Unethical ways to save money

[Davnasty]

When paying by the pound for fancy organic broccoli, break off the stalks and leave them in the store.  Expert mode: oranges, bananas.

When buying bananas at Trader Joe's, or anywhere else you pay per piece, break apart the bunches of bananas and take the biggest ones, leave the small ones.  If you need a lot of bananas, break off the big ones from several bunches and leave all the small ones.

I do this with cabbage, break the outer leaves off if they don't look edible. Judging by the pile of leaves next to the cabbage where I shop, I'm not the only one.

Broccoli on the other hand, we eat the stems.

Peeling your bananas in the store would be next level. Be prepared to get indignant when they question you. "What, you think I'm gonna pay for the peels?! Don't be ridiculous."

[Dicey]

So, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.

So he has to hide behind drawn curtains at home for five days? What ever happened to choosing a conference in an exotic locale and coming home with a tan?

[DadJokes]

broccoli stalks taste great - just chop them up and cook them

so, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.

So...stealing from the company with a side of tax fraud? At least it fits with the title of the thread ;)

[sherr]

Credit card companies used to have sign up bonuses all the time. Apply for a new credit card, spend $500-$1000 in the first X days and then get a $200 cash back.

I'd put the money towards paying bills, await my cash back, pay off the balance and then immediately cancel the card. Not sure if that's unethical but I did it till the companies wised up. I still do it with Amex cards when they have really good sign-on points bonuses.

Not even remotely unethical IMO. Banks / Credit Card companies do this because they know that the biggest barrier to getting people to give them money is making them go through the initial steps of bothering to open an account. They know that a good number of people will just be in it to grab the bonus; they also know that a good number of people will stick around and continue to use their services. In fact they know almost exactly what the proportion of those people will be, and how much money they will make on average for a given promotion.

Both you and the CC company are entering into the agreement with eyes wide open. You are fulfilling your contractual obligations. There is no fraud from either side.

Not unethical.

[bluebelle]

broccoli stalks taste great - just chop them up and cook them

so, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.

So...stealing from the company with a side of tax fraud? At least it fits with the title of the thread ;)

I had the same thought....from the original post, it was unclear if the company paid for the conference as well (so double fraud if submitting the receipt on their taxes). 

[Sanitary Stache]

I skipped ahead because this thread has blown up, so I don't know if these have been shared.

Amazon told us not to send back the baby formula we tried to return, but still gave us the refund. This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon.

Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.

Mix and match the way too large plastic containers of herbs at the grocery store to get a usable amount of multiple herbs and the selection desired.  These herb containers always result in wasted food.

[dragoncar]

I skipped ahead because this thread has blown up, so I don't know if these have been shared.

Amazon told us not to send back the baby formula we tried to return, but still gave us the refund. This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon.

Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.

Mix and match the way too large plastic containers of herbs at the grocery store to get a usable amount of multiple herbs and the selection desired.  These herb containers always result in wasted food.

I’ve got a bunch I of crap I don’t want from amazon for this reason. I guess my problem is I’m always trying to return something because in person I realize it’s not what I needed.  So I’ve got some trimmer string, plumbers putty, a funnel... all the wrong size or whatever.  I gueSs some day it could come in handy but for now it’s just taking up garage space

[Psychstache]

Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!

Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?.  I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.

I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month).  The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month.  I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime.  It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.

I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones.  It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.

Car insurance often does it the same way, at least in the US.

Yep.  Still fucked up.  You're telling your established clientele that they're worthless, unless they quit your service.  Then you'll care about them.

SiriusXM Satellite Radio does the exact same thing. They won't offer you a lower subscription rate unless you threaten to leave their service. The best way around that problem is to buy someone's used satellite radio with lifetime subscription off eBay. Then, after a year or two's service meets the cost of the radio, you get satellite radio for "free" for the lifetime of the unit.

Or every megacorp that will only offer a raise when you tell them you are leaving for a new position with better pay.

[dragoncar]

I really thought I read about some country making it illegal to discriminate against existing customers by offering a lower rate to new customers, but I can’t find any reference.  Was it a dream?

[carolina822]

Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.

I feel like I'm missing something here. If the used clothes are in new enough condition for the store to take them back, why not just wear them and not bother with going to the store twice?

[G-String]

The Chinese buffet I sometimes go to has the option of a take home container instead of eating in the restaurant.  What I do is load up the container with meat and make rice at home.  The take-home buffet costs $10.99 and I suspect I am getting way more meat than that. 

