Lifetime return policies. Responding to every complaint with fall-on-the-sword apologies. Sales reps showering customers with freebies when something has gone slightly awry. Many people would view these things as the hallmarks of true customer service.
But it’s bullshit. All of it.
There is a difference between legitimate customer service, and disingenuous ass kissing in order to buy a customer’s loyalty. And the latter has consequences.
Here’s a story passed along during the most recent edition of Store Wars. To be perfectly clear, I have nothing, NOTHING against sabrown for passing along this comment, or, for his brother’s actions. It’s the sales rep and perhaps company policy that’s at issue here…
40 up-votes? All for a situation that doesn’t deserve to be celebrated. “Make things right“? But the store wasn’t in the wrong. The customer was. He got the wrong size, but still somehow managed to keep wearing them.
Here’s why situations like this one, this overzealous customer service, actually does more harm than good:
1. Someone’s gotta pay.
So, who’s paying for the shoes if the brother isn’t? Those costs have to be paid for somewhere down the line. And it’s not just “oh gosh we’re sorry” freebies. Hand written thank-you notes cost money. So do sweaters returned 10 years after they were purchased. It’s like an over-litigious society, where companies throw their hands up and just settle a case out of court because they don’t want to pay for the lawyers… and then pass the costs on to the customers that didn’t threaten to sue.
2. It sets a precedent of unreasonable expectations. For you, in your job.
Flip the script. It’s the golden rule. No matter your job, you’ve got customers… somewhere. During a recent personal real estate experience, some paperwork got goofed and a document (a single page) had to be signed an extra time. The realtor came to our place and the new document got signed at our kitchen table. On the way out the Realtor asked, out of nowhere, what my favorite restaurant is. Why? Because she wanted to get us a gift card “for the trouble.” … The trouble? It took two minutes. Would you want to operate in an environment where you had to grease someone with a gift for ONE extra signature?
3. People become entitled assholes.
When companies try to buy loyalty by treating customers like they can do no wrong, some of those customers start to believe it. It’s like the web, always asking for everyone’s opinion (not because anyone cares, they just want your clicks), or a clueless boss fueled by brown-nosing “yes men”. What’s lost to most, is that there are plenty of us out there who’d respect a business MORE if they told some of these types to get the hell out of their restaurant / bar / car wash / department store, instead of comping the whiners just to get them to shut up.
There are plenty of businesses who can’t seem to get customer service right. But while most of it seems to be in the “lacking” realm, favoring overzealous customer service isn’t the right answer either.
I fully understand people will bristle at this. But imagine being the sales rep. The person on the other end, who is tasked with delivering the “service” here. And consider… what is fair? What is reasonable?
#3 is SO important.
We’re already already, admittedly, an entitled crew this generation; we don’t need the help.
Huh? The customer asked for nothing. Maybe it was his size and he thought after a few wears they would fit better and the smaller size would be to small. This is a headline with a story that doesn’t match. We shouldn’t congratulate a company/sales associate that does something like this?
No, we shouldn’t….the customer was lazy and he should have to live with his inaction as he had more than enough time to sort this out. Hold the customer liable in this situation. If it were a few weeks after purchase than ok, but a year!? Let’s stop coddling people.
Great post Joe, keep em coming.
don’t be so naive. i don’t think you need to watch their back…pretty sure nordstrom’s lawyers, accountants, and marketing have that covered.
I mostly agree that the “Customer is always right” BS has gone too far, I wouldn’t necessarily lump say LL Bean’s Lifetime Returns policy in with the rest of the mess. They made a conscious decision a long time ago that their products should essentially last a lifetime. While that won’t be true with the goods that they import (instead of manufacturing in the USA), they want to stand behind that reputation.
This is the same company that, in Store Wars, always has a tag line about having only 2 good sales per year, right?
Let’s take a look from another angle. I recently told someone that I order dog food from Amazon. For the type of food I buy, its cheaper than going to Petsmart or anywhere local. That “someone” told Amazon was ruining retail by offering such low prices – delivered. I disagree, I see it as a competitive advantage.
Back to Nordstrom, price cutting isn’t their competitive advantage. Consider, however, that their superior customer service is. That appeals to some people. Some people don’t mind paying full price to know that no matter what, the company they bought it from will stand behind it. And for Nordstrom, it appears to work.
I also generally disagree with the “customer is always right” mantra. The customer is rarely right because most of the time they just want something for free or less than fair price.
However… I kind of agree with “sabrown” in this particular situation. AE’s are a pretty big investment and for the uninitiated they behave differently than the shoes most of us are used to buying. From Nordstrom’s perspective, if the customer’s first foray into high end shoes resulted in getting kind of burned (even if by their own fault), they may opt for less risk with the $85 pair from DSW next time. If Nordstrom allows them a mistake they are more likely to take another risk on a $450 pair of boots.
