Generally speaking, I refrain from pointing to online opinion polls because, well, they suck. However, I'm going to make an exception here because I find it astounding that 12% of some 4,000 respondents to a survey on The Consumerist apparently find nothing wrong with a practice euphemistically called "retail renting" or "wardrobing."
Retail renting and wardrobing really means short-term stealing.
Yesterday's Boston Globe carried a story that examined the practice and included unabashed tales from some doofus who apparently couldn't tell right from wrong if you handed him a cheat sheet.
Jimmy Deignan's first time was with a $500 portable DVD player.
He bought it a few years ago at Best Buy for a Boston-to-Los Angeles flight, knowing he would return it for a full refund when he got back. More recently, in November, rather than spending $600 to rent a LCD projector for a business presentation, the Holden resident purchased one at Staples, then returned it a few days later and got his money back.
The way Deignan sees it, he is just a smart shopper: He gets the things he needs, uses them for as long as he wants, and saves money. But to retailers, this is wardrobing, a practice they say is unethical, damaging to their bottom line, and increasingly common.
Oh, stop with the unethical. It's theft, plain and simple. The only difference between this kind of theft and your run-of-the-mill five-fingered discount is the duration of use derived from the ill-gotten gains.
Bet Mr. and Mrs. Deignan were proud to read about their boy.
Which isn't to say ol' Sticky-fingered Jimmy is the only one doing this without remorse. The vast majority of those posting comments to The Consumerist item were clear-headed in their opposition and disdain. But there were a few of these:
Er...depends on how you view things as right and wrong. Some people, myself included, don't see this as wrong because it's within the return guidelines, it's playing by the rules. However, it's wrong in the sense that you buy it knowing full well you're returning it. Perhaps when a restocking fee is required for items like a computer, one would gladly pay this "rental fee". I do this. It's wrong in a sense because you know in advance you're just going to return it, but I wouldn't feel bad about it because someone else can and will still buy it so the retailer isn't out any money.
Proving once again that rationalization can be enormously powerful.
But at least that guy was wrestling with the issue. Over at another forum, on Reddit, I found this beauty:
Depends on who you're 'renting' from. I wouldn't do it from smaller businesses. I call fair game on larger corporations, though, because I believe those are the ones that need to fall.
Want change? Fight for it. Use the large corporations' policies against them.
See, it's not just OK, it's your patriotic duty.
So go ahead and feel free to defend "retail renting" or "wardrobing" or whatever other fig leaf you'd like to put on the practice here.
Just be sure to leave your real name so Mom and Dad can be proud ... and I can call you a doofus.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
Stallman relinquishing reins of GNU Emacs after 32 years.
Confessions of a Caller-ID spoofer.
Google renames the Persian Gulf.
Wikileaks.org pummeled into darkness.
Get $500 just for going on a job interview. (No, really.)
Scott Adams on giving away Dilbert via widget: 'risky,' but 'fun'
My brother's brush with Vespa bandits.
Top 10 Buzzblog posts for '07: Verizon's there, of course, along with Gates, Wikipedia and the guy who lost a girlfriend to Blackberry's blackout.
|
|
That's how laissez faire works
I read this article with some unintended humor seeping into my cranium where my world exists in its entirety.
Here's a guy who's complaining about the effect of consumers taking advantage of the way the system works. The author though is really just howling at consumers about impositions placed upon business by the credit card companies that enforce return policies that allow the practices described in the article to occur.
It's hilarious the author thinks this is stealing.
Does he really think every sale should turn a profit in his bizarre world that exists only between his ears?
Is it stealing when a company advertises a five year warranty, and then requires the consumer to pay freight there and back to get a product replaced, effectively negating the value of the warranty?
Is it stealing when a company sells a consumer a product they know causes brain cancer, oral cancer, or lung cancer?
No. I don't think anyone is stealing anything either in the article or in the examples of my comment.
As the ancient Roman saying states, caveat emptor. What "buyer beware" means is, you're in a battle with the purveyor here. Get the best deal you can, because if you don't, you'll be the loser.
And stop whining when you get beat too. Caveat emptor applies equally to store-owning consumers who purchase credit card services from a credit card company too.
Just try and rein in the return policy, and watch what the credit card companies do to your system of computerized credit sales.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Hmmm
Well, please enlighten us brainless peons as to how purchasing an item, and returning it, is theft? How exactly is following the stores return policy theft?
How is this any different from me improperly investigating something I purchased, and returning it when it does not fit my demands?
Do intentions count as a crime? Well, if you are an american the answer, sadly enough, is yes.
But according to the same logic, ripping my legally purchased CD to mp3 is illegal, and the record labels and RIAA are pushing for that.
Is it? No, it's my legal right. Do they lose money? Possibly, as instead of purchasing the song TWICE, I purchased it once and exercised my legal right to convert it.
How is this different? How is this the fault of the consumer? How the hell is it theft, when you exchange money for the product, and return the product in exchange for your money back (or a portion of)?
Blindly yelling and acting like a child is great to get hits on your little blog here, but doesn't address the situation. Maybe you should direct your irrational hatred towards the stores with lax return policies, or no questions asked policies.
Here's something to actually get angered over:
When you purchase most electionic devices, you are merely renting them, as you are not allowed to modify, open, fix, tweak, investiage your purchased technology. In some cases, simply opening and checking out the internal components can get you fined or jailed.
