SlimJim77 wrote:
Nokia wrote:
No ID is required for a purchase because stores don't lose money when people purchase things.
This is one of the fundamental flaws with this policy. It is not truly in the customers interest, as it is often advertised. Fact is, this policy will have zero bearing on consumer pricing whatsoever.
I disagree re: "zero bearing on consumer pricing". Retailers have to build the cost of doing business into their pricing models. As their costs rise, their prices will rise. One cost of doing business is theft ("shrink"). This can take many forms - there is the "obvious" theft (such as shoplifting and employee theft). There is also the "less obvious" theft (less easy to quantify), which can include stealing office supplies, faking sick days, purchasing products with the intent to return after a short period of use ("renting"), fraudulent claims of defects, and returning a product that is represented as unopened (when, in fact, that product has been replaced with an inferior or broken product). There are many more examples of both types, but this gives an idea of what I mean.
Retailers take a hit to their bottom line with all of these types of theft. They need to do what they can to minimize those costs that are controllable, and theft is a prime candidate for this.
This brings us back to my first sentence - "Retailers have to build the cost of doing business into their pricing models." If they can reduce costs, they can offer lower prices to the consumer, therefore having a significant bearing on consumer pricing.
One response to my assertion might be, "Well, retailers won't pass those savings on to the consumer - they will be greedy and keep the profit for themselves."
However, we live in a an economic era where marketplace competition has a significant impact on the way businesses operate. Retailers must find a way to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. For some, that involves a pure price-cutting strategy. Others use a variety of factors to set themselves apart - product assortment, service offerings, etc. Regardless of market strategy, though, price plays a big role in competitiveness.
It seems that Best Buy sought to create differentiation in the marketplace by eliminating nearly all restocking fees. I'm guessing that restocking fees, in the past, were their way of trying to offset the costs incurred from shrink due to fraudulent returns.
This was a good thing for the average shopper, but it was also a good thing for those people who were committing fraudulent returns. Rather than reinstate restocking fees, it seems they have decided to find a new way to deter those seeking to commit fraud, by asking for IDs. Average shoppers will be inconvenienced by having to provide ID. However, they have the benefit of not having to pay a restocking fee. If this reduces fraudulent returns, then the goal of reducing costs in this area is still achieved. Good customers benefit because they won't have to pay a restocking fee when they have a legitimate return.
I don't see how one can argue that the policy will have zero bearing on consumer pricing. Actually, nearly every policy decision a retailer makes has a bearing on consumer pricing - from their choice of paper for their weekly advertisements, to their returns policies, to their sick leave policies... they ALL have a bearing on consumer pricing.
I'd rather have a policy that asks for an ID to complete a return (therefore preventing/reducing fraud activity), than a policy that has a monetary penalty (requiring restocking fees) across the board. I know concern has been expressed about the ID requirement and information privacy. However, I don't see this as being any different from having my ID swiped when I want to buy nasal decongestant. I want a certain transaction to be processed. An ID is required to process that transaction. I can either follow the requirements or I can choose to refuse, knowing the repercussions of that decision.
That's my 2 cents - however, I don't return things that often - maybe a few times a year. If I were a habitual returner (or someone committing fraud), perhaps I'd object to the ID policy.
(Stepping off soap box now)