A thousand times yes.
nyone who’s ever worked customer service knows the customer is not always right. Heck e customer is USUALLY wrong because they don’t know anything about running a business. I run a small cafe and l dealwith this on a daily basis.
Recently a family came in for brunch and there was a mistake with one if thier items. The server who was new made a mistake on the ticket so one of their items took longer than it should have in the kitchen. Well of course the father flips out on my staff and demands that they “make things right” and comp his meal. You ate $70 worth of food and because ONE side dish was less than perfect you should get that ALL for free? Or the Jerk yesterday who yelled at my waitress because he wanted to substitute a more expensive side dish for his salad but didn’t want to pay extra because “people should be able to choose what they want” A woman who complains “Why does the large tea cost more than the small?”
I could go on forever…
Word of mouth advertising is powerful, and this article has been brought to you by the Nordstrom shoe department.
“There is a difference between legitimate customer service, and disingenuous ass kissing in order to buy a customer’s loyalty.”
I’m not sure where disingenuous comes into play. Ask Nordstrom’s finance department what the net present value of a loyal, lifelong customer is and I guarantee they’ll tell you it’s far more than the wholesale cost of a pair of Allen Edmonds shoes. Ask the accounting department how much annual returns costs the company and they’ll tell you with surprisingly accuracy, and I guarantee it’s far less than what they’ll make in profits this year.
As others have said, it’s a business decision, plain and simple, and one that clearly pays off in Nordstrom’s case. I see why it can create problems for some businesses when the customers come to expect similar policies from every company (see cubist_zirconia’s comment, for example), but so can just about any policy. Should Allen Edmonds care when its quality policies lead some customers to expect similar quality from other, less expensive competitors?
Besides, the return policy probably creates additional sales. I’m sure you’re more likely to make a purchase you’re on the fence about if you tell yourself you can bring it back at any time if you decide it isn’t working out.
Which leads to a final point–for every customer who makes a return that offends our sensibilities, I’m sure there are far more who purchase a defective or otherwise unsatisfactory product and decide not to return it because it’s simply not worth the hassle. If we’re going to fight the former on the store’s behalf, then we should probably fight the latter on the customers’ behalf, too.
Besides, for every crazy return situation, how many customers who buy a defective, impropertly sized, or otherw
#1 is like shoplifting – it costs us all but I suspect much of what we see in sample and end of season sales are returns. The thing is for a store it is the return policy and the ability to try it on that keeps things going in the internet age. If I can purchase no hassle online then why would I go to the store.
By the same token I am sure that is why many online stores only allow a return for store credit otherwise everyone would buy 20 things and return 18.
I think the point below that this is a way to build customer loyalty might be part of it. I have 3 stores I go to consistently because they have always treated me right (Frank and Oak, TM Lewin and E.R. Fisher in Ottawa) and the risk of eating my investment is low. I have totally given up on online MTM because of terrible customer service.
Good customer service like that is simply a loss leader. We’re not paying for it any differently than we’re paying for their marketing budget. Bend over backwards customer service is a business decision that, if it gains a lifelong customer or tips the scale from buying at another location, is profitable. The event commented on made at least 2 loyal customers (the brother and the poster) and got upvoted 40 times. So that one action by the sales associate made a huge impression on several and a small impression on a few dozen. I don’t see how the comment is particularly egregious, but the public-shaming has certainly further promoted Nordstrom customer service. That sales associate should get an award.
I’m not positive, but I believe Lands End has the same policy. Case in point, bought a swimsuit from them a few years back (that had been featured prominently on here, actually, since it was a great looking pair of trunks)- the type of item that you aren’t going to wear constantly, but would expect to last for a while. When the seams came undone after only a handful of uses (but over the period of a few months) they took it back, no questions asked. In that type of situation, a limited window of 60 days wouldn’t appropriately reflect potential defects in the garment.
…which is all a long way of saying, I’m with you on this Daniel. I respect if companies are willing to stand behind the durability of their products over the long term.
But Joe, I do agree with the points you’re making in regards to sales associates going past ‘above and beyond’ into territory that spoils people unrealistically and sets up a potential loss scenario.
Any casual observer here on Dappered, or other men’s style forums will notice that there are occasional bouts of unfounded entitlement when it comes to certain topics. I’ve personally seen it most in the following scenarios:
– Folks wanting immediate access to some mega-deal because someone else got it (“I want to spend $100 for a pair of brand new first-quality AE Strands and I think Nordstroms should match the price because someone on Dappered got them for that much!”
– Those who threaten to become great customers if they’re rewarded with something much better than they every had (“I’ve been wearing these hand-me-down thift-store AE crap-buckets for a year now, and I want to start dressing nicer. I suddenly don’t like the way they’re creasing so I want to take them back to the store I think someone might have purchased them at and demand a $300 credit under the premise that it would make me a more loyal customer to the brand one day.”)
