The Boston Globe has an interesting article in which they attempt to explain the phenomenon of “retail renting” or “wardrobing”–where consumers buy items with the intention of returning them when they’re done with the prom or the meeting or whatever. The article blames a mix of influences, including the economy and celebrities who obviously borrow many of their fancy gowns and jewelry.
Some people don’t see anything wrong with the behavior:
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.
…
Some shoppers who wardrobe do not think they are doing anything wrong. Deignan refers to the way he buys as renting. To see him through the NFL playoffs, Deignan planned to wardrobe a plasma TV after his set broke in December. But it got fixed in time, just before the first Patriots playoff game.“There’s lots of times when I buy stuff that someone’s bought before. When I rent something, I’m taking good care of it,” said Deignan, who works as an event coordinator. “And, it made me look good when I saved my company $600 in rental fees for the projector.”
Retailers are responding to people like Deignan with increasingly invasive policies that attempt to weed out the “wardrobers” from legitimate returns. Is “retail renting” ethical? Or is this fraud?
Retailers Crack Down On Serial Returns [Boston Globe] (Thanks, Sean!)
(Photo:Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Redbook Ticks Off Internet After Copying Blogger’s Idea
-
Barnes & Noble Set To Close A Third Of Its Stores Over Next 10 Years
-
My Mom Ordered One iPad And Best Buy Sent Five
-
Avis Splashes Out $500 Million To Buy Itself Something Nice — Zipcar
-
San Francisco Backs Off On Law Requiring Retailers To Post Info On Cell Phone Radiation
That this is happening and had become somewhat common should tell retailers that there is a consumer that they are not servicing. The Renter (to be distinguished from “rent-to-own”, which is basically expensive lay-a-way).
The company “Bag, borrow or steal” is a great example. They recognized the growth in demand for “IT” bags for occasions/fashion/vanity and built a business model to meet that market.
Maybe retailers will wise-up and build a short term rental market for the vanity consumer.
@matto: That’s a fair question, although civil disobedience is by definition refusing to comply with the law as a form of protest.
The short answer is that simply not buying a digital product doesn’t send a loud enough message to the people in control. I strongly disagree with the way that some entities treat their customers or unduly exert their influence. For example, the MPAA [1], the RIAA [2], Microsoft [3], and the Catholic Church (32-1965 A.D.) [4] are each notorious for attempting to stifle innovation they don’t control.
So these are the organizations I vote my negative dollars with, not Steven and Cabel of Panic Inc. If you’re a Microsoft programmer-and I assume you’re not-I’m sorry but I am trying to run your company into the ground. As for movies, the Apple rental store might get me to give up (the occasional) movie theft like I did music theft. It’s promising. But I hesitate because the stingy 24-hour watching period is unconscionable.
Napster and its progeny, MP3 players, and CD-ripping scared the hell out of the recording industry. Without that perfect storm, it’s quite possible that we wouldn’t yet have the iTunes Music Store, the music industry wouldn’t know that their customers were unhappy, and our discmans would still be skipping.
[1] Jack Valenti, MPAA, 1982: “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.” Mr. Valenti, as a member of the public, I respectfully disagree and history agrees with me.
[2] Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG, 2007: “When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole [one] song.” I disagree again, and I’m confident that history will agree with me in the future, when the past has occurred.
[3] See Has Microsoft stifled innovation?
[4] See Reformation. At least the first three don’t light people on fire.
Dittos to those who say “No”.
Granted, if you follow the store’s policy on returns and return the item in “resellable condition”, then you are following the letter of the law. However, you are violating the spirit of the law!
You are hurting those of us who return items for legitimate reasons, e.g., it didn’t work as well as advertised or preferred a different model after all. We get punished with restocking fees and getting the Third Degree from the sales clerk because of you.
When you return stuff frivously, the merchant is stuck with an albatross. Either they sell it as an “open item” and take a loss, or they have it sitting on the shelf while customers pick up unopened items. After all, if I’m going to pay full price for something, I want it in new condition, not something obviously “used” that may or may not have all the pieces and cables in the box.
If you want to rent an item, go to an equipment rental store, e.g., Aarons, Rent-A-Center, et al.
You want to use something for free? Buy it used, use it, and resell it.
I know someone will blast this comment but…tough.
