3 ms·

Absolutely. The issue here is people returning it in a state where it is still sealed - as if an item is sealed it will go back into stock straight away and th

by Closi 5y ago

Absolutely. The issue here is people returning it in a state where it is still sealed - as if an item is sealed it will go back into stock straight away and the retailer can’t open it up to check that it is in there. If it’s opened you can still return it, but once that happens usually electronics have to be sent back to the manufacturer to refurbish/reset. It’s not about stopping people returning items, it’s about making sure the correct returns channel is used and detecting fraud (which happens when people return the item pretending it’s unopened so it goes back into stock unchecked, but the item has been replaced with a brick).

amelius 5y ago
Right, I didn't get that. But how often is an item returned without the box being opened by the customer? Also, how does Amazon prove that the brick they received came from the customer and not some employee?
- Closi 5y ago
  I can’t answer the first question, other than to say “often enough to have a process to handle it”. As for the second one, with bin/lot tracking you can identify if the item had previously been returned. Employee theft doesn’t usually involve putting bricks in it within a DC - it’s usually easier and less risk to take the whole box (and maybe get rid of the packaging in the toilet, at a warehouse I used to work at someone was found to be stealing iPods because a lot of packaging was found behind a toilet ceiling tile). If the item hadn’t previously been returned, this would usually infer that the customer was lying about receiving it with a brick in it (although obviously there is the possibility that it came in that state from the supplier). The usual assumption is that the supplier didn’t send it in with a brick, because otherwise customer fraud is too easy - but occasionally that assumption is wrong, which is probably what happened in this case. They probably checked there was no return in the history, made the assumption it wouldn’t have come empty from Canon, and figured it was the customer that lied.

by Closi 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

Right, I didn't get that. But how often is an item returned without the box being opened by the customer? Also, how does Amazon prove that the brick they received came from the customer and not some employee?

Closi 5y ago
I can’t answer the first question, other than to say “often enough to have a process to handle it”. As for the second one, with bin/lot tracking you can identify if the item had previously been returned. Employee theft doesn’t usually involve putting bricks in it within a DC - it’s usually easier and less risk to take the whole box (and maybe get rid of the packaging in the toilet, at a warehouse I used to work at someone was found to be stealing iPods because a lot of packaging was found behind a toilet ceiling tile). If the item hadn’t previously been returned, this would usually infer that the customer was lying about receiving it with a brick in it (although obviously there is the possibility that it came in that state from the supplier). The usual assumption is that the supplier didn’t send it in with a brick, because otherwise customer fraud is too easy - but occasionally that assumption is wrong, which is probably what happened in this case. They probably checked there was no return in the history, made the assumption it wouldn’t have come empty from Canon, and figured it was the customer that lied.