Cat photographer's thought balloons:
"What is this 'color balance' thing they speaking of?
"What's a flash for when this pitch-black room is perfectly lit?"
"...Screw it - I'm going to claw up some shoes instead."

The moral of the story: "It takes one to know one!"

I used to work at a Big Lots, and we used to sell this really nice $500 cocktail table...well, living in a richer part of OKC (known as Edmond) a lot of the time, people would "buy" it for a weekend, and then return it. We got to the point that certain items were not returnable or replacable, because we lost a lot of income (at any given time, we'd have about 30 of these things and "sell" about 10 a week..soooo...you do the math there)

the manager is so hypocritical hes saying that its a victimless crime, but in the end he had a big part of his paycheck taken out because of it, anyone else smell anything wrong with that?

This guy is simply trying to rationalize his own "retail renting" behavior.

It's NOT a victimless crime.

One of these things happens when somebody buys, then returns:

1)The product is put back on the shelf, opened, at a discount because it's an "open box" - The victims? The store that loses profit. From there, hours can be cut, profit sharing is lost, fewer raises...

2) The product is put back on the shelf, sold as UNOPENED, and somebody buys it, paying full price for a used product. This is simply dishonest, and potentially illegal - you can't sell a used product as "new". Victim: the honest purchaser, who now paid full price for someone's secondhand goods.

3) In extreme situations, like the manager who kept buying and returning "her" home printer, the store pays for that inventory, but never makes a profit on it - for a year or more, she held their property, cost free, while the store paid for the inventory in the first place. Not to mention, each time she returned the printer (assuming she didn't take the same one home again) one of the first 2 things happened.

Retail renting is despicable - if you want to rent something, go to Aaron's, don't abuse return policies.

Sometimes reading the Consumerist makes me feel like either the most naive or the most ethical person on earth. This is one of those times.

Let me guess...Ritz Camera?

Victimless? You let your real buyer assume the product they are buying is new when it is really used? (no matter how little its used, its used). At that point, the buyer should be able to get it at the local Goodwill with the understanding it is used and a hefty 95% discount on the price.
What a self righteous jerk.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the victim the person who actually buys the camera next at full price after it's been used on someone's vacation? Call me old-fashioned, but no matter how new it looks, used is used. Doesn't the motor on a camera have a finite life?

@SoCalGNX: Wow, I was one minute too late...

If I buy something being sold as "new", I expect it to be brand new, factory sealed. If it isn't, it's used as far as I'm concerned and I shouldn't have to pay full price for it since I have no idea what has been done to it or what might be missing from it.

This "manager" was either
1. never responsible and/or accountable for actual business results like revenue, margin, and operating profit
or (but probably and)
2. doesn't realize there are many costs in retail renting that don't take effect at the cash register

If you sell a returned item as new, that's dishonest. You get to keep all your margin on a product that has wear and tear on the mechanics.

If you sell it as an "open box" and take 10% for example, that's lost margin dollars to the company's operating profit, which means, in the long run, fewer hours, smaller bonuses, loss of jobs, etc. It's like littering. It's the aggregate losses suffered from too many employees/customers doing this.

Every time you have to unbox a product, repackage a product, reset it to MFG's settings, clean a product before re-selling, you're spending extra labor dollars and you're losing productivity. That adds to the "cost" of the item.

If you ran your own business, where you ate and fed your kids off your profits, you would realize how stupid retail renting is.

I used to work in a toy store, I wonder how people would feel if i "rented" the X-Box or PS2 when they hit the markets....of course we weren't allowed to do that because once the box was opened it was yours unless you wanted to exchange it for the same item.

Hmmm...one day I "rented" a tarp from Wal-Mart, which we ended up using to keep a campfire in the rain...ended up returning the tarp with an 18" by 18" whole burned in the middle, no questions asked :P

On a side note, the Wal-Marts all over the country are GREAT for "renting" camping equipment from, their policy is 100% guarantee..it's really the best way if you're travelling light or flying near your destinations.

This manager should understand that with clothing, most stores cannot sell worn merchandise. Retail renting hurts everyone because it raises prices when the company has to damage out merchandise they could have sold to someone who legitimately wanted to own it.

@InfiniTrent: "The product is put back on the shelf, sold as UNOPENED, and somebody buys it, paying full price for a used product."