– Wearers of extreme sizes – very small, or overly large (“Why don’t they make my size?!?! I’m never shopping this brand again unless they give me some crazy credit!”– likely because they don’t sell a lot of that size and it costs more to make it).
Personally I’ve done some stupid shit with returns in the past and leaned on customer service harder than I should have, partially because the company I work for has a very liberal return policy with some of the products we manufacture. That’s not to excuse it, but like everything, there’s episodes where folks will bend the rules, and others where the customer is trying to re-write the book. There’s a big difference in trying to get a store to credit you for something when you spend $2k a year there, and when trying to get a full replacement for something you spent a few months farting out the aftermath of your taco-bell lunches in.
That said, I think that there should always be a baseline customer service policy that is afforded to all customers. One that will only bend with extreme circumstances. Loyalty programs can best measure a customer’s dedication to a particular brand, and allow for enhanced customer service features, similar to the way hotels, airlines, etc. show appreciation for repeat business.
There’s a new cocktail bar here in Houston that won me over the first time I visited by unapologetically kicking out a loud pack of douchebags who were trying to carry their drinks outside and not tipping. I think there’s an aspect of “I don’t want to be a customer of a company that caters to those assholes” involved.
That last one just makes me sad. It reminds me of my summers as a lifeguard where patrons would ask the dumbest things. This one woman once complained to me it was too hot and expected me to do something about it. This was an outdoor pool. I’m sorry, do you want me to do some f***ing rain dance? I obviously didn’t say that out loud but I definitely did in my head.
I remember being in line at Banana Republic while some headcase was trying to return pants without a receipt or tags. Didn’t even have the credit card she bought them with. The poor clerks were bending over backwards to accommodate this person, while forcing everyone else to stand in line for 10 extra minutes. Do you really want to keep the business of one lunatic, at the expense of alienating eight normal people?
It reminds me of that infamous $40 Allen Edmonds glitch at Jos. A. Banks. People were hacked off that the price wasn’t being honored and saying “I’ll never shop at J.A.B. again!” Why would they want a customer who is only willing to pay $40 for AE’s?
You’re right, of course, but the bottom line is that #1 + incentives is the real mechanism. We all pay, a little bit, for the replacement shoes, even though only one of us derives the benefit (ignoring any argument about the receiver being easier on the eyes with more comfortable shoes). Similarly, when I buy 20 pairs of shoe / boot seconds on sale, and then return 80-90% of them (even if it’s $10 apiece to do so), you all pay the lion’s share of the difference between $10 and actually shipping and returning a pair of shoes. So thanks.
I’m an optimizer, so it’s hard to resist the temptation to exploit an inefficiency benefitting me. But even though I distrust the idea that humans are rational / make optimal decisions, I still have a strong distaste for disguising true costs, as it seems likely to lead to inefficient decisions. On the other hand, I guess that’s the idea of some of the things I dislike – free shipping over $X, 10% off $50, but 30% off $200. They’re trying to short-circuit our ability to do math / assign values to things.
When I set prices, if I try to confuse people, it’ll be more straightforward. For products under $1000, you’ll receive -log(purchasePrice/$1000) * #minutes past the hour modulo 10% off. Except on tuesdays / black friday. Then it’ll be #seconds past the minute modulo 20% off.
My head hurts.
While I don’t think every company can afford this type of customer relationship, those that do maintain consumers that remain loyal to them. e.g. Lands End, LL Bean and Nordstrom. These store haven’t been around for a few years, they are generational stores, so clearly they must be doing something right. I think they have the economies of scale to allow such disparity in their return policies. I do not however, feel that this sort of entitlement that most consumers think they deserve from EVERY vendor. The smaller stores without the wherewithal to provide such freedom in returns shouldn’t be penalized as “oh, they suck because they wont take X item I bought last year”. We are not entitled to anything; in this age of the “informed” consumer, as I believe this collective to be here on Dappered, research is critical, be aware of what you can and cannot get. Don’t need to get bent outta shape if you cant return X to company ABC like you did at company XYZ.
shareholders are willing to foot the bill because they understand that this is the culture and company’s DNA. think how much goodwill and brand equity Nordstrom has created because of their outstanding customer service. not saying this kind of policy would work with all companies but it has certainly worked for them (see stock chart)
I agree, Joe.
The Nordstrom person made a very long-view call on doing that service. Now that guy (and obviously his brother) have a very solid trust and dedication to Nordstroms (where they will most likely expensive shoes in the future, and be a vocal spokesperson in their social circles [see comment]). Entitled assholes could be an unwanted by-product, but this is saavy business. Rand Paul would be outraged, Seth Godin would be proud. “100 people that love you is more valuable than 10,000 people that ‘like’ you”.
Also taking a beverage outside is a big no-no and can result in huge fines for the bar. They were doing it for them as much as for other patrons.
The thing is though, that guy was already back in the shoe section at Nordy’s. The clerk wasn’t winning him back. The clerk was giving away a freebie to fix a non-problem.
