NPR Reports: REI vs L.L. Bean Return Policy

Dean, I admire your determination not to do business with a company if it has a Director or major stockholder whose politics are extremely different from yours. Good luck with that.

It looks to me like the Bean family members controlling/owning the company include both liberals and conservatives. Their PAC gives about equally to Democrats and Republicans. I don't see a problem with continuing to give them my business.

Well, I have to turn that around, Max, and ask why you care so much about what others think of you in an internet forum? :)

For that matter, why did you bring up the return policy issue at all, then? Just to troll? YOU seem to be the one with a 'cause"- defending the practice of abusing return policies.

I hardly obsess about this. But if you ask I will answer, and you asked, if only indirectly. And my answer is that the abuse is wrong. And we all know that it was abuse. And it ruined things for the rest of us. As I said, I am comfortable making that call.

Saying that judging others is a waste of time is false. One could argue that you have a duty to point out injustice when you see it- it lets others know that they have earned your scorn and just MIGHT influence them to change their habits. This is a boon to society, and thus all of us. John Burke and all that, even if that was a misquote- "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

And, again, you used a false argument. The fact that REI and Backcountry and LL Bean are profitable does not magically make it moral to cheat them. That's just rationalization on your part. It is not moral to pickpocket a rich person just because they can afford to lose the $20.

Dean,

I tried.

Will-

Well, I do what I can when it gets egregious.

But maybe I was operating under false assumptions- I was under the impression that Linda Bean pretty much got it all. Do you have a source? (I would certainly like a set of a certain boot model of theirs…)

Last to L.L. Bean Boots. Life lesson?

What lesson? That I am imperfect? Brother, I came to terms with that LONG ago. Perhaps there's a life lesson for YOU, there? I refer you to the innate hypocrisy of saying that it is wrong to judge people. :P *snicker*

But if you ask me- which I acknowledge you didn't- you really do need to lose this "don't judge" attitude. Judging people for meanigless stuff like the color of their skin or which gender they choose to sleep with is pointless, but if we judge nobody then child rapists would be free to do as they will. Some behaviors need to be judged and scorned. Even the color of skin or sexual orientation gets "judged", really- it just happens to get judged "neutral" in my book.

intraweb morality …

amazing how worked people get over what they think other people they never met should do …

almost sounds … religious

;)

Dean,

The fact that you're currently quoting Edmund Burke's speech (not John Burke) on the triumph of Evil over me bringing a flannel to L.L. bean is a pretty good indication to me that you're operating under false assumptions. Imperfection is perfectly appropriate if you're ready to be open to new perspectives.

Reread my posts. I'm not your enemy. I'm also not judging you. I'm spreading perspective. This doesn't have anything to do with your opinion of me, just on the conversation about whether "Theft," "Rob," "Morality," and "Evil" is appropriate diction for the way the majority of BPL uses the policies.

Or whether any of us can appropriately decide who is right and who is wrong in their use, or whether that's remotely useful.

I posted the article in the first place because it's an ongoing conversation. For me, it's reminiscent of the "Stealth Camping" debate of this past spring, mostly in that I'll inevitably lose.

I have nothing against trolling but maybe pondering the universe and return policies would be better in Chaff…. a dark place which used to be filled with random oddities, flame wars, and the occasional meme. Lately it's been lonely way down there at the bottom of the forum where only brave souls dare to roam.

Come on in boys, the water's fine.

Oh, you are judging me. (Especially using charged language like "refusing to change.") You're arguing that we shouldn't judge one another- which is a judgment. Do you really not see that? "Spreading perspective" is merely obfuscatory language because what you are really doing is arguing a position contrary to mine. You are saying that I am wrong when I claim that it is appropriate to judge others on some issues. Are you not saying that I am wrong?

I am a pretty open-minded individual. I have grown immensely over my life. I have changed opinions in the past, and I will do so again- because I am rational and open to rational arguments. But this issue (abuse of return policies) is egregious. Sorry. So, yes, just accept that I scorn those who do it. You should, too. Frankly, to use your terminology, I find not "taking a stand" on clear moral issues to be cowardly.

Ian,

I need a certain "critical mass" of people to see what I type to feel motivated enough to type.

Little Miss Popular..

I think that the internet/social media really is what killed the return policy.

When you had to walk up and face the cashier and tell her why you were returning that generated a lot of fear and guilt in people. Generally the abusers of the policy know they are abusing it and work their way through some hoops in their head to justlfy it. For most people their concience would get the best of them and they would use the return policy reasonably. But once social media took over the community gave approval for the abusers of the policy to do it. So now someone who before had to justify it to themselves why they were returning the item now only has to say other people do it so I would be stupid not to. This approval of a small community broke down the barrier and got rid of the fear of rejection and judgement. Without that fear the abuse would just snowball.

For me I don't think I ever abused the return policy. A few delaminating jackets that were 1 or 2 years old which to me was in the lifetime of the jacket and my closest to abuse was a pair of climbing shoes which I bought, didn't use for a year and tried them outside, and returned them because they didn't fit right. I really should have tried them indoors so they could be resold.

I know what REI is trying to with their return policy is to say that you can try out a piece of gear and if it doesn't work for you return it, if it fails before you think is reasonable return it, if you get fair use out of it and it is worn out buy a new one.

> I definitely don't think it's designed to be abused, nor do I think that's ok.

> I definitely DO think it's designed to handle the inevitable abuse that does occur.

Yes, and Max it has been updated for 2013 to handle the inevitable abuse that does occur.

