[pct-l] REI changes return policy to return before 1 year

[Herb Stroh]

I have a little bit different take on this.



REI was certainly aware that their generous return policy would be abused by some. They made a business decision that the policy would enhance their bottom line. They could-and did-advertise the return policy as a means to attract sales and members. I have purchased items at REI when I could have bought them cheaper elsewhere because I knew I could always return it, and I am sure many others have done the same. The wide open return policy has certainly generated tremendous good will-note the many posts so far supportive of the company. That is not to say it is ok to be a free-rider who returns fully used-up gear for refund. But REI is a big boy, and kept this policy in place for a long time as a part of its' business model. This suggests that the policy was perceived as creating sufficient additional sales/memberships that the losses due to abuse was a reasonable cost of implementing this marketing strategy. Because that business model no longer works they have now made a change.



I don't see issues of corporate greed, nor do I perceive REI as a victim. They came up with an innovative means of distinguishing their brand and building good will that was apparently successful for a long time. And while I do not think it is appropriate to return used gear, it was a term of the contract which REI offered to its members and they had the right to exercise it.



Herb





I think many people are missing what Brick is saying.  He is pointing out

the hypocrisy of the American corporate/business culture compared to

individual behavior.  Corporations are lauded and investors are thrilled

when they squeeze every last cent out of contracts, pay the absolute

minimum amount of taxes (even by off-shoring money and technically not

breaking any laws), nickel and dime employees, and get communities to give

them tax "incentives", whereas individuals (such as those returning REI

merchandise) are somehow supposed to answer to a higher moral authority,

try and perceive the intent of a return policy, and consider the welfare of

the employees that sell to them.



Aren't corporations were people too?  Shouldn't they be answering to that

higher moral authority too?



Mark




Herb Stroh  |  Partner
Sinsheimer Juhnke McIvor & Stroh, LLP
1010 Peach Street  |  PO Box 31  |  San Luis Obispo, CA  93406
P 805 541 2800  |  F 805 541 2802
HStroh at sjmslaw.com<mailto:HStroh at sjmslaw.com>   |  www.sjmslaw.com<http://www.sjmslaw.com/>

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments thereto.
To comply with Treasury Regulations, we must inform you that any tax advice contained in this email was not intended or written by the writer to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by federal tax law. Further, this email may not be used by you or anyone else to promote, market, or recommend an arrangement relating to any Federal tax issue by any taxpayer.

 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Thank you.