[MilesTeg]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

[ecchastang]

The Chinese buffet I sometimes go to has the option of a take home container instead of eating in the restaurant.  What I do is load up the container with meat and make rice at home.  The take-home buffet costs $10.99 and I suspect I am getting way more meat than that.

To me this seems smart, not necessarily unethical.  You purchased take home buffet and selected only the items on the buffet you want to take home. 

[force majeure]

I read about some hack with ordering on Amazon - you order what you want, then add a couple of dover thrift edition books, to bring it over the limit for free postage. Maybe this already known about, by the pros on here.

[solon]

I read about some hack with ordering on Amazon - you order what you want, then add a couple of dover thrift edition books, to bring it over the limit for free postage. Maybe this already known about, by the pros on here.

I don't get it. Why do they have to be dover thrift edition books? Couldn't you buy anything you want that would put you over the limit? But then you're not really hacking anything, you're just doing exactly what Amazon wanted you to do.

[Davnasty]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?

[solon]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?

Yes, and one of the factors in the equation is the amount of theft.

[dragoncar]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

Who's ripping off Amazon now?

[MilesTeg]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?

They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)

(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)

[WhiteTrashCash]

When I was a desperate poor kid up on Hillbilly Mountain, I used to gather up scrap that had fallen out of the recycling bins at the scrappers onto the ground outside the yard and then resell it for a little money. Another kid I knew went too far with it and actually went into the bin itself to take scrap to sell. I stopped gleaning the scrap when I saw how reckless the kid was being. A couple weeks later, I read on the newspaper Police Blotter that he had been caught and given a hefty fine for it.

Moral of the Story: Don't take chances with illegal activity.

[Davnasty]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?

They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)

(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)

But do they determine their prices based on a margin target or based on the price which optimizes profits?

As with this graph, wouldn't they want to price this product at $160 regardless of how many are stolen?

[Dicey]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

You do realize that this is a just for fun thread? I don't think anybody is advocating ripping off anyone. I find this thread useful because I appreciate how creative some people are and how people many ways people define what's unethical. A couple of posts have really made me think, which is good. It's always good to review one's ethics and personal moral code. That way, if temptation arises, I already know how I'm going to respond. Automating everything is a key mustachian principal, isn't it? No need to chastise anyone here.

[theSlowTurtle]

Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!

Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?.  I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.

I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month).  The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month.  I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime.  It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.

I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones.  It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.

I agree, on the phone I was trying to get her to meet me in the middle of the $77 and $40 number, but she said she couldn't do it. Also as far as I can tell from the agreement the 12-month discount of $15 is the only discount that expires. There are literally $50 in other discounts that don't have an expiration date

[Sanitary Stache]

Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.

I feel like I'm missing something here. If the used clothes are in new enough condition for the store to take them back, why not just wear them and not bother with going to the store twice?

The clothing manufacturer wouldn't make an exchange without proof of purchase, but the department store couldn't tell the difference.  In this case the used clothes were the wrong size or had ripped. 

[ecchastang]

I have a friend who reuses starbucks cups on road trips.  He will just walk in and hand them the cup asking for a refill.  Refills are free with the starbucks app for while you are in the same store.  He says 9 out of 10 times, they give him the free refill, and maybe 1 out of 10 they just give him the 10 cent discount for bringing your own cup.

[skp]

Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.

I feel like I'm missing something here. If the used clothes are in new enough condition for the store to take them back, why not just wear them and not bother with going to the store twice?

The clothing manufacturer wouldn't make an exchange without proof of purchase, but the department store couldn't tell the difference.  In this case the used clothes were the wrong size or had ripped. 

I don't do a lot of on line shopping, especially for clothes. You are always risking that things won't fit.  My husband bought me a shirt from Duluth trading company that didn't fit.  It cost use money to return it.  Even if there are free returns, returning things requires time and gas.  So I personally don't think buying something used  that you can't tell the difference of AND buying something new and doing a switch JUST to save money is saving money.  Whether or not I think it's ethical.  I can fix a torn seam cheaper and quicker than spending tima and money driving to the post office

[MilesTeg]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

You do realize that this is a just for fun thread? I don't think anybody is advocating ripping off anyone. I find this thread useful because I appreciate how creative some people are and how people many ways people define what's unethical. A couple of posts have really made me think, which is good. It's always good to review one's ethics and personal moral code. That way, if temptation arises, I already know how I'm going to respond. Automating everything is a key mustachian principal, isn't it? No need to chastise anyone here.