Several years ago we had a promotion assembly for 8th graders going to high school. This is in the inner city. Everyone dressed up for the event. As I helped one student with a tie, an attached tag slipped out of his sleeve. I mentioned it to him and I was about to pull it off when tears started to form. Embarrassed, he asked me not to tear it off because it was being returned later that day. I just tucked it back under. I am not an overly sentimental person , but on that day my heart did break up a bit. The grandmother was raising the kids and had limited funds. She wanted her grandson to look good.
SO yes, While I agree that it is not ethical to “rent clothes”, but just sometimes I can see the point.
@SuburbanSocialite: That’s not retail renting. That’s buying stuff and reselling it. There’s nothing even remotely wrong or unethical about that.
@Michael Belisle: Civil disobedience is _publicly_ disobeying a law. Rosa Parks didn’t make a statement by sitting in the front of the bus and not being noticed by anyone. She made a statement by sitting in the front of the bus and getting punished for it. Ditto for the cafe sit-ins that MLK organized.
Let us know when you’re willing to break the law in front of an RIAA representative. Otherwise, you’re just stealing and trying to rationalize it.
@Michael Belisle: You pay for what you get, that’s the end of story. Theft is not paying anything, you’re getting something that should be paid for in the first place. It’s theft. Apple’s “stingy” 24 hour limit is in place because you do not own the movie…you want to own the movie, go buy the movie from the store. Rental is what it implies, you get something temporarily. Why thieve movies at all? Netflix lets you keep a disc as long as you want. Ohhh, but you are in it for showing these big bad companies what a force to be reckoned with you are…please, you’re justifying your theft when you’re just lazy to actually work for the products.
There is no justification for theft, there are situations that people can understand theft, but you don’t even have that.
RENTING usually means that a renter is given money (that he can keep) so that the rentee can use a good or service for a limited time. This is not “renting” nor is the guy in the story a “smart shopper.” I’ll hazard a guess and say that he probably wouldn’t appreciate it if people like him “retail rented” his services. I know he’s an event planner, or something like that, so it probably won’t work. But I’m just saying.
@wellfleet: I’m just relating a recent experience at my local Best Buy, where most of the open box items were only a pittance below or were sometimes even the same prices as new merchandise. There have been a few articles here on the Consumerist to that effect as well. Because I value the buying power of my money, I don’t shop there unless someone gives me a gift card anyway. I don’t think your employer adds anything to the experience to warrant prices that are often 20-30% higher than other brick and mortar stores.
Fact is, I can often get something NEW elsewhere at Best Buy’s open box price.
Would anyone tolerate someone buying a CD, ripping the songs into MP3s and then returning the CD for a refund? If not, then why tolerate someone using a product for personal benefit without paying?
I generally don’t side with retailers, but this is unacceptable. When you buy something, you make a legal agreement to purchase the product promised at the price on the tag. Unless the product is not what’s promised or it doesn’t work, you can’t return it just because you don’t like it or don’t want to pay for it.
The only products I return are those I couldn’t test at the store (e.g. CDs that won’t play on a computer, clothes at stores without changing rooms), products that failed in far too short a time, or food products that are tainted. Otherwise, if I got what was promised and I end up not liking it, tough luck for me.
Here’s a unique one.
I was buying jeans at costco, where there are no fitting rooms. Given the varying cuts of different brands, the sizes were no reliable indicator of what would fit. I had to buy several pairs to try on, fully intending to return what did not fit.
In college, given what textbooks cost, I had zero qualms about buying books, copying what I needed, and returning them. Ethical or not, most people will not think twice about taken advantage of a policy at a store they feel has wronged them.
@ShadowArmor: I would say that your first point is an example of something that would not be considered improper. You do intend to keep at least one pair of pants and you are merely saving them the trouble of buying a pair, it not fitting, exchanging for another and repeating until you get a pair that fits.
However, I don’t think your second example has a leg to stand on. You do have alternatives to “retail renting” books. Split the cost with a friend and share, borrow a friend’s and make copies, get the book at a library and make copies, etc. The bookstore has wronged you no more than the company that pumps out a new edition every year to keep prices high or the prof who has given you few other options than having to drop that kind of money.
Too many people fail to remember the golden rule (including many times these companies themselves). I always try to put myself in the position of these people. I certainly wouldn’t like it if people “retail rented” my services and I feel that nearly every other person on the planet would feel the same if their financial well-being was at stake.