Precisely the point. Shop my confusing sale, you know there’s a discount, you don’t know how much, and you know that everyone else paid a different price for the same thing.
Maybe I should work pricing for an airline.
This reminds me of school when “B-” students would complain about “A+” kids ruining the curve by trying too hard. I work for a retail company that competes with Nordstrom and their customer service, free shipping and resultant customer loyalty are constant sources of jealousy, yet when its suggested we do the same there is always an excuse on why not to but we’re still getting beat on profit. You can’t get loyal customers if you don’t treat them well, the only way to compete then is on price and that’s a battle of diminishing returns. That was the JCP debate a while back.
The argument above could be made on price and how consumers now are so trained to look for sales and being able to buy things for the lowest price imaginable.
1. Someone’s got to pay and that’s usually the store employees and those who make the goods.
2. Sets a precedent for unrealistic prices for everything.
3. People become entitled assholes who always expect ludicrously low prices at all times.
I recently had to make a Home Depot run for a bathroom remodel I’m doing. While the dude was cutting some window casing to size for me, we got on the subject of price because they sell it by the foot. He said that if I buy too much, I can just return what I don’t use, even if it’s so short that it’s useless. He said he’s seen people return 3 inches of scrap molding – a material that’s usually sold by the yard. That’s like 60 cents of useless material.
He then went on to describe a situation whereby a remodeling contractor bought a stack of plywood and had Home Depot load it into the back of his beat up, broken-in Ford truck – if you’ve ever seen a contractor’s truck, you can get an idea of how beat up they can get. Anyway, he then came back several days later complaining about scratches. Home Depot awarded him $1000 for a brand new paint job to cover not only the 2 or three potential (unlikely) scratches that they were responsible for, but that hundreds of others, as well.
And for anyone whose ever bought a plant at Home Depot, just to have it die… They’ll take them back, even if it’s your fault. Sometimes, you don’t even need to bring back the dead plant. Just bring back the empty pot. (Anyone else see the loophole here?)
I don’t agree with this.
1) Somebody is already paying. There is a large mark-up on the luxury goods that Nordstrom sells. It really doesn’t cost hundreds of dollars more to make most quality goods over a similar item that Gap or even H&M sells. The money is there and whether they want to spend it on service (like Nordstrom) or advertising and PR (like J. Crew), that is kind of their prerogative.
2) It doesn’t set unreasonable expectations. Not for Nordstrom. This is what they do and what they have always done. It sets unreasonable expectations for other companies. People are supposed to notice that they don’t get this kind of service at Macys or BR or J. Crew. I don’t see how this is not smart.
3) You can’t stop people from being entitled assholes. Look at the internet. As Fishbone use to say, “Give a Monkey a Brain and He’ll Swear He’s the Center of the Universe”
I think the response should warrant the issue. Giving someone a new pair of shoes in that scenario is ridiculous. Because the mistake was completly the customers. Now a discount on a new pair would be a nice customer service move. Just like the entree was late so maybe a small free apetizer to appease the customer. I think when you do things like this it just encourages dishonest people to abuse the system which hurts all of us. Also some people are not worth the business they bring and a business is better off with out them. That being said a realtor makes their money via refferals and renting or buying a house is a big purchase so that makes more sense to me. Just my opinion
Yeah. That was bananas. People were SOOOO angry that they couldn’t screw a company out of $40 AE’s. I was shocked that people suddenly felt like they deserved the shoes because of an obvious glitch.
As I mentioned in my post, I don’t think people need help to feel entitled.
This was precisely what I was going to say. All three of Joe’s point apply exactly to the crazy sales/discount game culture that stores do, and do way more often than hand out a free pair of shoes. And to some extent is fueled by sites like this (and me included here, I’m not trying to blame Joe more than any of us). But I think that problem dwarfs this one.
It’s like complaining about that one employee who was stealing pens from Enron. Someone has to pay for that, sure. And stealing is asshole-ish, sure. But there are bigger issues.
I don’t see the issue in situations like this.
Some people value the lowest prices. Some people value the best service. Thus we get stores that cater to both demographics. Companies are free to set whatever levels of service and whatever return policies they think will work best for their bottom line. If you’re not satisfied with their service or their prices shop elsewhere, no problem.
Where I have a problem is with customers who feel they’re entitled to the world, regardless of store policy or any possible interpretation of fairness. That’s not what happened here though. In other words if I go to Dillard’s and I mention in passing that I accidentally destroyed my new sweater by drying it and they offer to replace it that’s on them. If I go in threatening to boycott them because their sweater was defective that’s on me. Unless you’re somehow invested in a store I don’t see how it makes any difference what their customer support policies are. If they don’t match what you’re looking for go elsewhere, there is no shortage of choices.
“Ok, I’ll go load up my car with bags of ice from the supermarket. I’ll go let the swimmers know the pool is close until I get back in about an hour or so.”