Reading most of this thread, it's pretty clear many of the posters here aren't speaking just hypothetically. And I'm not talking about creative things that exist in a grey area of ethics,  I'm talking about straight up criminal activity.

[Just Joe]

I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones.  It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.

THIS! We've canceled a service, waited for a few days and then restarted a service just to get the reduced rate. I've also threatened to quit a service just to get the newcomers rate. Its worked a couple of times.

[MilesTeg]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?

They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)

(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)

But do they determine their prices based on a margin target or based on the price which optimizes profits?

As with this graph, wouldn't they want to price this product at $160 regardless of how many are stolen?

Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).

[Davnasty]

...

Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).

Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?

The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.

[Boofinator]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?

They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)

(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)

But do they determine their prices based on a margin target or based on the price which optimizes profits?

As with this graph, wouldn't they want to price this product at $160 regardless of how many are stolen?

The red line in your graph, "Product Costs", includes the costs due to theft. When that line goes up, "Gross Profits" necessarily goes down, but whether the peak moves left or right is debatable. Unit demand may also decrease. Regardless, these businesses need to be profitable, therefore costs must increase (and perhaps they increase too much and start falling on the decreasing side of the profits curve, and end up sliding down that curve all the way to bankruptcy).

[Davnasty]

...

The red line in your graph, "Product Costs", includes the costs due to theft. When that line goes up, "Gross Profits" necessarily goes down, but whether the peak moves left or right is debatable. Unit demand may also decrease. Regardless, these businesses need to be profitable, therefore costs must increase (and perhaps they increase too much and start falling on the decreasing side of the profits curve, and end up sliding down that curve all the way to bankruptcy).

I agree there are probably reasonable arguments behind the idea that theft increases prices, but it depends on a lot of factors including current margins, market saturation, and what kind of product it is. Those arguments are much less direct than "retailers increase price to compensate for loss".

The loss of demand due to theft is an interesting angle I hadn't considered. If you steal it, why would you buy it?

[MilesTeg]

...

Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).

Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?

The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.

Going back to my statement, retailers look for overall profitability. If theft reduces the profitability of item A (and thus overall profitability), they will look to recoup their losses by raising the prices of other items. Which items? The items with an inelastic demand (which may or may not include the items being stolen).

[dragoncar]

I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.

You do realize that this is a just for fun thread? I don't think anybody is advocating ripping off anyone. I find this thread useful because I appreciate how creative some people are and how people many ways people define what's unethical. A couple of posts have really made me think, which is good. It's always good to review one's ethics and personal moral code. That way, if temptation arises, I already know how I'm going to respond. Automating everything is a key mustachian principal, isn't it? No need to chastise anyone here.

Reading most of this thread, it's pretty clear many of the posters here aren't speaking just hypothetically. And I'm not talking about creative things that exist in a grey area of ethics,  I'm talking about straight up criminal activity.

I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened

[merula]

I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened

Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".

[bluebelle]

I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened

Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".

The poster did not come out and say it, but the inference I got was that they ordered baby formula from Amazon and then returned it with the expectation being that they would get a refund and still get to keep the product.   This is different that ordering something, realizing it was wrong and then being stuck with it because Amazon doesn't want it returned and you don't want to throw out a perfectly good but wrong item.
I would expect that a company the size and success of Amazon has a pretty extensive data warehouse and analytics functionality that would flag customers that order the same thing multiple times and then try to return it for a refund.  I would expect that those would be the customers they would have ship things back even if not cost effective, to deter the practice.   I would never underestimate a company's ability to churn data and derive patterns.

[Sanitary Stache]

This thread is definitely useful for flushing out how unethical you think something is and for additional perspective if something is theft or fraud.

[PoutineLover]

I don't think it's unethical to keep things that you legitimately aren't required to return, but I think it crosses a line to purposely order things and return them in the hopes that you will get to keep them. Bonus points if you resell them at a profit afterwards. I doubt it would work over and over from the same company though.
A loophole I have noticed is that you can message many companies about an issue with their product, and they will send you a voucher for something new. I've gotten free deodorant, ice cream, fruit snacks, water filters and a bike lock by doing this. I don't consider what I did unethical, because I didn't lie about any product defects.
For the unethical version, if you want to rip off companies and get free stuff, send an email to their customer support and complain about something you bought.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

[bluebelle]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

true dat!   More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that?  It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....

[ecchastang]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

true dat!   More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that?  It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....

I feel like cell phones are made with some sort of 2 yr self destruct function to force you to upgrade. 

