3 ms·

I think there's an objective reason for the buyer to prefer that the shipping cost be baked-in. In the case of a problem with the product, such that I get a ref

I think there's an objective reason for the buyer to prefer that the shipping cost be baked-in. In the case of a problem with the product, such that I get a refund, I'll be getting back the cost of the shipping as well. If the cost were separate, then I'd have to eat that loss.

masfuerte 3y ago
In the UK and Europe you are entitled to be reimbursed for the shipping if there's a problem with the product. In my experience, they won't volunteer it so you need to ask.
graphe 3y ago
I bought a $10 item with $10 shipping on eBay; it was broken. Offered a refund of the product, not the shipping and I'd have to eat shipping. All that for basically $5. Always get free shipping!
sicromoft 3y ago
There's no such thing as a free lunch, regardless of how you distribute the costs. If a seller is refunding the cost of shipping on returns, they are passing that cost on to you in some other way (higher prices, membership fees, etc). You could make the argument that if you return items more often than the average customer, your share of those costs may be getting subsidized by the customers who return items less often. But if you return items less often, you're probably worse off.
- massysett 3y ago
  No, in a competitive market they are not necessarily “passing that cost on.” For instance, an online retailer must compete with bricks-and-mortar stores. At local stores, all shipping and returns are free. If online retailer’s price is too high, it might simply lose the sale. Its price, including shipping, must compete with the price at the store. I hear this “passing the cost on” argument all the time and it always presumes that the consumer is the only cost taker. It forgets that costs can also get passed to someone else: the shareholders, in the form of lower profits.

3 ms·

I think there's an objective reason for the buyer to prefer that the shipping cost be baked-in. In the case of a problem with the product, such that I get a ref

by CWuestefeld 3y ago

masfuerte 3y ago
In the UK and Europe you are entitled to be reimbursed for the shipping if there's a problem with the product. In my experience, they won't volunteer it so you need to ask.
graphe 3y ago
I bought a $10 item with $10 shipping on eBay; it was broken. Offered a refund of the product, not the shipping and I'd have to eat shipping. All that for basically $5. Always get free shipping!
sicromoft 3y ago
There's no such thing as a free lunch, regardless of how you distribute the costs. If a seller is refunding the cost of shipping on returns, they are passing that cost on to you in some other way (higher prices, membership fees, etc). You could make the argument that if you return items more often than the average customer, your share of those costs may be getting subsidized by the customers who return items less often. But if you return items less often, you're probably worse off.
- massysett 3y ago
  No, in a competitive market they are not necessarily “passing that cost on.” For instance, an online retailer must compete with bricks-and-mortar stores. At local stores, all shipping and returns are free. If online retailer’s price is too high, it might simply lose the sale. Its price, including shipping, must compete with the price at the store. I hear this “passing the cost on” argument all the time and it always presumes that the consumer is the only cost taker. It forgets that costs can also get passed to someone else: the shareholders, in the form of lower profits.