Not sure if you recall the post in the threads with the guy who was the *second owner* of what may have been the ugliest pair of AE shoes ever made. He was upset with the shoes creasing and wanted to take them back to Nordstrom. Not sure how to even reason with someone like that.
I agree. The dudes who browse this site are in a very specific camp of “follow the price of something until it drops to a precisely acceptable amount and then stack two secret coupon codes on top of it”
There are tons of people who have more money than time and would rather have a SA drop everything to help them when they do get the chance to go shopping.
Agreed. I don’t know why we would expect Nordstrom to quit what they’ve been doing for the last 113 years in order to compete with companies that care more about providing things for the lowest price and cut out everything else.
Joe, i think you’re coming across really salty. Companies make for poor martyrs. Example number one doesn’t happen in a vacuum were companies are only affected by losses. There’s plenty of examples of companies shafting their consumers. Those slight losses from comping a consumer here an there pail in comparison to huge markups in price.
I agree that he shouldn’t have gotten his shoes replaced for free, and that whiny consumers suck…but we cant change those peoples behavior. Chances are those abrasive people are abrasive in all other aspects of their life.
In a corporate society that seems like its set up to eat away at any and all of your money, seeing someone “get over” on a company feels good. Especially since it happens so infrequently. I think your anger is disproportionate to the offense.
No, didn’t see that particular post. I try not to get too upset about stuff like this . . . I think the people who try to return two year old broken Christmas ornaments without a receipt are probably generally sad, lonely people and/or people with a touch of mental illness. That doesn’t make it any more pleasant to stand in line behind them, of course.
5 of those will also probably return something too.
There’s a problem with “the customer’s always right” when it threatens the dignity of service staff. That’s about setting the tone of person to person relationships in the shaping of the corporate (or store) culture. Separately, I think there’s a second issue of implied warranty that varies between brands. EMS apparently used to have the same returns policy as REI, but last year they got fed up and made it more restrictive (there was a long article in the WSJ). Will be interesting to see what happens between these two (if anything).
Another example, Patagonia, has what I would characterize as a peer to peer sales strategy. When I ask someone a technical question, they respond with something like, “lets talk to Bob, he whitewater kayaks the same river you do.” There’s none of that, “I’m your server” nonsense. But they will take a return for a pretty extreme range of reasons – they fixed a zipper on a ten year old jacket for free, for example, because even though that’s a lot of years of use, they seem to really need me to believe in the quality of their goods even far beyond any reasonable warranty.
This is correct. See point number 1 and you’ll see how it’s covered.
But now the guy is advertising for them. Plus, being inside a store does not imply that you are a loyal customer. He may have already been, that is conjecture, but he most certainly is now. The question isn’t whether this act will make Nordstrom money, but how much.
A to the MEN. I love good service as much as the next guy, but *I* am responsible for buying shoes that give me blisters, pants that don’t fit right, and shirts I grow out of. Showing me respect as a human being and a consumer is all I need and all I am entitled to; you don’t need to act like the kid who tried to give me candy to be his friend.
It is my understanding that neither Home Depot nor Lowes will take back cut wood. Since he was cutting, the associate might not actually ever work in returns and therefore not know the policy. Not that you should be getting lumber from either if you can help it.
The unlikelihood of the second anecdote occurring as described also adds some credibility to my theory that the associate you were dealing with is full of it.
The third one is certainly not company policy, though it should be because they sell such sad, low quality plants.
No doubt everyone here who is lamenting this guy getting a free pair of shoes would have turned down the sales associate’s offer and walked out of their with their dignity and ill-fitting shoes.
That’s precisely why Joe said that he does not blame the commenter’s brother. His point was not to criticize any individual’s actions, but to criticize *policies* that allow people to unfairly shift burdens to others.
I probably would have felt too guilty to accept, actually. Bad karma.
Completely. Also, forget dignity. Take the shoes, you’re on the hook to give the “shoes” (or whatever it is you produce in your line of work) to the next person who walks into your world in a similar situation. I don’t want to owe that salesperson, or frankly, anyone else anything. Do me a favor? Don’t.
Nordstrom has exceptional customer service. This article has been a low point of Joe’s writing in all the years I’ve read Dappered. Sabrown merely shared a story that happened to his brother and Joe jumped on him & the 40 people who voted up. The man didn’t ask for anything he merely shared his disappointment. Years ago I was in Nordstrom when a sales associate approached me about my shoes. He noticed they looked worn and he recognized they were purchased at Nordstrom. I didn’t know the guy and I told him the shoes were 7 years old & ‘that what happens to old shoes.’ He insisted on giving me a new pair of shoes. I accepted. I was also there shopping for shoes, so I bought those as well. Does this make me a “butt kisser?” Is what I did “bullshit?” No. I had well-worn shoes. I stated that over time, that’s what supposed to happen to shoes. He replaced them without me asking anyway. To this day I still buy my shoes and many other products at Nordstrom BECAUSE of their exceptional customer service. (I buy all my camping gear from REI because they too have exceptional service.) If you want to hatchet-job Nordstrom, by all means go ahead. I’ll defend them. I’ll never understand why having exceptional customer service is a negative just because one likes to shop at other stores with lesser customer service.
