|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 6, 2025 22:48:53 GMT -5
Just wondering what folks in the Lounge think about the practice some people have of ordering a piece of audio gear (say an amp, or speakers or DAC or whatever) from more than one manufacturer with the intention of auditioning them all but only keeping one. Do you think this is ethical? Is this something that manufacturers are okay with?
Doing this means that companies will experience a lot of returns if their product isn't the one chosen, which adds to their costs and the returned item can't be resold as new. But some companies offer free shipping both ways and a generous trial period so do you think that acts as an encouragement for people to buy several and compare?
What are your thoughts about this? This obviously takes place and is a cost of doing business, but how ethical is it for the consumer to do this?
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 6, 2025 23:32:14 GMT -5
Just wondering what folks in the Lounge think about the practice some people have of ordering a piece of audio gear (say an amp, or speakers or DAC or whatever) from more than one manufacturer with the intention of auditioning them all but only keeping one. Do you think this is ethical? Is this something that manufacturers are okay with? Doing this means that companies will experience a lot of returns if their product isn't the one chosen, which adds to their costs and the returned item can't be resold as new. But some companies offer free shipping both ways and a generous trial period so do you think that acts as an encouragement for people to buy several and compare? What are your thoughts about this? This obviously takes place and is a cost of doing business, but how ethical is it for the consumer to do this? There are few retail audio stores today. A trial period is standard practice. We used to be able to audition pieces of gear at the retail stores, and there was still a several day right of rescission. The only ethical issues are if the dealer won't honor their return policy, or the customer wants more than stated in the return policy. Paypal purchases can have a 6 month trial period. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Aug 6, 2025 23:34:06 GMT -5
Seems nobody wants to touch this topic, I’ll give it a go but don’t hate me if you don’t agree as I may be wrong as well. Simply stated, in today’s world it’s the cost of doing business. Direct to consumer has done away with shopping in stores where one may have the opportunity to compare products side by side. In store comparisons is not optimal for the buyer but they may have access to multiple manufacturers. This is an expense, as is having gear being returned and not sold because the consumer found it not to their liking. Either way and ultimately it’s the cost of doing business and the consumer foots the bill. Higher pricing adds to this expense but is it still less expensive than having a retailer handling the product or product line. I don’t know, thats for the bean counters.  Ethical? How is the consumer to know what a product does or how it preforms compared to competitors? I’d say that it is ethical but not if the sole purpose is to churn gear just for fun, thats just wrong! Blind buying is expensive and not too bright IMO. I’ll just leave this here and see what happens. Remember that I’m just taking a stab at this. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by tropicallutefisk on Aug 7, 2025 5:38:36 GMT -5
Echoing Nick's and Paul's statements, I too believe its a different world than when many of us first started down this fascination with audio and HT gear. Heck, maybe even ten years ago I'd say it's not "cool" to order from multiple manufacturers to do side by side comparisons. Now, I don't see many other options. Even here in FL, a highly populated state, the number of AV Stores is pretty small and most are in the large cities and honestly they are catering to market much higher end than myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 7, 2025 10:31:59 GMT -5
This topic resonates with me. While I appreciate being able to return something that just doesn’t work out, some at the extremes refer to these return policies as the “Costco/Amazon/Bestbuy/? Borrowing Program”, and think nothing of testing product after product in their home, and in some cases never buying anything. I personally never buy anything I’m not reasonably sure I will keep, and never buy anything I intend on returning. I think we’ve all seen how store policies have become more restrictive after some have abused them, Costco’s electronics policy was very lenient at one point, and people would keep TVs for like 6 months, then take them back when a new model came out, yes, I think that’s unethical. We’re all points on a spectrum with opinions, but I think when policies are abused it hurts, and possibly costs us all.
