12 ms·

> So I bought both - confident that I would return whichever one was inferior or the more expensive one if the cheaper one showed up on time. And people wonder

> So I bought both - confident that I would return whichever one was inferior or the more expensive one if the cheaper one showed up on time. And people wonder why there's global warming.

coderdude 14y ago
Global warming aside, what a pain in the ass customer. He was decided from the get-go that he would be a customer service issue for Amazon. @jason_shah There are worse things to be than a pain in the ass customer, so please don't think of this as an insult to your character.
- crdoconnor 14y ago
  They got some good PR out of it though.
- jason_shah 14y ago
  No offense taken. Your point is fair. I do think this should be a calculated cost of business for Amazon, and I would buy less on Amazon if I didn't have the convenience that's offered to me by occasionally ordering similar items and expecting to most likely return one without a hassle. That being said, I honestly didn't think all that much of the broader economic and environmental impact of my consumer behavior in this case and appreciate the comments reminding me of it. Thanks.
- polyfractal 14y ago
  To be fair, you could easily see this as one of Amazon's "features", much like Zappos. Everyone orders from Zappos knowing that they can not only return shoes for free, but that it is usually encouraged to buy several and return the ones you don't want. While Amazon isn't quite so blatant about that "feature", their incredibly awesome customer support, zero-hassle returns encourage this kind of behavior...effectively making it a feature. And to be honest, it's an awesome feature.
  - gav 14y ago
    I often wonder if Amazon's acquisitions of Zappos and Quidsi (Diapers.com, Soap.com, etc.) are simply to experiment with different "features" without risking changes to Amazon.com.
- mikeryan 14y ago
  Serving the customer does not equal a customer service issue. Amazon and most online retailers (at least the good ones) fully realize that they're going to have high return rates and account for customers doing exactly what Jason did (my wife does it regularly). This is a cost of doing business. You're competing against brick and mortar stores where people can go in and touch and see the actual product before they walk out with it. Would Amazon prefer it didn't happen? Sure, but Macy's and Barnes and Noble would prefer not to have to pay rent and hire retail employees too.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  He's likely the customer they want after all. There must be some delicate balance between "buys 2 bags and returns one" and "buys zero bags because returns are a pita". If anyone knows this balance, its Amazon.
jason_shah 14y ago
Yes - you're both right. I am flawed and should improve. That being said this is just an honest account of an experience.
- waffle_ss 14y ago
  Not just environmentally but also the small cost that you are passing on to everyone else that buys from Amazon by making them handle the return. If everyone shopped at Amazon this way, they wouldn't be able to sell their goods as cheaply as they do. Please consider using a brick and mortar store to physically compare products first. Amazon has a nice mobile app that lets you purchase an item very quickly by just scanning the barcode (using the mobile's camera). Obviously not a big deal as a one-off, but if this is a consistent shopping habit I would really hope you reconsider it.
  - jason_shah 14y ago
    Good point. Certainly will reconsider this practice in the future. Thanks for pointing this out.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    How about if you use "a brick and mortar store to physically compare products first", you buy the item in the brick and mortar store. They already shipped the item, so you are not hurting the environment further by wasting energy getting another one to you. If everyone shopped at "brick and mortar stores" this way, they would close. People in your community would be fired, and you wouldn't be able to compare products personally. Obviously not a big deal as a one-off, but if this is a consistent shopping habit I would really hope you reconsider it.
    - waffle_ss 14y ago
      I don't actually shop that way, I take my chances based on Amazon ratings (not a hard thing as I buy mostly electronics and media). My only direct concern is that he keeps Amazon prices low for my own benefit. I don't really see the point in artificially trying to keep business models afloat that can't compete. If anything, it's harmful to the free market. It might warm your heart a bit, but the overall benefit to society is to cast your vote (your $) for the most efficient business method.
shalmanese 14y ago
Shipping packages is actually pretty environmentally friendly. The alternative would have been to drive a 2000 lb vehicle a couple of miles to pick up a 1 lb garment bag, making 0.05% of the total weight the payload. The other 99.95% of the fuel is going towards moving deadweight back and forth. Shipping usually aims to hit anywhere from 10 - 90% payload, greatly increasing the efficiency by which carbon is used. I did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations a while back that showed driving to the grocery store used roughly as much carbon as shipping everything you were buying from New Zealand.
- morsch 14y ago
  Of course what's even more efficient is shipping to a network of distribution centers which are in walking distance for most people, reachable by mass transit by others and reachable during trips that would have happened anyway for the rest.
  - culturestate 14y ago
    Do you mean that we would pick up from a large warehouse, or that the warehouse would ship orders to central distribution points?
    - EvilTerran 14y ago
      I think morsch means supermarkets, farmers' markets, high streets, and shopping malls.
  - sneak 14y ago
    You assume that waking productive human time (spent walking to/from the distribution center, or waiting for mass transit connections) is worth absolutely nothing. It's the scarcest resource of all of this.
    - morsch 14y ago
      I didn't assume that, I simply didn't discuss it. I was replying to the grandparent which refers to environmental issues.
kika 14y ago
I wonder not why, but where it is.