This is the part this pisses me off. I do not mind buying used products. BUT I WANT TO KNOW THEY WERE USED. If the company has no problem with "retail renting" but restocks the items as open-box/returned/as-is/whatever, that's fine. But if they're repackaging and selling them new, I'm pissed.

It's a matter of one greedy bunch of consumers screwing the rest of us over.

If I knew that a certain store was selling me previously "rented" merchandise, I would certainly avoid shopping there.

Costco returns rock. Couple of years ago, I bought 37" LCD TV and, after 2 weeks, I realized I wanted more pretty colors - went in and switched to 42" plasma. Then, after 2 months, I compared my tv to Panasonic and decided that is better - returned it again, no worries. It was honest returns, I'm still their customer spending a lot of money there.

One thing I learned though, they do not sell the returned items in the store - too much risk I guess - they sell it via 3rd party company. So unlike the article, Costco takes some write off even if you returned it packed the same way and all.

People who fraudulently purchase something while planning to return it cost the computer store I used to work for a ton of money. The manager followed state law that open box items couldn't be sold as new. Stuff we couldn't return to the manufacturer went on a discount cart. We lost money on every item sold off it.

Laser printers were no longer accepted after someone put a toner cartridge in (resumes perhaps) then returned it with the cartridge in. All the bouncing around dumped the toner inside the unit and made a colossal mess. That cleanup had to be treated as hazardous waste.

I agree with most of the negative comments here about this practice being dishonest.

The only thing I think that the store manager maybe has going for him is that I do think that people selling photographic equipment should be allowed and even encouraged to use the equipment they sell. Otherwise, how can they give any kind of real advice? (Obviously, even with real experience with the equipment they can give shitty advice, but without experience they sure can't give any good advice.) Still, I'm not convinced that retail renting is the way to achieve this. It seems to me that any equipment used for this should be sold as "open box".

If somehow corporate rules make it so that store managers have to hide that they lend equipment to their sales staff for training, then the rules should be changed.

@ClayS: I disagree. From where I see it, its being a thrifty customer.

I think people do need to be careful buying any product these days. Aside from the open box as new product, how many products have we seen sold from best buy that were buckets of paint or bricks?

Perhaps this is a little bit of customer vigilantism. Sure, we may have to pay higher prices in the long run. But companies are already trying to make money on US hand over fist. This story is likely talking about Ritz Camera. A CD of your pictures there costs $6! That's about $5.58 more than what it costs me. And don't start going into labor/machine costs. Those machines were paid for in the digital boom from 98 to 2002. I worked in retail and the margin for profit was super high. Besides, Ritz Camera rakes in about 4 billion dollars a year. I think they can handle restocking a camera on their own dime.

@Binaryslyder:
There have to be restocking costs, but who's to say the store is going to absorb that cost? My guess is a lot of that cost is being passed on to the consumers. Since I don't "rent", I feel that I'm getting the short end of the deal.

@ClayS: You're getting the short end of the deal no matter what. Even if you shop at a store that puts restocking fee's on product, what's to say that it isn't damaged or broken.

I used to work for Best Buy and we frequently neglected to check product before slapping a 10% off sticker on it and selling it to the next shlub.

No matter what, buyer beware.

@Binaryslyder: "I disagree. From where I see it, its being a thrifty customer.

I think people do need to be careful buying any product these days. Aside from the open box as new product, how many products have we seen sold from best buy that were buckets of paint or bricks?"

Best Buy doesn't intentionally sell bricks. Typically it's a returned item, where they didn't double check what was in the box - the rotton customer returns a brick, and BB accidentally re-sells it.

The immature "you got me, so I'll get you back" attitude doesn't benefit anyone.

Your post drips with the attitude that companies don't have a right to make a profit - I'm sure you'll deny it, but that's what you're saying. Do you know why Ritz charges $6 for a $.52 picture CD? Because they've got to keep the lights on. They have to pay their employee. They have to pay for insurance, and materials, etc. You don't have those costs, or they're "free".

You don't have the right to abuse return policies simply because you decide that the company is "making money hand over fist". Start your own company, and your attitude about profit and loss will change.

I think retail renting is unethical unless supported by the retail store. A store with bunches of opened boxes being sold for full price probably doesn't know about how many customers they are missing. Many customers would that that as an indication of an unethical store. I know I would.

Restocking fees also exist because of this nonsense, and restocking fees frequently hurt honest consumers who want to make an honest return. If not for all the renters, many companies could eat the occasional cost of selling an open box item to take care of the small group of returning customers. But so many of those returns are rental attempts that this just doesn't happen.