Im amazed that this is even presented as a question. Of course its not ethical to purchase something with the intention of returning it after use.
This past week I needed a VGA cable for a presentation. Went to Radio Shack and bought one – not with the INTENT of returning it – but guess what – the cable they had was in a battered box and had clearly been used and returned.
This spurred a conversation among the team – to return or not to return. One colleague that had just returned a power brick that he had “rented” from the same Radio Shack saw no issue with it. Some other teammates said it was unethical. I was on the fence because, since the packaging and item were already “used” I didn’t see any loss in value to Radio Shack by our returning it.
Anyhoo, the cable remains in the cubicle, waiting for ethical clarity.
For the people who feel they are merely “taking advantage of the system” and not doing anything wrong- There is a big difference between legal and moral.
Unethical. Plan and simple.
-The cost of these returned goods ultimately gets past on to the consumer, and anyone who thinks just the retail store takes a lose is crazy.
-There are companies that make money renting everything from designer handbags to furniture.
-These are the people responsible for for rigid return policies, and evil customer service reps.
I worked customer service in a store with an easy return policy when I was in high school. At one point they told me, “we have X number of customer service complaints this quarter and we can’t get another. Just take anything back.” I gave people store credits/money for everything from slippers that had clearly been wore at least a year to 20 pairs of Nike’s that had failed to sell on Ebay or where ever.
These people give the rest of us who use return policies the way they were intended a bad name.
recently, I’ve stopped buying anything (clothing,electronics etc) which cannot be returned. If/when I use these items, I am very careful with them, as with everything else I own, so IF the item does not suite me completely, I return it. No harm, no foul. How many of us have bought “new” items we could swear were used??
Retail renting isn’t renting at all. The item being “rented” isn’t being offered for rental; it’s for sale only. Buying the item with the intent to return it after briefly using it is stealing. The fact that some retailers charge restocking fees to protect themselves doesn’t change the fact that it’s stealing, and it makes things more expensive for everyone who buys.
@ShadowArmor: I had a lot of problems with the cost of textbooks too. Every year meant $250 + in books for me. I chose to buy used instead of copying pages, though.
It is people like this who make it difficult for people who have a legitimate return to be made.
The poll should have a follow-up for the people that say it’s not ethical: Have you ever done it.
I admit it. I was going away for vacation and had put off buying a digital camera. So I picked one up from Target that had a good return policy and returned it before I came back from vacation (keeping the pics on my laptop).
Is it ethical, no…but neither is the way the stores treat you. Perhaps if they were a little more consumer friendly I’d find the ethics argument a little more convicing.
@UpsetPanda: As for school textbooks….I had a great scheme for college.
Go to the same class the following year and find someone that just purchased the book. Then pay them for their receipt and go return your year-old book as if you just bought it for a full refund.
I worked in a college book store and let me tell you….school book stores deserve no mercy!
Doesn’t “renting” usually involve paying SOMETHING for the item you are “renting”? In this case you are paying NOTHING.
There are some tacky people out there. I used to work at a “Linens & Things” store in Atlanta, and women would come in with sheets their kids had peed on and return them. One woman returned a comforter that had obviously seen years of use.
Other people would spend half the day in the store, buying carts full of stuff, and then be back to return most of it a few days later.
I think there were just as many people making dubious returns as there were actually buying stuff. The store had a very high shoplifting rate too.
I think that it’s a bad idea if you buy something from a traditional store with the intention to return. This especially happens during Super Bowl season when people buy huge TVs just for the game and then return them. stores are now cracking down on this sort of thing. I misunderstood the story, until I re-read it. I thought that this was anti-borrowing services, not people buying w/intention to return. Sites like begborrowandsteal.com are a good idea because you know exactly what you’re getting into so it’s fair and no one gets hurt.
The more people do things like this, the more retailers feel justified to jack up their prices, institute draconian return/exchange policies, hassle customers in the store, and so forth. If we want things in the retail world to get any better, we need to stop making them worse.
@UpsetPanda: $250? you’re lucky. I spent $1000 this year on books. Of course, none of the used versions were available at the bookstore and I didn’t get the book list until after school started.
