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

[Brick Robbins]

Once again, the point is missed.....

The "capitalism charge"  was not being leveled at REI, it was leveled
at the customer, and by that measure, there was NO ABUSE. There was
simply one party in the transaction taking full advantage of contract
that was offered.

That is capitalism.

My soapbox is that one segment of the population sees this as OK when
a business does this to the customer or the taxpayer, but sees it as
ABUSE when the individual does it to the business.

I agree with Herb on this.




On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM, JPL <jplynch at crosslink.net> wrote:
> I don't see it quite that way.  My guess is that the abuse just got beyond
> what they could tolerate and stay in business.  But that's just a guess
> since they don't release (that I know of) their data on this matter.
> Perhaps when REI got started they felt that they could do this and make it
> work, especially as a co-op.  But things change, times change.  It'll be
> interesting to see if other stores (thinking particularly of LL Bean) will
> toss their life-time return policy too.  I don't fault REI at all on this.
> As far as the capitalism "charge" goes, well yes what do you expect.  A
> company trying to stay in business and protect the bottom line.  I'm glad
> they're doing what they have to do to remain a viable company.  I'll gladly
> keep shopping there.
>
>
> -----Original Message---
> From: Herb Stroh
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:08 PM
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: [pct-l] REI changes return policy to return before 1 year
>
> 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 cha
> nge.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.