kridsdale3]

Airline seats seem to work that way. It's purchase insurance.

[endisneigh]

what you're proposing seems like a good idea - except certain retailers have more money than others and will offer free hassle free returns along with a price match. This will result in there always being competition that's as cheap and having returns, resulting in the entire sale going to them.

there's a reason retail is often described as a race to the bottom

[ADifferentKyle]

I think you’re right - the ones offering the cheapest and most convenient option will naturally be the best choice for the most amount of people.

Not to be that guy, but I do think there’s an element of privilege in shopping any other way. I’d gladly pay a bit more for the comfort of not participating in the throwaway culture we’re building, but how many people can really say that? I have time and money that a lot of people simply don’t have.

But I do think there are a lot of people in my situation and would do something similar. We might not bring down the amazons of the world, but a place for us can still exist.