|
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Aug 7, 2025 11:02:14 GMT -5
Seems nobody wants to touch this topic, I’ll give it a go but don’t hate me if you don’t agree as I may be wrong as well. Simply stated, in today’s world it’s the cost of doing business. Direct to consumer has done away with shopping in stores where one may have the opportunity to compare products side by side. In store comparisons is not optimal for the buyer but they may have access to multiple manufacturers. This is an expense, as is having gear being returned and not sold because the consumer found it not to their liking. Either way and ultimately it’s the cost of doing business and the consumer foots the bill. Higher pricing adds to this expense but is it still less expensive than having a retailer handling the product or product line. I don’t know, thats for the bean counters. Ethical? How is the consumer to know what a product does or how it preforms compared to competitors? I’d say that it is ethical but not if the sole purpose is to churn gear just for fun, thats just wrong! Blind buying is expensive and not too bright IMO. I’ll just leave this here and see what happens. Remember that I’m just taking a stab at this. Cheers! Agreed it's the cost of doing business... that being said... as an example, most direct to consumer businesses resell the returned products as "refurb" or "manufacturer refreshed" type offerings. Yes, usually at a discount; however, I can only assume, they are not being resold at a loss as I've never seen, at least the gear that I'm interested in, refurbs sold lower than the typical holiday sale prices. So it's somewhat profitable, just less of a margin. As long as return or in home trial period policy includes it, yes, free shipping one way or both provides the means for consumers to perform a comparative between products; however, I'm sure that the shipping costs are already baked into the overall cost of the items being sold; otherwise, said free shipping would be cost prohibitive to the business. I'm sure an analysis is performed and they can handle X numbers of returns without a problem. When speaking with on-line dealers, like Crutchfield and Audio Advice, they are the first to make sure you are aware of their in-home trial periods and free return shipping, so I don't consider it an ethical issue. Costco is a crazy example, I've seen folks return items that have been used and abused for months, close to a year even; however, if the return policy is met, who am I to argue? |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Aug 7, 2025 11:12:48 GMT -5
This topic resonates with me. While I appreciate being able to return something that just doesn’t wok out, some at the extremes refer to these return policies as the “Costco/Amazon/Bestbuy/? Borrowing Program”, and think nothing of testing product after product in their home, and in some cases never buying anything. I personally never buy anything I’m not reasonably sure I will keep, and never buy anything I intend on returning. I think we’ve all seen how store policies have become more restrictive after some have abused them, Costco’s electronics policy was very lenient at one point, and people would keep TVs for like 6 months, then take them back when a new model came out, yes, I think that’s unethical. We’re all points on a spectrum with opinions, but I think when policies are abused it hurts, and possibly costs us all. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Aug 7, 2025 15:49:13 GMT -5
Just wondering what folks in the Lounge think about the practice some people have of ordering a piece of audio gear (say an amp, or speakers or DAC or whatever) from more than one manufacturer with the intention of auditioning them all but only keeping one. Do you think this is ethical? Is this something that manufacturers are okay with? Doing this means that companies will experience a lot of returns if their product isn't the one chosen, which adds to their costs and the returned item can't be resold as new. But some companies offer free shipping both ways and a generous trial period so do you think that acts as an encouragement for people to buy several and compare? What are your thoughts about this? This obviously takes place and is a cost of doing business, but how ethical is it for the consumer to do this? There are all sorts of interesting “customers” out there looking to wheel and deal…… This is why companies make policy, of course. I’ve taken gear out on consignment (as an example) and the company had my credit card information to protect themselves. It’s really about what risks (in free enterprise) a company is willing to tolerate, I suppose…… I’m not wanting to go down the “ethics” road. Business is business and life is tough. |
|
|
|
Post by tropicallutefisk on Aug 7, 2025 16:58:18 GMT -5
Just to follow up with my previous comment. I have not ever returned anything I purchased from direct to consumer companies. And at this point most all my gear, that is in use, is from direct to consumer companies. I just don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to order, compare and return if unsatisfied. As long as you are doing it in good faith and not excessive.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Aug 8, 2025 11:13:47 GMT -5
This morning there was a segment on Today about return policies, some people are returning TVs after the Super Bowl, and air conditioners after summer is over. They mentioned the policies will change because of this, meaning someone who actually needs to return something won’t be able to.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Aug 8, 2025 12:07:50 GMT -5
Seems nobody wants to touch this topic, I’ll give it a go but don’t hate me if you don’t agree as I may be wrong as well. Simply stated, in today’s world it’s the cost of doing business. Direct to consumer has done away with shopping in stores where one may have the opportunity to compare products side by side. In store comparisons is not optimal for the buyer but they may have access to multiple manufacturers. This is an expense, as is having gear being returned and not sold because the consumer found it not to their liking. Either way and ultimately it’s the cost of doing business and the consumer foots the bill. Higher pricing adds to this expense but is it still less expensive than having a retailer handling the product or product line. I don’t know, thats for the bean counters. Ethical? How is the consumer to know what a product does or how it preforms compared to competitors? I’d say that it is ethical but not if the sole purpose is to churn gear just for fun, thats just wrong! Blind buying is expensive and not too bright IMO. I’ll just leave this here and see what happens. Remember that I’m just taking a stab at this. Cheers! Agreed it's the cost of doing business... that being said... as an example, most direct to consumer businesses resell the returned products as "refurb" or "manufacturer refreshed" type offerings. Yes, usually at a discount; however, I can only assume, they are not being resold at a loss as I've never seen, at least the gear that I'm interested in, refurbs sold lower than the typical holiday sale prices. So it's somewhat profitable, just less of a margin. As long as return or in home trial period policy includes it, yes, free shipping one way or both provides the means for consumers to perform a comparative between products; however, I'm sure that the shipping costs are already baked into the overall cost of the items being sold; otherwise, said free shipping would be cost prohibitive to the business. I'm sure an analysis is performed and they can handle X numbers of returns without a problem. When speaking with on-line dealers, like Crutchfield and Audio Advice, they are the first to make sure you are aware of their in-home trial periods and free return shipping, so I don't consider it an ethical issue. Costco is a crazy example, I've seen folks return items that have been used and abused for months, close to a year even; however, if the return policy is met, who am I to argue? You’re paying $65 per year for Costco’s return policy. And they owe up to it. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 8, 2025 12:22:02 GMT -5
I think it really depends on the intent and motives of the purchaser. Some people genuinely wish to personally compare the actual products (and not just the stats or reviews) and so they may buy several units at once with the intention of keeping one and returning the others. They make sure to treat the equipment with care so they are all kept in like-new condition. Then you have others who are just having fun and don't intend on buying anything but take advantage of the return policies. Just like jerks who buy clothes to use one time and never intend to keep them.