Back in the 1930s when REI was founded, and the 60s when it became a "real company" with a CEO, people could be trusted to act in accordance with how the return policy was envisioned. Now that it is 2013, with a different generation, a different set of ideals and groupthink, the policy had to be revised. I dub our generation the entitled generation, because so much gets handed over to us on a platter.

Dean, this is the first hit when you google: ll bean political contributions.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/ll-bean-inc/7b5317ec59e846b9a4f3aa8c1682f955

"I need a certain "critical mass" of people to see what I type to feel motivated enough to type."

Wow. That sounds like trolling. :)

Dean,

That was a joke. if I was interested in refuting that opinion, I certainly wouldn't have typed it. "Max is Trolling" has been used a lot by people who disagree with me and can't think of anything else to say.

(still joking)

"Dean, this is the first hit when you google"

Did you use Google or do you mean small-g google and used some other search engine? Because that's not what I got. And I'm having trouble pulling that site up- I don't see what I suspect are graphs or any other actual numbers other than the total amount contributed.

And it looks like that's just corporate contributions. But I still need to investigate more- if Linda is (for example) a 90% shareholder then that sort of outweighs what the company itself does, eh? When a company has so few shareholders a couple of individuals who are way off the bell curve have a bigger effect.

Ah, my bad- my interwebs humor-detector must be fritzing.

I don't think I've ever argued with you before- which is odd, since I've probably argued with every other person on this forum at one point or another. For instance, I've gotten decent at detecting when Rog is just trying to goad me…

In an effort to get this thread back on track, I would like to reveal to you the dirty secret about garage sales: they are actually priced randomly!

I've heard a lot of interesting speculation about garage sales, all of which are false.

First of all, a garage sale item is almost never priced for profit or even with the cost to REI in mind. Items are marked down according to what the employees think is a fair price for them. If you see a dirty, grimy Marmot Precip on the rack for $30, it's not because that's the cost of the item to REI, it's because the employees at the store don't value Marmot Precips very highly and they wouldn't want to pay more than $30 for it.

Garage sales are two things: a membership benefit or driver, and also simply a way for each individual REI store to attempt to recoup some of the money lost in negative sales transactions (returns). Negative sales come out of a store's stats and garage sales can help bring those up.

If an item is marked down a second time during a garage sale, it's not because it's the lowest price REI will accept, it's because the warehouse is overflowing and the employee managing the sale really wants it gone.

Finally, garage sale items are not charged against vendors. Only items that are clearly due to manufacturer defect are sent back to vendor.

The satire chain is kind of only to the benefit of the few members who were around when I argued for heavier backpacks, stealth camping, and one-person tents. There was a big battle of wits, I stuck my own foot in my mouth several times, and I ultimately learned some backpacking and BPL lifeskills. It's funny in hindsight- I can certainly laugh at myself.

The "rules" on this non-anonymous forum are a lot different than the rules I grew up on a decade ago, 15 years old, arguing about Warcraft III on chat forums with my brother. I like BPL's style a lot better.

Because at the end of the day, Dean, you're a backpacker and I respect your opinion and I don't pass judgement on you as a person. That's what I'm trying to say. I can argue against your argument without thinking "Dean is a bad person." And I'm sure you're doing the same (I doubt you think I'm a bad human being).

Besides, anyone who backpacks is OK in my book.

Most of the modern world transitioned nicely to the news of the REI Return Policy change right after learning about it. Those who did not should get busier.

I have to agree, though- this has become chaff, if it wasn't from the outset. Not that I've ever actually seen a thread get moved, mind you- but that's my judgment on the issue. :) heh

Stephen,

I actually assumed it worked that way. Still, the REI employees aren't pocketing the money directly. It goes to REI's bottom line. To get things even more back on track, this is why the last line of the article in the OP was so interesting.

The return policy is free word-of-mouth advertising and incentive to buy more expensive items, more frequently. It's generating revenue, even when it's a loss.

Are we expecting too much of retailers (REI in particular)? All the back-and-forth about judgment aside, what CAN one expect of a "business" that is designed to make a profit by selling X?

I have definitely noticed other changes at REI recently, beyond the new limits on returns… for example, the dominance of certain brands getting floor space in the stores (if folks don't see something there, they will probably buy what IS there), much less knowledgeable/trained staffers, etc.

All these changes are aimed at profitability. That's the bottom line (sorry — can't resist the pun). If a commercial entity is not making money, they will have to make changes that make them profitable or they will cease to exist.

I liked this quote from the linked article:

""How many times has your colleague talked about the fact that she's returned that backpack, and L.L. Bean gave her a new one without question?" Fuller said. "That's really the value of the guarantee."
As a business practice, it's expensive. As advertising, it's cheap."

I'll still shop at REI and I don't blush when I return an item as there always is a legitimate reason. Yes returning shoes with 700 miles on them is shameful but I guess I don't understand some of the group-think on BPL in regards to any return at all falling into the same category. I drive to the other side of town, past Sportsman Warehouse and other outfitters, to spend more money at REI. If a gasket fails on my filter after using it less than a dozen times, I (guilt free) expect for them to stand behind their return policy.

As their reward, I give them every bit of business I can for non-cottage industry type stuff. Again, I had to replace the cassette on my bike and drove past three or four bike shops (two of which sell Specialized) to have REI do the work.

I think buying a rarely used item like an ice axe from them may be problematic with the new return policy; hopefully they've empowered their store team to exercise discretion in those cases.

Deja vu…. seems like all this has been discussed before.