The Unethical but (Mostly) Legal Retail Shopping Tactics of Devil Consumers

This article Link to The Unethical but (Mostly) Legal Retail Shopping Tactics of Devil Consumers refers to so-called “devil customers,” which are customers that do the following at retail stores:

• Buying a product, taking advantage of the product rebate, then returning the product for a refund.

• Buying clothing or another item, wearing it (or using it) once, then returning it (the classic example is the evening gown that’s worn with tags on for a night, then returned).

• Buying an item and returning it with the intent of buying it at the reduced “open-box” price

• Buying clothing or another item with the intent of returning it later and re-buying it at a markdown price.

• Buying a product at a discount, such as from the store’s selection of “loss leaders,” (low-priced products stores lose money on that are designed to attract customers) then reselling it on eBay for a premium price.

• Finding rock-bottom prices on Web sites, then challenging stores to pay up on their lowest price guarantees.

• Taking up an employee’s time to ask questions about a significant purchase with the intent to buy it elsewhere.

Before I read this article, I had never heard of “devil customers.” Let’s examine each of the above practices:

1. Buying a product, taking advantage of the product rebate, then returning the product for a refund.

   This is a gray area, but surely it is reasonable to expect the store to have a policy about this.

2. Buying clothing or another item, wearing it (or using it) once, then returning it (the classic example is the evening gown that’s worn with tags on for a night, then returned).

   This is unquestionably bad. As I understand it, only unused clothing items may be returned.

3. Buying an item and returning it with the intent of buying it at the reduced “open-box” price.

   This is somewhat gray, but probably bad. A policy could be in place to prevent or reduce it, such as, “once you buy it and return it, you cannot buy it again.” Of course, that would require maintaining rather detailed purchase records, and that could get dicey.

4. Buying clothing or another item with the intent of returning it later and re-buying it at a markdown price.

   The proposed policy above should handle this.

5. Buying a product at a discount, such as from the store’s selection of “loss leaders,” (low-priced products stores lose money on that are designed to attract customers) then reselling it on eBay for a premium price.

   Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with this. You see, when someone buys an item, it is theirs to do with as they see fit—and if they wish to resell it on eBay, or give it away to someone, then that’s their prerogative. If the product in question can be sold on eBay at a premium, then perhaps it’s not such a “loss leader” after all.

6. Finding rock-bottom prices on Web sites, then challenging stores to pay up on their lowest price guarantees.

   This, too, is perfectly fine. If a store claims that it will beat any low price, then it had better honor that claim. If it has trouble competing with online stores, then it could add an exception for online stores.

7. Taking up an employee’s time to ask questions about a significant purchase with the intent to buy it elsewhere.

   This may be annoying, but the employee’s job is to serve the customer, whether the customer decides to buy their product at that time or not. Of course, the customer ought not lead the employee into believing that they are going to buy the item there, but the employee’s job remains the employee’s job.

Nos. 5 and 6, and possibly 3 and 4, are nothing more than consequences of the store’s stupidity. Caveat vendor.

Technorati tags: consumers, business, laissez-faire, free market