Some return policies seem like an invitation to do comparisons, if you read between the lines. Companies that offer to pay shipping both ways and give the user 30 or more days to evaluate the product and pretty much inviting a comparison since they make returning so easy.
Given the dearth of brick and mortar stores, the only real way you can physically check out a product is to purchase it. Our purchase decisions are based in large part upon comparisons with alternatives so that would be an argument for why someone would have the valid intent of doing those comparisons before making a purchase decision. The key is that they intend to purchase something and are not just flipping products.
Manufacturers who want to ensure people really do have an intention of making a purchase can do things like charge for shipping (both ways, or just for returning) and also charge a restocking fee. The restocking can make up for the discount that would be given for reselling the return as B stock.
So I think the ethics of the return rest with the motives of the person who places the order. People who order things with no intention of making a purchase are just unethical and have no morals.
|
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Aug 8, 2025 12:35:21 GMT -5
You’re paying $65 per year for Costco’s return policy. And they owe up to it. Russ Ha, I didn’t think about it that way… very true. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Aug 8, 2025 13:07:45 GMT -5
This morning there was a segment on Today about return policies, some people are returning TVs after the Super Bowl, and air conditioners after summer is over. They mentioned the policies will change because of this, meaning someone who actually needs to return something won’t be able to. Perhaps the return policies will change to something more reasonable. I've seen limitations of TV returns - for years - around the Super Bowl. Being able to return an air conditioner after a summer of use is not reasonable. I want to go down a real "ethics" road - which includes real written agreements between interested parties. Human nature being what it is, life is tougher without solid written agreements. ***I would rather work with a company that has a strict return policy in order to save some money on a product. When I make a significant purchase, I usually know what I'm ordering. The last return I made was several years ago, and I didn't even open the box. I bought two of an item. When I opened the first box, I decided I didn't like it enough to want the second item. I kept the opened box item. ***Anyway... This thread subject is about Returning Audio Gear. I have not returned a piece of audio gear in more than 50 years. In this 50 years, the only piece of audio gear I wish I Had returned is my RMC-1L. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,406
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 8, 2025 21:12:03 GMT -5
This topic resonates with me. While I appreciate being able to return something that just doesn’t work out, some at the extremes refer to these return policies as the “Costco/Amazon/Bestbuy/? Borrowing Program”, and think nothing of testing product after product in their home, and in some cases never buying anything. I personally never buy anything I’m not reasonably sure I will keep, and never buy anything I intend on returning. I think we’ve all seen how store policies have become more restrictive after some have abused them, Costco’s electronics policy was very lenient at one point, and people would keep TVs for like 6 months, then take them back when a new model came out, yes, I think that’s unethical. We’re all points on a spectrum with opinions, but I think when policies are abused it hurts, and possibly costs us all. Spot on...I do think it's OK to do research on some comparable items, order more than one to test them out, and return the ones I didn't like and keep the best. But, constant trial and returning all and not buying anything is unethical. And...even if someone does buy 1 out of...say...10...I think that's a stretch. It tells me they didn't do enough research to narrow options down before trying out options. That said...a woman who lives in my house and shares a last name orders a lot of shoes. She returns more than she keeps. I'm not quite comfy with that, but staying quiet is cheaper than the impact of an argument I can't win.  Mark |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Aug 9, 2025 9:16:17 GMT -5
This topic resonates with me. While I appreciate being able to return something that just doesn’t work out, some at the extremes refer to these return policies as the “Costco/Amazon/Bestbuy/? Borrowing Program”, and think nothing of testing product after product in their home, and in some cases never buying anything. I personally never buy anything I’m not reasonably sure I will keep, and never buy anything I intend on returning. I think we’ve all seen how store policies have become more restrictive after some have abused them, Costco’s electronics policy was very lenient at one point, and people would keep TVs for like 6 months, then take them back when a new model came out, yes, I think that’s unethical. We’re all points on a spectrum with opinions, but I think when policies are abused it hurts, and possibly costs us all. Spot on...I do think it's OK to do research on some comparable items, order more than one to test them out, and return the ones I didn't like and keep the best. But, constant trial and returning all and not buying anything is unethical. And...even if someone does buy 1 out of...say...10...I think that's a stretch. It tells me they didn't do enough research to narrow options down before trying out options. That said...a woman who lives in my house and shares a last name orders a lot of shoes. She returns more than she keeps. I'm not quite comfy with that, but staying quiet is cheaper than the impact of an argument I can't win. Mark But you are a “sole” survivor! |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,517
