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

Fri Jun 7 08:40:46 CDT 2013

http://www.landsend.com/aboutus/guaranteed/
The Lands' End guarantee has always been an unconditional one. It reads: "If
you're not satisfied with any item, simply return it to us at any time for
an exchange or refund of its purchase price." We mean every word of it.
Whatever. Whenever. Always. But to make sure this is perfectly clear, we've
decided to simplify it further. Guaranteed. Period.R

I'd like to return this taxi, please.

As you'd expect, over the years our guarantee has been put to the test.
We've been given countless opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to
customer satisfaction and our willingness to stand behind the products we
sell - though none more demonstrative than the return and refund of an
original London taxi.

Featured on the cover of our 1984 holiday catalog, the taxi was purchased
for $19,000 by a Kansas native as a gift for her husband (an avid car
collector). In 2005, her husband contacted Lands' End and expressed interest
in returning the car for a full refund. Of course, we obliged - because
whether your purchase includes a tote or a taxi, your satisfaction is
Guaranteed. Period.R

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of JPL
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:30 PM
To: lilacs007 at yahoo.com; Brick Robbins
Cc: Pacific crest trail PCT Listserve
Subject: Re: [pct-l] REI changes return policy to return before 1 year

"... but don't see other places doing this to customers."  You know of
another store (other than LL Bean) that takes returns forever no questions
asked?

-----Original Message-----
From: lilacs007 at yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:25 PM
To: JPL ; Brick Robbins
Cc: Pacific crest trail PCT Listserve
Subject: Re: [pct-l] REI changes return policy to return before 1 year

What I understand his outlook to mean is that corporations and stores in
general would take advantage of loopholes.

This was a loophole customers took advantage of... But people see that as
bad, but don't see other places doing this to customers. He was not
specifically targeting REI.

Now what the real circumstances of their policy change is? Who knows. It's
possible sales have been declining and they are in general having issues and
this policy adds to the loss. Or really whatever...

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "JPL" <jplynch at crosslink.net>
Sender: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 20:23:56
To: Brick Robbins<brick at brickrobbins.com>
Cc: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] REI changes return policy to return before 1 year

Customers by definition aren't capitalists.  And you're setting up an apples
and oranges strawman.  REI is not abusing the customer, simply adjusting its
business practices in what is actually a pretty minor way.  It would be
abuse if REI adopted practices that were subterfuge  and resulted in harm to
the customer.   Like if REI sold shoddy goods telling customers they were
high quality and then not taking them back when they fell apart in a couple
of days.  Or playing fast and loose with customers credit card, or their
membership accounts.  What REI has done with their return policy in no way
rises to the level of abuse.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brick Robbins
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:15 PM
To: JPL
Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] REI changes return policy to return before 1 year

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.

_______________________________________________
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.