wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
supra28 wrote:
Eyebrock: obviously you don't have an opinion of your own so why even bother?
Yes, it's a free market, but it doesn't mean you should have to uncessarily abuse it. It just takes common sense to realize what OP did was wrong, selfish, and inconsiderate. If everyone does what Richard did, there wouldn't be a free market left.
Several of the responses after my previous post in this thread have shown that some of you aren't quite grasping what is happening here.
The manufacturers, and the retailers who sell their products, expect a certain level of return rate and each factors that into their operating costs. Let me be unequivocally clear about this: it is part of the cost of doing business.
Do you think that it is unfair that brick-and-mortar shops have to vacuum their floors more frequently than an online retailer because walk-in customers track in more dirt? Are you going to blame the customer for being unethical for not making sure their shoes are clean? It's part of the cost of doing business.
It is the retailer's choice whether or not to institute a restocking fee. It is the manufacturer's choice to set their QC levels at a certain point. In a free market, these choices are determined as a rational response to aggregate consumer behaviors. If enough consumers started buying multiple copies with the intent to return all but the best one, as the OP did, then you would see retailers respond by instituting a restocking fee because at some point the restocking costs would outweigh the benefits of customer satisfaction. If consumers did this for some brands but not others (e.g., high return rates on Sigma lenses but low on Canon), then the retailer can institute a restocking fee on that brand only, and then b*tch to Sigma to say "hey, we don't like selling your crap."
Similarly, if Sigma started seeing enough of an increase in returns, and handling all those customer requests to adjust or fix their sub-par lenses becomes more costly than the effort to improve their production standards, then what do you think is going to happen? They're going to make those improvements. They might also increase their prices to maintain profitability, but then the consumer has higher expectations. All of these factors are weighed against each other--that is how free enterprise works.
So, to suggest that if all consumers started taking maximum advantage of their situation, that the free market would collapse, reflects a very deeply flawed understanding of what "free market" means, as well as a complete failure to recognize basic economic principles. The loss of a free market would require something like over-regulation, and restricting what consumers, manufacturers, and retailers can or cannot do in such a way that one or more parties cannot operate as a rational decision maker.
I should hope by now that we can agree that such an act by the OP is (1) economically rational, and (2) legal. What I have not addressed until now is the question of whether it is "moral" or "ethical." This is not a coincidence. The reason why I have avoided framing the discussion in this context is because in my view, it is not the best context in which to view such actions. But since so many of you are hell-bent on passing judgment, then let me be equally clear on this matter as well: I personally would not engage in such an act, unless I had very good reason to believe it is necessary in order for me to be a satisfied customer.
Let me elaborate. If I needed a particular product on short notice, and this product is known to have a high defect rate, say 50% are not up to the standard I require for my purposes, then I would find it entirely ethical to do what the OP did, because I need something I know to be unreliable. But I wouldn't do it capriciously because it has its own problems, such as dealing with the whole return process, having the funds or credit to make such a purchase, and the inherent risk of something happening in the brief period of time I am in possession of multiple copies.
In other words, although rational, it may be somewhat unethical as a business practice if the goal is to have a society wherein every consumer behaves in such a way as to equalize all consumers' advantage. And it is probably unethical if the goal is to have consumers behave in a way that minimizes costs for the retailer or manufacturer. But if the goal is to maximize one's own chances of receiving a satisfactory result, then it is absolutely ethical--indeed, it would be unethical to do otherwise.
As to morality, that is far too subjective to have any valid meaning. Everyone's needs and circumstances are different, and it is not a black-and-white situation.
|
Return fraud and abuse apparently cost retailers billions of dollars a year. You can't win an argument simply by slinging insults. I can write about all sorts of things I find repugnant. I have the right to voice my opinion, same as you do yours.