People aren't going to become more ethical, though, so this won't change.

@ClayS: "I think they can handle restocking a camera on their own dime."

It's not on their dime, it's on mine. And yours, and everyone else. You need to learn more about how businesses work before you make such uninformed comments.

Companies have a net profit margin they must make to stay in business - if that is encroached upon, they'll just raise the price.

He's definitely trying to justify his own dishonest actions.

Not only is he fraudulently selling used goods as new, but he is deliberately tampering with factory seals so that they can't tell which are used and which aren't. As this somehow justifies the whole thing.

@InfiniTrent: Ritz is a joke.

Managers make $30k Salary, with commission. Regular employees make $7 t0 $10/hour with commission.

The registers are from 70's and most of their stores are in need of dire repair and cleanup.

I'm not against making a profit, that's the whole premise of running a business. But clearly there are companies that exist to serve their customer, not milk them.

Ritz is one of those companies that is bleeding its customers, its just that people don't want to admit it.

@InfiniTrent: I believe the item would be resealed and sold as new with no discount, if the item can be made to look as new. The open boxes are the items that look used.

The victims are the customers who want and expect to purchase brand new merchandise with no intention of retail renting.

Stores should be required to disclose the fact that they are reselling returned merchandise as new, with signs on the shelves stating this fact.

@sir_eccles: First off, when I retail "rent," I don't do anything dishonest. I never make any claims that I didn't open the box and use what was inside.

As a courtesy, I repack everything neatly to save the poor SOB behind the counter from having to do it.

I have some bad news for you. If the factory seal is broken/not there when you get a product, you should assume it was opened. Because chances are it was.

Second, if Ritz or other companies were so damned concerned about net profits and profit margins, they'd put things like fax machines and copiers in their stores instead of requiring them to pay other stores for their use. I requested a copy of a reciept once from Ritz. The employee joked that he had to drive 10 minutes over to kinkos to make me a 10 cent copy.

How much profit and labor was lost in a cent copy. Don't defend companies that obviously don't know what their doing anymore.

I routinely do this when buying a laptop. I try them out for a week or sometimes less. Usually find something wrong with the layout, something misleading about the hardware specs, or something I couldn't have known by simply seeing it in store. I do this until I find one that works well then keep it. Sue me.

Also, I once bought a high end digital SLR to take with me to Mexico for my wedding with the idea that I would return in when I came home. Unfortunately I dropped it and cracked the lens casing. Obviously had to keep it, no complaints. And the universe continues to be balanced.

/will continue to retail rent. But only from Futureshop.

What if i'm working at a sales counter without a demo. You walk in and want to buy something from me, so I open a box and take one out so you can see.

After about 5 minutes you change your mind and leave, leaving me with a now opened item.

Should I pack it up as new or open box it?

"by Binaryslyder at 12:56 PM Reply
@ClayS: I disagree. From where I see it, its being a thrifty customer."

If you are "retail renting" then you aren't a customer at all. Retail renting is the practice of making a sham purchase for the sole purpose of using the product then returning it for a full refund--in lieu of paying a rental fee from a store that rents things.

Retail renting is completly un-related to legitimate returns, or even questionable returns like losiek's. Retail renting greedy and selfish and is done by people who don't want to bear the actual cost but instead pass the depreciation of turning a new item into a used one back to the store.

BTW. To point out the obvious, retail renters are selfish, greedy scum who raise prices for honest people with legitimate returns.

@Skeptic: Don't restocking fee's counteract that? If not, what are they for?

I was on the fence about this until a few days ago. Visiting my brother and sister-in-law as they were packing up to move. My mom and I offered to help and SIL said what would help her most is if we could return some things for her. Then she took all their clothes and stuff out of the plastic stacking bins, unplugged the fan and put it back in its box, repacked the bathroom scale, and sent us off to Wal-Mart with her ID, debit card, and receipts. Do. Not. Want.

They returned a spatula. They returned their clothes hangers. That's small potatoes. I get embarrassed returning new things that I legitimately changed my mind about. I would go around the bend retail-renting electronics and stuff.

Listen, to be clear with everyone here I'm not totally advocating for renting.

I've done it before when I was on the fence for a product but wanted to use it. I have bought and returned a few things where I knew I was probably not going to keep them. But the shops where I returned them all knew that I used them. Most of the time I get all my money back because the item is as good as new.