@sue_me: Yeah, brand new books will kill your wallet. I bought most of mine used, and only after I priced checked them against amazon and other used book sites. A few books I wanted to buy brand new because I knew they’d get a lot of use and the used ones would probably fall apart. The most expensive book to date is a $68 psychology book I had to buy new because it was a pilot class.
@keith4298: No, I’ve never done it. It’s still theft, and I think decisions always come back to haunt you, so I don’t “retail rent.” It’s simply wrong, regardless of whether you think the company deserves it or not.
@keith4298: No.
@UpsetPanda: How is does a 24-hour time limit justified with something that instead of ever being returned, is deleted?
Why can’t I pay a “late fee” to extend the rental? Or credit some or all of the rental price to the price of the full movie through unlocking the file I already have? Or why does it force deletion of the file? Why can’t I pay a fee a week from now, and unlock the file without downloading it again? We have the technology.
I have no problem with a limited time for an online rental. I have a problem with an arbitrarily short time with a draconian implementation. I’m not yet sure yet if I want to pay into the HD-DVD version of what I want. But I will write a letter to Apple after trying it out.
Netflix is a reasonable solution for many, but not for me. I’m still waiting for their streaming support on the Mac. I’d rather delete something when I’m done with it, pay per rental, and never deal with a physical disc.
And the “too lazy to work” accusation just makes you sound like an presumptive ass.
@Erwos: Nope:
I have bought music ever since they started delivering products in a way that I like. They responded to Napster in a variety of ways. I’m grateful that one of them was a step in the right direction. As for one of their other responses, I have tremendous respect for the people fighting the Worst Company in America in court and before the legislature.
Ethical to buy and return when you’re done with it? Hell no, you’re an complete tool who deserves zero respect from anyone and has less than zero class.
However, there’s always shades of gray, just like the way the world works.
@Hackoff: You are not a jerk in your situation. It may be a bit taboo, and make you come off as pompous, but if your camera keeps having to be sent out to the repair center over and over, they should just replace it for you, especially if they realize it keeps popping up in their shop…obviously something is wrong with it and they know it…granted, I don’t know if it’s your fault or a manufactuer’s error.
@friendlynerd: You’re a complete tool. If you’re going to buy something, use it, then return it days later because you’re done with it, you’re a loser.
@speedwell: My favorite “legit” excuse was from working at Radio Shack. We would sell voltage converters for overseas use. I’ve used them overseas, so I know they work, so have co-workers, etc. However, we would sell them all the time with the customer cringing at the price as they buy it. Three weeks later (often known as “after their trip”) they would bring it back saying “it didn’t work.” Or they will buy batteries, open them up and try replacing them with their old AA’s. We just tell them, “sorry, we don’t return opened packs of batteries.” They get pissed, we test the batteries on the spot, find out the ones we test are dead, they leave, pissed as we refuse to return their clearly used batteries. Anything with a serial number is usually up to be checked, making sure it matches the SN on the box too, and receipt if it has it.
@GOKOR: They cringed at the price? I got one from Radio Shack a few years ago, it was like $12. I still have it, though it was useless in Prague, as the outlets had this stupid plastic molding around them and the converter prongs weren’t long enough.
@KJones: But would you consider it unethical to buy a CD, rip it, then resell it as used, but at a profit? I’d say it’s fair game, but I might be biased…
The entire sticking point here is that whatever the item is, it’s being used for free and expected to be resold as new. HELLS NAW. I don’t blame companies that tighten up return policies if they’ve been dinged by these weenies.
@StevieD:
I’m not quite sure what type of merchandise you’re selling, but I hope your predicted sales volume figures account for the alienating effect of a no-returns policy. I myself do not buy anything under such a policy unless the item is severely discounted (80-90% off).
I do this all the time. However, I buy things, then resell them on eBay. I call it recycling my money, but the term “renting” works just as well.
I’ve been very successful doing this with computers. I buy a computer, use it for 6 months, upgrade it myself, and break even after selling it. That money goes towards a new computer, in which I do the same thing. This has worked for me for 2 years now. I have paid about $50 in 2 years to continually upgrade my computer.
I don’t think I will ever stop. If you want to do in retail, do it at Costco. They have the best return policy ever. Just don’t abuse it, or else you will be banned!
I think the term is a misnomer considering there’s no “renting” involved since you get all your money back after you’ve used/worn the item/product.
