Return It or Suck It Up?

Well, kinda both imho.  If there is a manufacturing or design defect, the company should stand by it.  As for the bogus returns to REI, we are all paying higher prices because of it.

REI stiffened it’s return policy especially against obviously used and abused gear.

Where it gets tricky is returning a “just like new” item after one or maybe two wears.   Did the customer use it for a race (using the gear store for a “free rental”) or are they really dissatisfied at the dismal performance/fit (that perhaps should be put into a database)?   Especially as “just like new” stuff could be resold online as easily as a REI “scratch and dent” sale, … while the miffed customer shops less.

When we sold boots and shoes in the backpacking store, we encouraged customers to wear them inside (the store and) their house as long as they wanted to confirm the fit.  But that once they wore them outside, we wouldn’t take them back.  That addresses fit but not durability.

Perhaps durability is better addressed by a manufacturer’s warranty than by a retailer.  Jansport, Eddie Bauer, Osprey, Duluth Trading, Darn Tough, Columbia, Patagonia, North Face (but shoes only one year) have life-time warranties on defects, but often exclude “wear & tear”.  As a salesperson, I’d point out not only which items had life-time warranties, but what our and customer’s experiences had been – only manufacturing defects or was there a generous allowance for wear & tear?  And, if they charged for repairs, how reasonable were their charges – often they were very reasonable, seemingly only the cost of the parts when they’d charge $5 to replace a zipper, for example.

The best gear makers are the ones who return your item no questions asked.  Exped did this for a new downmat which blew a baffle weld on the first night of a 19 day winter trip.  Or course a generous return policy does nothing when you’re out on a trip.  They sent me a new pad, a $200 value, after I emailed them a pic of my blown downmat.

Hilleberg is good about stuff so I’m careful to not complain to anyone at Hillie who’s important, otherwise they might just go ahead and ship me a new replacement.  I’m greedy but not that greedy.

In the old days North Face used to be this way—and the policy of a good backpacking store (remember when we shopped for gear in person without the internet?) —and the people who run a good store —have a No Questions Asked on returns.  Many current “backpacking” i.e fashion clothing stores are sticklers for arguing about returns etc.

Big companies do the math and bake in an assumed warranty reserve. Many who have a legitimate claim never submit and of course some probably abuse it.  I’m happy to pay Patagonia prices for the quality of the gear and return policy. If something doesn’t work out I return it, and probably spend the same or more on something else at their store. Same with REI.

I think it’s tougher for cottage vendors, especially since their business is word of mouth (and forum).  They don’t have the volume to absorb unexpected quality claims, but need to over satisfy their customers to be successful.  I would expect they will fix a quality issue, but I can be patient and return it for repair if necessary.  If I use it and just don’t like it, I’ll try to sell it instead of returning it used.

I guess few hikers try to stick it to the man just for the sake of getting something for free.  Instead, I suspect most return items thinking they are legitimately returnable even though perhaps I never would in a million years.  But honestly, that’s an ever-shifting grey line we can reasonably disagree on.

Perhaps this is a much-needed lesson in non-judgmentalism, if that’s a thing (and a word).

“Big companies do the math and bake in an assumed warranty reserve”

The same way some create the  illusion that they have “free shipping” .

I almost never return anything. Especially not anything I actually used and super especially not a pair of shoes I walked 500 miles in. That’s dumb. If a business accepts a return like that, they’ve probably built in enough of a margin to handle it, which means if we shop there, we’re the ones paying for it.

It’s important to note that there is a difference between a “warranty” and a “customer service policy”.

As a former REI empolyee of many years; tending to a customer that was returning something defective was not quite the same as tending to a customer that was simply “unsatisfied” with a product they had.

Regarding three week old shoes, the hiker should definitely return them. While I suppose it really depends on the shoes “intended use”, I don’t believe there is anything unrealistic about that request. Three weeks of constant walking on a groomed trail shouldn’t blow a shoe apart, no matter how many miles you walk. While I suspect that REI will absorb the cost of the shoes, I hope the manufacturer ultimately gets the message to improve their products durability. Returning the shoes at the end of the thru-hike: well that’s rather questionable (and has certainly been done many, many times before.)