And yes, I do buy things from these stores.

I suppose all of you against retail renting are also against downloading music/apps/movies as well? Just checking.

If you're going to "rent it" on retail rental, RENT IT. Let people purchase the item at full price, then return it for a restocking fee, say 3%.

The renter gets what he wants (use for a short time), the store gets what it wants (revenue, and the full price as a deposit), and if the item is damaged, the next buyer (probably a real buyer) can be protected against an item being sold damaged, much like buying refurbished items.

The "manager" isn't too bright because he does not recognize the cost in labour and time of his staff to process the "sale" and return. The idea that it's "victimless" is laughable.

@KJones: Your assuming their paid hourly and not commission.

By being nice and friendly at the return juncture, your attempting to ensure that the customer comes back and actually buys something.

@iliveinyoureyelid: You are describing two different things in your post. I feel that your habit of buying a laptop, evaluating it and not liking something and returning it is ok (no doubt the stores don't like it, but that is a different issue) I think this practice is perfectly fine because you have ultimate intent of keeping a laptop. Your purchase of a high end SLR camera with the INTENT to return it after vacation though is classic retail renting and is unethical.

As for the manager in the article, I put him and his store up on the same level as geek squad going through your computer looking for pictures and music. Most people probably don't know that the retail renting thing is happening and it really doesn't hurt anyone (assuming that all of the rentals are as pristine as he says, which I doubt) but it is ultimately taking advantage of honest customers.

The manager in the article mentions his former manager that "rented" her printer, I wonder if she used the ink cartridges that came with her recently "rented" printer each time? If she did, I think she crossed the line from retail renting to plain theft since the next customer would not get to use the ink that their "new" printer is supposed to come with.

@Binaryslyder: Nope, I'm not against downloading music/apps/movies as long as it is legal. I am most definitely against people who ILLEGALLY download music/apps/movies because they are STEALING.

@Binaryslyder: restocking fees are to deter the "retail renters" from doing their thing and restocking fees just hurt the honest consumer that just didn't like what they bought.

"... because the item is as good as new."

Blech. One person's "as good as new" is another person's "covered in cooties."

There's a reason retail items lose value once they are out "of the box." Because somebody else's grubby hands touched and used it.

And I don't follow the "if you don't like retail renting you must not like downloading music" analogy. As non sequiturs go, that's like me saying "if you like retail renting then you must also like tainted Chinese toys."

@Binaryslyder: by any chance were you helping them move from their trailer?

@youfatduck: ^^^^^^
that was meant to be a reply to you. oops

@lemur: Agree on the use-what-you-sell, but there are ways to do that, like having store items that the salesmen use in the store (sold discounted when they're no longer the hot sales model), or perhaps can borrow and take home (with it coming out of their paycheck if they lose it); as for the printer, it seems to me one of the perks that low-level employees should get is a certain amount of access to a printer for personal printing.

(Side note: the best places I worked at minimum wage made office equipment reasonably available for a reasonable amount of personal use. Those places always had the highest morale and people didn't take unfair advantage of it. Places where "stealing paperclips" was verboten, and you couldn't make a quick call on the store phones (before cells), folks were always trying to beat the system and scam the management.)

Another problem retail renting creates that's only been touched on tangentially above is for people who legitimately buy things and return them UNUSED (I'll buy a couple shirts for my husband with the intent of returning the one he doesn't like, still in package), or who buy things, use them, and discover they're totally unsuited for their needs, and would like to return them. When people rent-and-return, it makes it that much harder for people to legitimately return for reasons that fall within the return policy.

did everybody else miss this?
But that's what you get for disregarding how serious I take returns.
he takes returns very seriously.

I call shenanigans. This manager wasn't fiscally responsible for the inventory and didn't have explicit corporate authority to endorse "renting", so who cares?

I'll bet you can't find a small store owner or Ritz corporate hack who endorses "renting".

"Binaryslyder at 01:25 PM Reply
@Skeptic: Don't restocking fee's counteract that? If not, what are they for?"

Yes. Restocking fees are, in large part, a reaction to scummy "retail renters." They are an example of how retail renting hurts honest customers, who now have to pay a restocking fee for legitimate returns.

If you need to rent something, then RENT IT, don't pretend to buy it and return it, costing real customers real money in the form of higher prices, restocking fees and stricter return policies for legitimate returns. Yeah, renting is expensive. That's the amount you are stealing by "retail renting."