[Sanitary Stache]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

L.L. Beans new policy is self defeating.  I have incredible brand loyalty to Patagonia because of their return policy.  I bring new customers to Patagonia every year and reinforce other customers opinion of them constantly.  There is solid data supporting a generous return policy as the most effective marketing strategy out there for clothing companies.

Of course Patagonia has other redeeming qualities, but it is their return policy that convinces me to actually buy at their premium.

[SwordGuy]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

true dat!   More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that?  It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....

Capitalist countries used to conquer other lands in order to control markets for their goods.

Then they discovered planned obsolescence, in which they can get new markets simply by building things that wear out.

It was a major key to reducing world tensions and warfare.   

Count your blessings.  You or yours might otherwise be called on to die in some 3rd world country so we could sell more Frigidaire's there.

[Dicey]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

That's a pretty big assumption. I worked at Nordstrom for ten years. You know, the company who took back a tire because the business that owned the building before they did sold tires. Yeah, I fucking hate doing returns. I used to support Lands' End* and LL Bean generously in their heydays. I don't agree that forumites are any more or less responsible for the changes. I'd wager it's far less, simply because we don't buy as much.

*I once gave my sister a LE sweater I'd purchased but rarely worn. She noticed where it was from and took advantage of the return policy to get a refund! It pissed me off. It wasn't a gift, it was just a sweater I didn't particularly like that she said she did. I wouldn't have handed it down to her If I'd guessed she would do that.

[dragoncar]

Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.

That's a pretty big assumption. I worked at Nordstrom for ten years. You know, the company who took back a tire because the business that owned the building before they did sold tires. Yeah, I fucking hate doing returns. I used to support Lands' End* and LL Bean generously in their heydays. I don't agree that forumites are any more or less responsible for the changes. I'd wager it's far less, simply because we don't buy as much.

*I once gave my sister a LE sweater I'd purchased but rarely worn. She noticed where it was from and took advantage of the return policy to get a refund! It pissed me off. It wasn't a gift, it was just a sweater I didn't particularly like that she said she did. I wouldn't have handed it down to her If I'd guessed she would do that.

Does Bed Bath & Beyond still have an unlimited return policy?  I've got some stuff for the house 5 years ago that have broken or degraded.  This is stuff I paid a premium for with the expectation it would have a longer lifespan.  Is it unethical to return even though it's far outside the time frame most people would be comfortable with?

[dragoncar]

I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened

Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".

The poster did not come out and say it, but the inference I got was that they ordered baby formula from Amazon and then returned it with the expectation being that they would get a refund and still get to keep the product.   This is different that ordering something, realizing it was wrong and then being stuck with it because Amazon doesn't want it returned and you don't want to throw out a perfectly good but wrong item.
I would expect that a company the size and success of Amazon has a pretty extensive data warehouse and analytics functionality that would flag customers that order the same thing multiple times and then try to return it for a refund.  I would expect that those would be the customers they would have ship things back even if not cost effective, to deter the practice.   I would never underestimate a company's ability to churn data and derive patterns.

I guess you can infer what you will, but to my reading the phrase "This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon." implies that the poster did not originally return the item with the intention of obtaining the item for free.  Instead, it seems that they wanted to return something they didn't want and various times have been told not to send it back.  Sure, they are suggesting that someone nefarious could take advantage of that (that's the point of this thread), but I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt that wasn't their intent.

[Seadog]

...

Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).

Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?

The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.

Going back to my statement, retailers look for overall profitability. If theft reduces the profitability of item A (and thus overall profitability), they will look to recoup their losses by raising the prices of other items. Which items? The items with an inelastic demand (which may or may not include the items being stolen).

Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.

So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive). 

On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.

I'm of a mixed mind about this. He didn't set the rules or invent the game, he's just playing it to his maximum advantage.

[DadJokes]

...

Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).

Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?

The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.

Going back to my statement, retailers look for overall profitability. If theft reduces the profitability of item A (and thus overall profitability), they will look to recoup their losses by raising the prices of other items. Which items? The items with an inelastic demand (which may or may not include the items being stolen).

Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.

So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive). 

On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.

I'm of a mixed mind about this. He didn't set the rules or invent the game, he's just playing it to his maximum advantage.

I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.

[Seadog]

I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.

I looked into it once because the 3% CC surcharge is ubiquitous in Europe. It turns out that the CC merchant agreement in North America specifically forbids them to do this, presumably because it wold naturally mean less business for the CC companies. If such a setup is present, I don't use a CC. This is also why you generally only see that at smaller shops here, since presumably they're small enough to fly under the radar while violating their agreement.

[merula]

I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.

Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.

With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk.  Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.