> So I bought both - confident that I would return whichever one was inferior or the more expensive one if the cheaper one showed up on time. And people wonder why there's global warming.

coderdude 14y ago

Global warming aside, what a pain in the ass customer. He was decided from the get-go that he would be a customer service issue for Amazon. @jason_shah There are worse things to be than a pain in the ass customer, so please don't think of this as an insult to your character.

crdoconnor 14y ago
They got some good PR out of it though.
jason_shah 14y ago
No offense taken. Your point is fair. I do think this should be a calculated cost of business for Amazon, and I would buy less on Amazon if I didn't have the convenience that's offered to me by occasionally ordering similar items and expecting to most likely return one without a hassle. That being said, I honestly didn't think all that much of the broader economic and environmental impact of my consumer behavior in this case and appreciate the comments reminding me of it. Thanks.
polyfractal 14y ago
To be fair, you could easily see this as one of Amazon's "features", much like Zappos. Everyone orders from Zappos knowing that they can not only return shoes for free, but that it is usually encouraged to buy several and return the ones you don't want. While Amazon isn't quite so blatant about that "feature", their incredibly awesome customer support, zero-hassle returns encourage this kind of behavior...effectively making it a feature. And to be honest, it's an awesome feature.
- gav 14y ago
  I often wonder if Amazon's acquisitions of Zappos and Quidsi (Diapers.com, Soap.com, etc.) are simply to experiment with different "features" without risking changes to Amazon.com.
mikeryan 14y ago
Serving the customer does not equal a customer service issue. Amazon and most online retailers (at least the good ones) fully realize that they're going to have high return rates and account for customers doing exactly what Jason did (my wife does it regularly). This is a cost of doing business. You're competing against brick and mortar stores where people can go in and touch and see the actual product before they walk out with it. Would Amazon prefer it didn't happen? Sure, but Macy's and Barnes and Noble would prefer not to have to pay rent and hire retail employees too.
noonespecial 14y ago
He's likely the customer they want after all. There must be some delicate balance between "buys 2 bags and returns one" and "buys zero bags because returns are a pita". If anyone knows this balance, its Amazon.

jason_shah 14y ago

Yes - you're both right. I am flawed and should improve. That being said this is just an honest account of an experience.

waffle_ss 14y ago
Not just environmentally but also the small cost that you are passing on to everyone else that buys from Amazon by making them handle the return. If everyone shopped at Amazon this way, they wouldn't be able to sell their goods as cheaply as they do. Please consider using a brick and mortar store to physically compare products first. Amazon has a nice mobile app that lets you purchase an item very quickly by just scanning the barcode (using the mobile's camera). Obviously not a big deal as a one-off, but if this is a consistent shopping habit I would really hope you reconsider it.
- jason_shah 14y ago
  Good point. Certainly will reconsider this practice in the future. Thanks for pointing this out.
- protomyth 14y ago
  How about if you use "a brick and mortar store to physically compare products first", you buy the item in the brick and mortar store. They already shipped the item, so you are not hurting the environment further by wasting energy getting another one to you. If everyone shopped at "brick and mortar stores" this way, they would close. People in your community would be fired, and you wouldn't be able to compare products personally. Obviously not a big deal as a one-off, but if this is a consistent shopping habit I would really hope you reconsider it.
  - waffle_ss 14y ago
    I don't actually shop that way, I take my chances based on Amazon ratings (not a hard thing as I buy mostly electronics and media). My only direct concern is that he keeps Amazon prices low for my own benefit. I don't really see the point in artificially trying to keep business models afloat that can't compete. If anything, it's harmful to the free market. It might warm your heart a bit, but the overall benefit to society is to cast your vote (your $) for the most efficient business method.

shalmanese 14y ago

Shipping packages is actually pretty environmentally friendly. The alternative would have been to drive a 2000 lb vehicle a couple of miles to pick up a 1 lb garment bag, making 0.05% of the total weight the payload. The other 99.95% of the fuel is going towards moving deadweight back and forth. Shipping usually aims to hit anywhere from 10 - 90% payload, greatly increasing the efficiency by which carbon is used. I did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations a while back that showed driving to the grocery store used roughly as much carbon as shipping everything you were buying from New Zealand.

morsch 14y ago
Of course what's even more efficient is shipping to a network of distribution centers which are in walking distance for most people, reachable by mass transit by others and reachable during trips that would have happened anyway for the rest.
- culturestate 14y ago
  Do you mean that we would pick up from a large warehouse, or that the warehouse would ship orders to central distribution points?
  - EvilTerran 14y ago
    I think morsch means supermarkets, farmers' markets, high streets, and shopping malls.
- sneak 14y ago
  You assume that waking productive human time (spent walking to/from the distribution center, or waiting for mass transit connections) is worth absolutely nothing. It's the scarcest resource of all of this.
  - morsch 14y ago
    I didn't assume that, I simply didn't discuss it. I was replying to the grandparent which refers to environmental issues.

kika 14y ago

I wonder not why, but where it is.