You’ve missed the point. The argument is that what you’re describing isn’t true customer service. It’s Eddie Haskell sales. He insisted on giving you a pair of shoes probably because he got a commission for moving a unit, and he was out to buy your loyalty.
This isn’t about taking down Nordstrom. Far from it. I love Nordstrom. And if you think this is the low point in my writing? Dude. Start going through the archives. There’s a HELL of a lot worse drivel than this.
But he’s advertising that Nordy’s gave him something for nothing. I’m not sure that’s good word of mouth.
I see both sides of this discussion. When it relates to Nordstrom, you can’t fault them for providing sometimes over-the-top customer service (vis a vis free shoes), because it’s what they’ve done for over 80 years. And it’s not as if you walked in and made a scene. It’s simply what they do and how they feel like they need to treat their customer. Sure, I can buy cheaper shoes somewhere else, but part of what you’re paying for at Nordstrom is that top-notch, bend-over-backwards service.
On the other hand, Joe makes a valid point regarding the blowhard customer who demands ridiculous compensation for a trivial offense, or otherwise attempts to shift blame from themselves. I think that kind of behavior is deplorable, but I don’t think it’s solely from a retailer or service provider training a person to expect such treatment; some people are just that way.
I have a flip side story, while dining in a restaurant over the holidays with my family. Six of us had delicious food, but my dad’s scallops tasted strange. My brother tried a scallop, and agreed that they weren’t right. He didn’t bother finishing the dish. We brought the issue to the attention of our waitress, who informed the manager. The manager’s response? “All of our seafood is brought in fresh daily, there’s never a problem with it.” Then he walked away. I don’t think it would be excessive in this case for the manager to apologize and remove the entree from the check, or offer another dish. I don’t think that makes me an asshole for expecting something to be corrected to my satisfaction, when the issue lies with the provider.
Free shoes after 7 years, to me, isn’t customer service.
Categorically denying your Dad’s observation about the scallops is just plain being a jerk.
I think it’s about being reasonable. On both counts.
Floor trim, crown moulding, and door/window casing is sold by the foot. It’s separate from something such as plywood which is sold in sheets of a specific size. I would expect that you can’t return cut plywood, but there would be nothing preventing you from buying 6″ of crown moulding if that’s what you wanted. And if you can buy it, you can return it…
And I can personally attest to the last one because they’ve told me on multiple occasions (though I’ve never taken them up on the offer).
To be clear, in the examples provided, the stores and clerks are the butt kissers, not the customers.
How much loyalty can you buy anyway? Clothes aren’t like cola or cigarettes. If the customer doesn’t like the shirts you have out that season, or if he finds a better deal on a similar item, he’s gone.
You’re 100 percent correct here, Joe. The experience created by the over-the-top customer butt kissing is disingenuous. It’s phony and in my view patronizing to the customer. If I wear shoes for seven years, beat them up, and then walk into a shoe department, I don’t want or expect free shoes. I can buy my own replacement if and when I’m ready. If I buy the wrong size and wear them anyway, it’s my problem to solve. I want efficient service. I’m a customer, not a king. You’re not better than me, I’m not better than you. You do your job , I’ll do mine. This is a society. There are rules.
I would be too creeped out by the Stepford-level gesture. I’m a New Yorker. I’d rather make a reasonable request but be told to get the hell out of the place than have someone bend over backwards trying to accommodate me.
im loving the debate below…however i would love to know where you all think the line should be drawn. how many days/weeks/months would have been acceptable before a return attempt? how much bum-smooching is too much- and how much is just good business.
I think we need to apply the Reasonable Man Standard, i.e. what would a reasonable man think is appropriate. I find it hard to believe that any reasonable man, or woman, would find it acceptable for a store to replace for free a year old pair of shoes that the customer purchased in the wrong size, or a years older item that wore out due to normal wear and tear. The problem is that the butt-kissers in customer service are throwing off what we’ve always known to be reasonable in a disingenuous attempt to provide “customer service.”
I worked at Macy’s in my late teens… you just stirred up some very disturbing memories. Thank you for that 😉
I’m not too worried… I’m pretty sure Nordstrom (or, insert any major retailer name here) can take care of itself. These big retailers enact customer-friendly policies because they have made a reasonable business determination that it’s better and cheaper to be friendly and occasionally get taken advantage of than to be stingy and turn off a bunch of customers.