There’s a saying in retail: “One angry customer is louder than ten happy customers.”

“While I suspect that REI will absorb the cost of the shoes..”

Businesses pass on that cost to the customer. REI customers absorb the cost.

Amazon uses this to the detriment of small stores that sell on Amazon.

Customer buys item (sold ON Amazon, but BY a small retailer)

customer uses once (or whatever) and returns (per amazons return policy) and marks item as “damaged” on the Amazon return.  The customer thinks they are screwing Amazon, but they actually bought it from a smaller company selling on Amazon.

Since they marked it damaged they get free return shipping. (thereby making it a free rental) and amazon sends back the “damaged” (unsellable- used) item back to the mom-and-pop to eat the cost.  (amazon will keep their 15% commission)

So the store is stuck with a used item, already lost 15% and now has to sell the product for half price, plus package and ship it again and they are already down 15%.

The best is when the customer buys an Arcteryx jacket and returns a Starter jacket instead. (marked as damaged so amazon doesn’t check it, they just send a rag back and call Arcteryx.  Then the mom-and-pop have to pay a person to go through litigation with amazon to recover the cost of the jacket via pictures and proof and all this.

Return fraud is huge and terrible for business.

But whatevs, brah… the company did it… it must be cool brah

I’ve exchanged a pair of Northface Goretex boots at REI after the sole started to separate on day 2 of me wearing them. This was a legitimate warranty issue. The hiker on PCT is the kind of inconsiderate minority  who will abuse the system and spoil something good for a majority. Like the person returning a dead christmas tree to coscto, or returning a 5 year old TV back in the day when it was allowed….because you know – “the free upgrade program”.

Two summers ago, I met a hiker who had just finished the entire AT with his current backpack.  He bragged about how he had literally dragged the pack throughout the entire Mahoosac Notch only to discover he had worn small holes in the side panels from the abrasion.  He taped the holes over, completed the AT, and was now doing a 400-mile section of the CDT when I ran into him.  He intended to return the backpack after he got back home because it was “defective”.  :(

Yuri:

What is “inconsiderate” about the PCT hiker? The shoes blew apart within a few weeks of use. That’s well within most (reputable) shoe warranties, not to mention within REI’s “Satisfaction Policy”.

Kattt:

“Businesses pass on that cost to the customer. REI customers absorb the cost.”

That’s not true. Given the extremely competitive retail environment, I assure you the customer won’t absorb the cost of a returned defective shoe. If too many items are returned over the course of a year, you probably won’t see the product again.

Matt D: When planning a thru hike and using lightweight trail runners I assume about 500 miles per pair.  Some will go longer, but they will be starting to have some issues, maybe some small tears or some delam. If they hiked 500 miles and some minor things started to happen, there is no way I’d return them.  Depends how badly they were starting to fail but unless it was severe I’d say they were borderline abusing the system.  Having done multiple thru-hikes, a lot of hikers do abuse the system a bit with the “I’m a thru-hiker and they should take care of me” mentality when in reality maybe this is just the reality of lightweight gear.

@Matt Dirkson:

You stated: “That’s not true. Given the extremely competitive retail environment, I assure you the customer won’t absorb the cost of a returned defective shoe. If too many items are returned over the course of a year, you probably won’t see the product again.”

I tend to agree with Katt on this. REI charges list price on nearly everything except during certain sales. And you can pick up a lot of that stuff at 50% off and you know they aren’t losing money. There’s a huge margin built into the gear they sell. So yes, the customers are indeed absorbing the cost. Now, the customers are also paying for their dividend, their freight, etc. but the cost of doing business as well as the desired profit margin is built into those prices. I do agree with you, though, that if a product has too many returns that REI and other retailers would stop carrying it.

