The Ethicist: Blogspot Edition
Is it ethical to purchase a product with the full intention of using it and then returning it for a full refund? Anonymous, Portland, OR.
posted by d l wright at 7/10/2008 04:04:00 PM
a little of everything, a lot of nothing...
posted by d l wright at 7/10/2008 04:04:00 PM
21 Comments:
Funny you should ask... I just did this--I'm returning the item tomorrow.
Unethical.
why unethical? who gets hurt?
I wouldn't. And I haven't.
Sam does pose an interesting question. Does the retailer suffer? Do they have to sell the item at a reduced cost now that it has been out of the store? (I don't think so.) Who else could possibly get hurt? It seems good for the purchaser/returner and moderately inconvenient for the retailer. From a utilitarian standpoint it seems alright.
Is it stealing? Not really, more like borrowing, and you leave collateral. . . .
That said, it just doesn't feel ethical.
if the retailer didnt want that to happen they would make sure it couldnt. they would have a no open box return policy or whatever. clearly they dont care, so what does it matter?
I think it definitely hurts someone - the person purchasing it after you who believes they are buying a new product when it has actually been used before. Totally unethical.
You ought to play by the same rules under which the business operates--except for small companies that can't afford it, retailers use operations research algorithms to solve optimization problems that maximize profit, so there is really no reason that you shouldn't do the same. Return policies are designed in the same way that insurance companies set premiums, and they wouldn't exist if the retailer didn't enjoy some benefit, as the insurance company takes on some risk but usually makes a profit. As an aside, this also goes for corporate charity and donations (tax break + free advertising + community goodwill).
As a consumer in the US, the balance of resources is so asymmetrically in favor of bigger companies that you should take advantage of whatever you can. Consumers don't have the resources to advocate for themselves, since they don't hire employees, lobbyists, or advertisers, and realistically it is rarely worth it for an individual to devote some or all of their spare time to volunteer and fight with the retailer. Chances are, the dispute isn't important enough to an individual to be worth the sacrifice.
Look at cable companies--In SLC, Comcast takes full advantage of their position as an unregulated monopoly and abuses the hell out of their customers, all the while "earning" a 20% profit margin. I complained to the local franchise office about their lack of investment in infrastructure around the avenues, and they told me such complaints are almost unheard of... yet I haven't spoken to anyone anyone in the neighborhood who doesn't hate Comcast and their shitty service.
Bottom line: Unless it is a small, local business, get them before they get you. In my opinion, the ONLY possible risk is the net increase in goods consumed (and ending up in a landfill). If someone else buys the returned product, it is the fault of the retailer for deceptively selling something that isn't in completely new condition.
Cool tip: you can return used up Brita filters to Walmart for a new replacement, as long as it is within 90 days of purchase!
i don't know who aln_slc is, but i like his/her style.
what about shop lifting from big business? ok?
brad, let's not compare apples to oranges.
Although I agree with some of what the ALN says, I think I'm with the JSL on this one.
Like Julie said, I'd be unhappy if I wore something after someone else got their nasty sweatiness on it, and returned it without washing.
Also, I like this post Logan. We will have to do more of these. Maybe the next one will be the old return the iPod to Costco when the new model comes out. (Of course, Costco doesn't let you do that anymore.)
mark sides with julie. i could have guess that would happen.
I would never assume that anything you buy at a store is in fact "new" -- one of the few perks of working at Borders is that employees can "check out" any book for any length of time. These employee read books are put right back on the shelf with nary a mention of their used quality.
More often than not, and item can be returned if it is in "re-sellable condition." So I don't think the ethical dilemma revolves around a hapless secondary consumer (who, in turn, can inspect the item and return it if doesn't met his or her standards). [Amazon is a good case study: "Any item that has obvious signs of use."]
And I also agree with Andy that most returns play into a larger "optimization problem" -- sort of like how shoplifting is factored into all pricing. But I disagree that ethical behavior should be dictated by the size of any given corporation.
I guess the most ethical course of action would be to throughly review any return policy before purchasing and strictly abide by those guidelines.
Out of curiosity: I left "product" purposefully vague, because I wondered if the actual item in question would influence your opinion of the return. Mark, I noticed you thought of clothing, which I think is what most people think of when they find the action unethical, as opposed to say an extension cord.
to me thinking of clothing changes nothing. i assume someone else has had any item of clothing at the store on their body when i buy it. if not at home then at least in the dressing room.
the question to me really seems to be whether or not it is ethical to have you cake and eat it too.
noone here seems to be arguing that it is unethical to return an item of clothing that didn't fit, or a charger that didn't end up working for your phone. but to buy a portable dvd player at best buy, and then return it after your road trip, that's unethical. i think it all comes down to intent. if i got what i wanted out of the product, shouldn't i have paid something for it?
logan: while the size of the company may not make an action more or less ethical, for me it definitely affects the likelihood that i'll do something unethical or borderline unethical involiving that company. in other words, i'm not gonna feel bad about ripping Wal-Mart off, but i would feel bad about ripping off libery heights fresh.
Yeah. I guess I assumed it was clothing because it's difficult to use and return with most other types of products.
Besides the 90-day return at Costco... I can't thinking of anywhere you can get away with that in this day and age.
Also, about employee use programs like you described. All I can say is that their is a reason I don't buy games at, say, EB unless they are in the original shrink wrap.
when i dropped my beard trimmer and it broke i returned it to target and said it didnt work and they gave me a new one. suckers.
I agree with Brad...it's all about intent. I was thinking of all different kinds of items, but clothing is a good example. Sometimes I purchase things knowing I'm going to try it on at home and return it if I don't like it. However, I don't leave the tag on, wear it a few times, and then return it. The customer's intent is what makes it unethical.
I don't mind that other people have tried on a piece of clothing, but I would mind that they wore it out and then brought it back. I'm wondering if it will ever be safe to trust the general public!...
I also think there's a sense of entitlement when people buy, use, and return. The company makes a lot of money and I don't...I deserve to use this a few times without paying for it...I don't really care how it affects other people who might want to buy this product...Makes me feel icky.
Sam - You're a disgrace! Suck it up bro...you dropped it, you pay for a new one.
hey hey don't group me with the rest of you puritans. i would totally buy a big flat screen for the super bowl and then return it.
i was just saying that that seems like where the schizm between us occurs.
i say if you can get over on a faceless corporation you do it. they're doing it to you.
for me the obvious solution is to not deal with thos types of stores all together. but that's becoming harder and harder to do. (and it's already pretty damn hard)
I was thinking something similar...whether the company is big or small doesn't make it more or less ethical. If you don't like those companies, don't buy from them in the first place.
still, there's something viscerally satisfying about exploiting a company that exploits so many. even if it is unethical.
in a lot of ways it's the company's own fault. the employees have no love for the corporation, they're machines programmed with a formula (policy) and if you know the formula you can predict the output of certain inputs. a policy is much easier for a consumer (or semi-consumer. . . pseudo-consumer . . . ?) to exploit than the judgment of an intelligent sentient employee.
Post a Comment
<< Home