I’m more concerned when a customer’s/client’s sense of entitlement has an adverse impact on the individual salesperson, waiter, etc. It’s one thing to abuse a company’s return policy and another to abuse the human being in front of you – for example, by threatening to report an employee to management if you don’t get your way (which is not the same thing as politely asking to speak to a manager to address an issue), or withholding a tip from a waiter when your meal wasn’t perfect (hint: a waiter’s tips are the basis of their regular wage and not a bonus for doing an extra good job).
Are we specifically talking about the shoes? I’d say that as soon as he wore them outside, Nordstrom shouldn’t have to accept a return. At that point, Nordstrom can’t sell them anymore, so what good are they?
But doesn’t the former (the overly lenient corporately mandated policy) risk causing the latter (the abuse of salespeople on the ground who can’t bend any farther backward to accommodate customers who’ve come to expect the moon because corporate overlords say it’s their ‘right’)?
This is my issue with it. I think it sets bad precedent by fixing unreasonable expectations.
This – and much more.
I’m thinking of those graphs that Dappered always features – showcasing a spectrum style ranging from acceptable to extreme.
Real talk.
I guess it depends on the culture of the company and whether it’s the company or the employee who bears the brunt of the customer’s sense of entitlement. In the case of a company like Nordstrom, I assume one or two whiney customers abusing an employee to try to take advantage of a return policy isn’t going to result in anything worse than a shitty day for that particular employee. It’s the company’s bottom line and not the employee’s livelihood being affected.
Restaurant-owners, on the other hand, need to stand up for their employees and actually bother to pay them a living wage that doesn’t subject the employee’s livelihood to the whim of the customer. Imagine if Nordstrom, for example, offered items at a base price and let their customers decide whether to pay their salesperson a commission and how much.
I have no problem with a retailer or service provider making an informed decision to enact policies that coddle or encourage consumer entitlement as long as it’s the retailer’s shareholders and executives, not its ordinary employees, that reap the benefits or drawbacks of that policy.
All fair points, especially with regard to workers whose livelihoods are subject to the whims of customers. That said, and this might be another debate for another site on another day, I think when companies overemphasize the importance of accommodating customers to an unreasonable extent, it creates a culture where employees in service industries view themselves and are viewed by others as beneath the people they serve. It creates a tiered class system, which is I think why we’re so comfortable as a society talking about makers and takers and using other disparaging language with regard to class and economic status. In reality, both the employee and the customer are on equal footing, providing a necessary component to the economic system—the engine doesn’t run unless both sets of actors are acting appropriately. I’d prefer policies that keep this equality in mind.
To be be sure, I’m almost certainly reading too much into my interactions with salespeople. My wife would probably tell me to shut up, say thank you, and accept the gesture.
Ah ha, now I figured out why people love AE shoes, I’d deal with those devil shoes too if I got new ones every few years!
(They don’t fit my feet properly with a high instep and their CS was extremely rude to me over the phone for anyone that hasn’t read that)
“You’re not better than me, I’m not better than you. You do your job, I’ll do mine.” You’ve said it 100x better than I tried to in the post.
The risk is that phoniness becomes a currency. You dole it out, and you’ll expect it back. You embrace it, and then you’re expected to provide it in the future. Even if it’s not from the same person. And a lot of us don’t find any value what so ever in that game.
Exactly.
Your average consumer doesn’t know how much it costs a business for “customer service.”
This is actually what I do for a global manufacturer (analyze the cost of customer service in America for my product division).
In America, we’re extremely entitled due to the consumer-centric lemon laws / warranty laws. However, this costs the manufacturer and other areas of reverse logistics BILLIONS of dollars every year.
Everything you mentioned in your article is spot on.
We can tell you exactly how much it costs.
Obviously it costs less than our profit margin, but it’s still quite a sizable chunk.
America has the best returns/warranty policy in the world and it’s ridiculous what people will expect in the name of “customer service.”
As far as defective and improperly sized what-nots, those are completely covered by the law and you will find a hard time seeing any company not accept a return in those cases. I’d say almost 50% of the time, returns are based on crazy customer expectations
What bad sales people don’t understand is that good customer service isn’t just saying “yes” to everything. Imagine if a 6’5″ guy tried on a blazer at Uniqlo and the sales person told him he looked great in it. At first, he feels like he had a positive experience with a friendly sales person. But when everyone laughs at him because the tail of his blazer doesn’t reach his belt, he wishes the sales person had just said “let’s try something else.”
I don’t work in retail, I work in international shipping, but bad sales people are the same everywhere. People come up with all sorts of cockamamie shipping schemes, and dumb sales people don’t bother to explain why a certain move is risky/too expensive/illegal. They just say “we’ll get right on that for you!”
Curious…how do you know its not already factored into their pricing?
Joe, you said it perfectly. I agree with every word.
I disagree with this premise. It’s possible that the sales person in this example used questionable judgment (I don’t think so, customer acquisition argument), but I prefer dealing with a company that allows their employees to use their own judgment in the first place.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2014/03/15/the-nordstrom-two-part-customer-experience-formula-lessons-for-your-business/
I agree. We switched from a majority rules society to “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”.