500-600 miles is definitely a good rule of thumb for trail runners, but when it comes to “personal satisfaction”, thats entirely subjective. If I were less than a month on the trail and my shoes started failing, I’d suspect something were wrong with them. Moreover, I’d feel “unsatisfied” and perhaps even try to find another shoe.

Again, putting aside equipment failure, the ultimate question is: “Am I satisfied with this?” (When it comes to REI)

Speaking of which, when REI reduced their “Satisfaction Policy” down to one year a few years ago, it was entirely due to years worth of blatant abuse by some customers.

So it all goes back to “intent” as far as I’m concerned.  Having worked there as long as I did, I witnessed my share of abuse. And I’d totally agree that a thru hiker completing their trip & returning all their gear within a year of purchasing it would clearly be abusing the policy. I’m sure the employee behind the customer service desk would grill them about their level of satisfaction, given they finished their trip.

But to be frank, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to what many of us have witnessed.

At least some bozo isn’t trying to return all the REI gear they found in their parents attic from an AT thru hike they completed… in 1979.

That literally happened.

Deena & Katt,

Yes, I now agree with you…

I suspect the more appropriate thing to say is: “You already paid for the defective shoe when you initially bought it.”

;>D

suck it up.

Who made the policy? If its frowned upon, then make rules or stipulations within the policy. Otherwise honor it.

Who am I to take advantage when they made the policy.

^^^^^ What s/he said ^^^^^

And I work at REI.

Mainstream products tend to be overengineered – and correspondingly heavy.   The concept of ultralight products is to produce gear that is adequately engineered for its purpose, but not overengineered.  If an ultralight product lasts for a decade of normal use that’s a design flaw, because it could be made lighter.   We should not penalize manufacturers of ultralight products if they deliver what we ask for, or it will just not be economic for them to make it.   I think returning an ultralight product for a genuine manufacturing defect like a blown baffle is fine, but returning it for wear and tear after extensive use is poor form.

On retail markups:

Decades ago my best friend worked in a backpacking shop – and he also had a degree in economics. He told me about “keystone” pricing, and I’ve seen it many times since.

Here’s an example:

– The manufacturer makes a pair of trail running shoes at a cost of $20, and sells to distributors for $40.

– Distributors sell to retailers for $80 wholesale.

– Stores sell those same shoes to consumers for $160 retail.

At each stage, the keystone rule-of-thumb is to double your purchase cost. “Suggested retail price” often uses this exact formula.

Obviously, the markup at each stage must cover a variety of overhead costs, including rent, salaries, and maybe returns (see below), so a 100% markup won’t always work.

But when REI routinely charges suggested retail price for all items, minus a 10% dividend, and the occasional 20% discount without dividend – they/we (coop remember?) aren’t hurting. And they especially aren’t hurt by selling REI-branded products at a slight discount vs. competitors, but cut out one or more layers of other companies’ profits.

Does everyone use this formula all the time? No, especially in cars, computers, and other highly competitive markets. But it’s a good starting point to estimate the wholesale and manufacturing cost of many consumer goods.

And wholesale contracts usually include explicit return clauses. Often it’s the manufacturer that eats most or all of the cost of returns, warranty repairs, and unsold merchandise.

My wife designed women’s clothing for several companies, and keystone pricing was the norm. She got into big arguments over button choices that differed by pennies, because the retail price had to hit a particular target after several doublings.

Hope this helps.

— Rex

I think the key is are you satisfied with REI.

if you bought a pair of shoes expecting 1000 miles and it only delivered 500 than a return is probably reasonable if you buy beefier shoes the next time.  If you buy another very similar shoe still expecting 1000 miles and return it after 500 then you are abusing because your expectation should have shifted.

so when someone asked Why shouldnt I take advantage of this policy?  The answer is fraud and ethics.

if you got your expected performance or were satisfied with the performance you got then it is fraudulent to return it and say you weren’t satisfied.