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 11, 2025 15:02:26 GMT -5
Well... not exactly. What you're paying is that $65 per year plus whatever extra they are charging you to make up what they lose on those returns. I have no idea what Costco's normal markup is... I can tell you that the retail markup on audio gear is usually around 40%... I'm told that TVs tend to have a narrower margin - or at least used to - and tat markup varies widely with different items. Of course, when it comes to a company like Costco, their return is not really calculated based on the cost or loss on a single item. For example, they may be perfectly happy to take a $100 loss on that TV, if they make an extra $5 profit on every grocery purchase you make all year. Especially if, after getting that membership, you choose to purchase most or all of your groceries there. (And brick-and-mortar stores traditionally offer "loss leaders" so that "they can get you into the store where you'll hopefully buy more stuff".) The same math holds true for Amazon... I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon... And I'm sure they lose money on some of it... But I'm equally sure that they make money on my purchases overall... (And I like buying from them because of how convenient it is... including their return options... even though I rarely use those.) And, just for the record, I have NEVER purchased multiple products "just to try them out" or "to use them for a while". And, in fact, I can safely say that I have never purchased something that I didn't intend to keep. But I have returned a few items that arrived broken, or didn't do what they were supposed to, or where the description seemed inaccurate, or where the product just didn't work well... (And the occasional clothing item where the fit didn't work out - usually because of vague or incomplete details.) Agreed it's the cost of doing business... that being said... as an example, most direct to consumer businesses resell the returned products as "refurb" or "manufacturer refreshed" type offerings. Yes, usually at a discount; however, I can only assume, they are not being resold at a loss as I've never seen, at least the gear that I'm interested in, refurbs sold lower than the typical holiday sale prices. So it's somewhat profitable, just less of a margin. As long as return or in home trial period policy includes it, yes, free shipping one way or both provides the means for consumers to perform a comparative between products; however, I'm sure that the shipping costs are already baked into the overall cost of the items being sold; otherwise, said free shipping would be cost prohibitive to the business. I'm sure an analysis is performed and they can handle X numbers of returns without a problem. When speaking with on-line dealers, like Crutchfield and Audio Advice, they are the first to make sure you are aware of their in-home trial periods and free return shipping, so I don't consider it an ethical issue. Costco is a crazy example, I've seen folks return items that have been used and abused for months, close to a year even; however, if the return policy is met, who am I to argue? You’re paying $65 per year for Costco’s return policy. And they owe up to it. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Aug 11, 2025 22:50:30 GMT -5
I currently have a friend that works at Costco Optical department. My friend told me that the mark up on glasses is upwards of 300%.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Aug 12, 2025 9:33:44 GMT -5
“And, in fact, I can safely say that I have never purchased something that I didn't intend to keep. But I have returned a few items that arrived broken, or didn't do what they were supposed to, or where the description seemed inaccurate, or where the product just didn't work well... (And the occasional clothing item where the fit didn't work out - usually because of vague or incomplete details.)” I used to have a membership to one of those “discount“ box stores like Costco…In my case, it was BJ’s Wholesale Club (Which is still around) and I think is owned by Walmart (Or it was in the past.) After a while, it got old, with those annual membership fees. (They don’t even give you a bag for your stuff) and the prices were nothing to write home about… All it did was leave me with a sense of pressure to SHOP there to make that annual membership fee worthwhile. IMHO the best way to make it “worthwhile” was to dump it all together. I Used to get some of the smaller ticket audio equipment items such as CD players and maybe the first of the DVD units before Blu-ray came on the scene. Since then it’s been my choice to go Direct, to the company whose product I have exhausted to death to make sure it’s what I wanted to put into the mix (like my XMC1 (yay) |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 12, 2025 10:13:22 GMT -5
I currently have a friend that works at Costco Optical department. My friend told me that the mark up on glasses is upwards of 300%. You figure how much can it really cost to make glasses. That said, Costco pricing in my experience is much lower than what you find at the optometrist so just imagine what their markups must be. |
|