@drjayphd: But would you consider it unethical to buy a CD, rip it, then resell it as used, but at a profit? I’d say it’s fair game, but I might be biased…
Me? When I buy a CD, I rip the tracks onto two hard drives (main and backup). When I’m sure the quality is good and I have the files securely saved, I destroy the plastic disk and keep the CD liners. Does it violate the letter of the law? Maybe, but I’m not reselling it nor am I distributing it, even when I copy the files to my MP3 player for my own enjoyment. I have a clear conscience about how I do it.
@drjayphd: The entire sticking point here is that whatever the item is, it’s being used for free and expected to be resold as new. HELLS NAW. I don’t blame companies that tighten up return policies if they’ve been dinged by these weenies.
It used to be that when something had a manufacturer’s defect or was dirty from in-store handling, if you pointed it out to a manager and said, “I’ll take it at 5/10% off,” they would often do it. I’ve stopped penny-pinching like that (but I’m not wasteful) so I don’t know if that’s common anymore, but it’s probably not. Nowadays stores are unwilling to take responsibility even for things they know are their own fault.
Computer’s AC adapter goes out. Take it to get repaired. It gets fixed, I get the computer back, and two days later, the refurb AC adapter blows. Take it back, and ask the people if I can buy an adapter and use it for two weeks or whatever until the new adapter shows up at my house.
They say yes, and go so far as to open the packaging in a neat way so that it’s excessive package abuse.
Ta-dah. I have their permission, because they fucked up. Will I return it even though I’ve used it? You bet your butt I will, since the adapter’s 111$.
people who “wardrobe” bug me. my aunt and cousin do it all the time. it’s just cheap. seriously, if you can’t afford what you’re getting, don’t buy it. don’t be stupid and return it after using it. “wardrobers” make me want to punch someone in the back of the head.
Capitalism is inherently unethical. Any way the working people can figure out to buck the system is worthwhile. After all, any way the bosses can figure out to pay us as little as possible, to give us as few benefits as possible, that’s ethical, right? That’s capitalism! So whatever we can do to steal some of our lives back is ethical.
If you own a company, and you can’t afford to pay for something you obviously need, then you should seriously look over you companies finances!
@redhelix: apparently.
this is not ethical. this is not like being used as a living advert or display by a designer. this is not far from theft.
big thank you to all the asshats out there pulling this bs & destroying return policies.
@Super1984: Probably not often. The point of the post was that he wasn’t wardrobing because he actually kept something instead of using it and returning it like in the OP.
@Neecy: This is a selling point for the Craftsman tools. I remember watching the training videos where they pitched the tools that way, “Even if you buy it at a garage sale, you’re covered.” If it happens too much, Sears will change their policy – if they’ve not gone out of business by then.
@str1cken: Hmm… you used ‘capitalism’ and ‘working people’ in the same post, but I shall not call commies on this one.
I think what you mean is Capitalism is inherently amoral. It is ethical – people who don’t play by the rules get burned by the system eventually. The wardrobers are exploiting a loophole, which will be shut when companies change their policies. That’s unethical because their intent is to manipulate the system at the expense of others.
Capitalism is not unethical or cold hearted. It’s about fair exchange. Wardrobers take benefit for nothing – which equals theft.
You are not a slave in your job. No one said you have to keep it. You want better pay, offer better skills, more hours, etc.
BTW, using stealing as a way to combat perceived unethically merely personifies in you the degradation of society.
As always, the Golden Girls provide the answers to life’s conundrums…
Dorothy: Blanche, you can’t return something after you’ve worn it- that’s illegal.
Blanche: It’s not illegal, its just…wrong.
@snoop-blog: “this is unethical, but far from criminal. give me a break, criminal? there are FAR bigger fish to fry. i’d like to know what the people who think of this as “criminal” think the punishment should be for returning an item.”
I absolutely agree. Those who state it’s “criminal” are being melodramatic. Save it for your emo blogs and Kleenex boxes, you Pygmalions.
This is probably what some woman did by returning those jeans that woman bought at Old Navy or whatever it was that had some um STUFF in the crotch. *shudder*
So. No. Don’t do it.
@UpsetPanda: Ha! I consider $250 to be a cheap SEMESTER. My book costs are pushing $1000 for the year, and I haven’t pulled any shenanigans yet.