Complain to the stores, don't complain about something that DOESN'T affect you at all, if anything, you get an open box discount and save some $$$$.
Grow up.
Weasels
What pisses me off is that people who abuse the system like this will make it that much harder in the future for people who need to make legitimate returns. Already a great company like Costco, known for its generous return policy, had to tighten things up because of the abusers. So screw you, all you thieving weasels. Show a little integrity.
Is it stealing?
Frankly who gives a fu**?? I dont.. In the case of musicians, actors and the RIAA and MPAA.. do I get my money back if you produce a bullsh** excuse for a movie where all the best scenes are in the trailer? nope.. so who got robbed here?? if you dont want people to copy and download your works THEN DONT MAKE THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO MAKE IT WORK FOR THEM!! as for wardrobing, hey I needed that suit for a wedding and I got laid to boot! but I aint ever gonna wear it again so why not take it back?? hahahaha! I love america!!
Philosopher Schmilosopher
"The American Philosopher" doesn't even know the meaning of Laissez Faire, which simply means -- from businesses to government, "leave us alone," i.e. don't regulate us or pass legislation to control or benefit us. That's how an economy works best. It has nothing to do with the practice of a consumer taking something, using it, and returning it for full price. That IS stealing. Why? Because the consumer got the USE of a good which HE DIDN'T PAY FOR. If the store agreed to LOAN it to him, no problem. But that is NOT the understanding of the store. Furthermore, the consumer who does this has also stolen some of the value of the good from the next person who buys, if they pay the full price for a new, unused good.
"The Philosopher," who should really call himself "The Sophist," says "Is it stealing when a company advertises a five year warranty, and then requires the consumer to pay freight there and back to get a product replaced, effectively negating the value of the warranty? ... Is it stealing when a company sells a consumer a product they know causes brain cancer, oral cancer, or lung cancer?"
1. It is NOT stealing to advertise a 5-yr warranty and require the customer to send you the product to exercise the warranty. That is merely the terms of the contract, to which a consumer agrees. They two parties agree on how they will handle a future problem with the product.
2. What company sells a product THEY KNOW causes brain cancer, etc.? Companies sell products that are a) not illegal, and b) in demand. Since the products they sell are not illegal, unless deliberate fraud enters into play, the buyer assumes the responsibility for the potential hazards of use. But this is a fallacious argument, because the consumers who are stealing WANT to use the products, they DO NOT CARE if those products cause cancer or whatever. They USE THE PRODUCTS for free, regardless of effect, and so are stealing. That is what is at issue.
If a person wishes to use a good for a short while, and wants to pay less than the full price of the good for that short-term use, he can accomplish his desire to use it for the short term by reselling that good to another person for lesser value than he paid for it. Otherwise, he forces the company to lose value, or the next consumer, to lose value, and hence the value of the good has been transferrred to him from them, with no corresponding value offered by him to either party. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF STEALING.
.... terms of contract
Just like you said about the 5 year warranty, the return policy is a contract also. Its on the reciept just like a regular in store warranty which is agreed apon by both the buyer and seller. I don't necessarily agree with "retail renting" and have never done it myself but yes it is in the contract to be able to return it so no harm, no foul.
theft
Exploiting a liberal return policy may be morally wrong, but it is not theft. Theft is a legal term, and the only way you could prosecute someone for this would be to discover their thoughts and offer those transitory electrical impulses as evidence in court. Businesses commit these sorts of "crimes" all the time - ever waited three months for a rebate check that could have been processed in a week? Profiting from deficiencies in the rules while obeying them may indicate a moral weakness, but it is not a criminal offense.
qoute "That IS stealing.
qoute "That IS stealing. Why? Because the consumer got the USE of a good which HE DIDN'T PAY FOR. If the store agreed to LOAN it to him, no problem. But that is NOT the understanding of the store."
Wrong. He did pay for it. The store bought it back from him, which was the agreement they made via their return policy.
The store has agreed to allow the customer use of the product for whatever reason. The store has agreed to negate the transaction for any reason the customer is dissatisfied. It is a fair exchange both ways. Unless the customer has signed a waiver that disallows this particular practise, he's done nothing wrong. If he had he would be guilty of fraud, but in no way is this theft.
Smack the dirty corporations back.
Is it a dirty practice? Sure.
But reading through the news and blogosphere during the past couple of years I can't help but notice even dirtier practices by Best Buy, Walmart and others.
Best Buy, for example, had an internal company website to show customers what the "internet price" on their products was. The problem with this was that Best Buy INTENTIONALLY used this secondary website to mislead customers, it show HIGHER PRICES than the real, internet, website.
Walmart crushes small retailers in the communities they push into, often selling products at a loss to drive competition under. They contract with manufacturers for very large orders, then before the order is delivered bully a lower price, knowing that the increases made in production capacity mean the manufacturer must capitulate. They have also been caught forcing workers to work unpaid hours.
This sounds like a great way to strike back against dirty big box stores whose business ethics are surely no better than what the wrong these customers are supposedly doing. They say two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps this is just the free market at work.
Mega Corporations get NO sympathy from me
They overprice their practically disposable electronic products anyway - thanks to a patent and copyright system that is STACKED against consumers.
They get what they deserve and notwithstanding your whining to the contrary - it's perfectly legal.