4 ms·

But, that doesn't sound like what happened. The way I'm reading it, they bought 2 Air Pods (call them AP1 and AP2), that each came in their own respective boxe

But, that doesn't sound like what happened. The way I'm reading it, they bought 2 Air Pods (call them AP1 and AP2), that each came in their own respective boxes (BOX1 and BOX2). Then, they mistakenly returned one of them in the wrong box (maybe AP1 in BOX2). No box of rocks here, just an honest mistake that seems like it might have been easy to recognize, since Amazon has a record of selling both items to them.

dylan604 5y ago
Yeah, sorry, wasn't trying to accuse that's what happened. The mistake was still on the original poster for putting the wrong item in the wrong box. I was just trying to make the conenction how Amazon could see it as potentially being scammed by claiming a return for AP1 but receiving AP2 in AP1 box. That's not the item agreed to accept as a return. Whether by mistake or knowingly, it was not what was agreed upon for the the return. What is the right thing to do? Eat the costs? Sure it's Amazon, they can afford. So let's ignore it is Amazon and think in more general and hopefully neutral tones. Is the person making the mistake willing to pay for the shipping to return the incorrect item? No? Then what is retailer suppposed to do? Put it on a shelf, or just chunk it as it is trash to them.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I would say what you choose to do in this scenario as a retailer depends on whether you want your (now possibly former) customer going on a web site and telling thousands of people about their bad experience. Surely that's worth the cost of shipping, isn't it? Another perspective: they've made 20k orders already. Surely, over that time, they've made you enough money in retail margin to make eating the cost trivial. Even without the 20k orders, we're still talking about someone who's bought two pair of $120 earbuds. The expected lifetime value of that customer probably exceeds the shipping cost. Hell, even the gross margin on one sale probably exceeds the shipping cost. I think it's pretty clear that not only should the retailer assume it was a good faith mistake, but they should also step in to help make it right.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Okay, fair points. A company the size of Amazon will not feel the repurcussions of someone going online trying to make hay about some slight received from evilCorp (however wrongly/rightly that justification is). They just won't even notice. For a legit serious customer that made a mistake, who's going to look that up? The poor warehouse employee whose job it is to receive the returns? Do you honestly feel like these employees are taking the time to look up the returner's purchasing history? Do we think that's even a good idea for that employee to have access to that data? I'm not trying to do free work for Amazon, not that they'd ever listen to feed back from randos on a website, but there are further questions arising from this logisitcs exercise.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Who needs to look up anything? They already have to scan the box and note the serial number of the item. Most of the time, these will just match and there's nothing to be done. Likewise, the box of rocks scenario doesn't impose any additional burden. The only time there's any additional work that may need to be done is if there's actually a set of Air Pods in the box that don't match the serial number. In that case, the system can automatically check itself for a previous and recent order of AirPods, pop up the serial number and show the person receiving the return, and they can compare just like they did when the box was scanned. This would probably take a whole 30 seconds extra, but it would be an edge case. And, as you said, unless they stand to lose this person as a customer, it won't make a damn bit of difference to Amazon whether this particular edge case doesn't work. But, then, so much for "customer obsession," right?
      - dylan604 5y ago
        The fact that literal boxes of rocks or brick make it through shows that the least bit of effort the returns department could do is not getting done. Seems hard to miss an opening of a box to find a brick/rocks rather than what is pictured on the box getting passed by anyone that actually opens the box. "Hmmm, a box of rocks. I guess Amazon does sell anything. I wonder why the customer didn't like these rocks? I guess they didn't have the original box so they used this Norelco Electric Shaver box instead" says no Amazon employee ever (too much credit??).
marban 5y ago
Just to clarify: We're not talking about small Airpods, I've bought ~2x €490 AP Max. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Despite the loss, it feels outlandish that Amazon has regulations in place to literally destroy such returns.

dylan604 5y ago

Yeah, sorry, wasn't trying to accuse that's what happened. The mistake was still on the original poster for putting the wrong item in the wrong box. I was just trying to make the conenction how Amazon could see it as potentially being scammed by claiming a return for AP1 but receiving AP2 in AP1 box. That's not the item agreed to accept as a return. Whether by mistake or knowingly, it was not what was agreed upon for the the return. What is the right thing to do? Eat the costs? Sure it's Amazon, they can afford. So let's ignore it is Amazon and think in more general and hopefully neutral tones. Is the person making the mistake willing to pay for the shipping to return the incorrect item? No? Then what is retailer suppposed to do? Put it on a shelf, or just chunk it as it is trash to them.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
I would say what you choose to do in this scenario as a retailer depends on whether you want your (now possibly former) customer going on a web site and telling thousands of people about their bad experience. Surely that's worth the cost of shipping, isn't it? Another perspective: they've made 20k orders already. Surely, over that time, they've made you enough money in retail margin to make eating the cost trivial. Even without the 20k orders, we're still talking about someone who's bought two pair of $120 earbuds. The expected lifetime value of that customer probably exceeds the shipping cost. Hell, even the gross margin on one sale probably exceeds the shipping cost. I think it's pretty clear that not only should the retailer assume it was a good faith mistake, but they should also step in to help make it right.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Okay, fair points. A company the size of Amazon will not feel the repurcussions of someone going online trying to make hay about some slight received from evilCorp (however wrongly/rightly that justification is). They just won't even notice. For a legit serious customer that made a mistake, who's going to look that up? The poor warehouse employee whose job it is to receive the returns? Do you honestly feel like these employees are taking the time to look up the returner's purchasing history? Do we think that's even a good idea for that employee to have access to that data? I'm not trying to do free work for Amazon, not that they'd ever listen to feed back from randos on a website, but there are further questions arising from this logisitcs exercise.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Who needs to look up anything? They already have to scan the box and note the serial number of the item. Most of the time, these will just match and there's nothing to be done. Likewise, the box of rocks scenario doesn't impose any additional burden. The only time there's any additional work that may need to be done is if there's actually a set of Air Pods in the box that don't match the serial number. In that case, the system can automatically check itself for a previous and recent order of AirPods, pop up the serial number and show the person receiving the return, and they can compare just like they did when the box was scanned. This would probably take a whole 30 seconds extra, but it would be an edge case. And, as you said, unless they stand to lose this person as a customer, it won't make a damn bit of difference to Amazon whether this particular edge case doesn't work. But, then, so much for "customer obsession," right?
    - dylan604 5y ago
      The fact that literal boxes of rocks or brick make it through shows that the least bit of effort the returns department could do is not getting done. Seems hard to miss an opening of a box to find a brick/rocks rather than what is pictured on the box getting passed by anyone that actually opens the box. "Hmmm, a box of rocks. I guess Amazon does sell anything. I wonder why the customer didn't like these rocks? I guess they didn't have the original box so they used this Norelco Electric Shaver box instead" says no Amazon employee ever (too much credit??).

marban 5y ago

Just to clarify: We're not talking about small Airpods, I've bought ~2x €490 AP Max. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Despite the loss, it feels outlandish that Amazon has regulations in place to literally destroy such returns.