It likely is. Which would be a perfect example of how point number 1 is true. They’re already charging us more in order to be able to sustain the practice of offering ridiculous levels of customer service.
It seems to me that Nordstrom has built a brand around having insanely accommodating customer service and that is a big part of what they sell. They also seems to charge higher prices than many other retailers and offer fewer discounts and sales. Many people are seemingly willing to pay their higher prices in exchange for the service and agree to a sort of contract — I’ll pay you more for this so that you treat me like I am always right and accommodate requests that would be considered completely unreasonable in most other retail contexts. I don’t really see the problem and it seems to be a successful business model.
While I like the general idea of the argument (particularly #3), I think you need more details about what occurred whether you can say that this isn’t a practice Nordstrom – a company that prides itself on its customer service – should or should not be involved in.
If the customer had been asked whether he wanted help, said no, and then bought the wrong size, I agree 100%. If they had not asked him if he wanted help or if they had advised him on the wrong size, I think this is validated (particularly the latter).
I actually had a similar experience buying my first pair of AEs. The store manager sized me at a 10.5D and I tried on a pair of Park Aves. I said they felt a little tight and he assured me that the leather would stretch and they would fit. After 2 years, they did stretch out some but still are too small. A year ago I bought my 2nd pair of Park Aves in Bourbon at a different store. I told the manager the 10.5D felt a little tight and she said that was because I was obviously a size 11D at least and could possibly do an 11.5D. While I haven’t complained about it, I do view this as mostly the original store manager’s fault.
This isn’t a post about Nordstrom, or even big department stores. This is a post about customer service, what it is… and what it isn’t, as a whole. When it’s genuine, and when it’s not, and what happens when it’s not. Mom & Pop, Walmart, and everything inbetween.
I agree with you though, if that was the situation, then perhaps there’s more of a “wrong” to be righted in the one example. But how bad could it have been, if he walked around for a year and wore them into the store that day? Couldn’t have been that bad.
As someone who has worked in customer service and still does (albeit not retail anymore) I can definitely relate to this article. One time I had a customer who wanted to return 2 suits that he had bought a year ago and tailored and for which he did not have a receipt. He wanted full retail as opposed to what they were currently going for. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.
Don’t forget that yelling at and insulting the customer service person will not help you and infact usually makes them want to help you less.
Curious…which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Ha, I worked as a lifeguard also – some of the requests were amazing, but nothing tops the time I was working at an ice rink and a father (who clearly couldn’t skate) complained that our ice was too slippery.
I agree with your thought process; I just don’t think this is the right example.
The customer mentioned something off-hand and wasn’t complaining. The salesperson at Nordstrom is trained to provide exceptional customer service because that’s their unique selling proposition. I’m willing to bet the Lifetime Value of their customers is significantly higher than it is at most other retailers. So the salesperson is making a smart business decision. Hell, the fact that it got 40 up-votes tells you that other people look at this favourably – that reputation helps convince others to shop there.
That said, point 3 is spot on. Good customer service has created an entitled group in our “me-first” generation. The best example here was the giant amount of people who complained when Jos. A Bank did not fulfill their pricing mistake on the $40 Fifth Ave shoes.
I have to say. I love reading Dappered, but this article was grade A hogwash.
NPR’sprofile of LL Bean (as many other readers have cited as an example of having a similar policy to sabrown in terms of Customer Service) and it is worth reading. I know Joe cited it above but i want to repost it:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/25/223787129/what-happens-when-a-store-lets-customers-return-whatever-they-want
I love LL Bean’s policy. They stand behind their products and have incredibly loyal customers. It also fits in perfectly with their branding. Their policy is definitely on the extreme end, but I would rather have more LL Beans in the world than stores with admittedly horrible return policies (Zara comes to mind as being particularly difficult on returns).
I have seen plenty of entitled customers rip a poor sales associate a new one because of some difficult return/exchange policy. The customer leaves irate, the sales associate is usually upset, and the rest of the store patrons are trying to get the heck out of there ASAP. If more stores had a policy closer to LL Bean, that same difficult customer would likely leave less upset, the sales associate wouldn’t have to be subjected to some ignorant jerk, and things become a lot easier for everyone. Isn’t that better?
The only guess work would be what percentage of the price is built in for losses. It is common knowledge that all, intelligent, businesses allow for losses in their pricing structure.
I agree, except for the made in USA comparrison.
I am all for supporting US companies that truly make and source their materials in the US but I am not willing to spend my money on something that is made in the USA if it is inferior to an identical or similar product from elsewhere.
There are many aspects of consumerism (cusomer service [as noted], made in the USA and green branding top my list) that have been taken too far in my opinion.
“AE’s are a pretty big investment and for the uninitiated they behave differently than the shoes most of us are used to buying.”
This is just a way of rationalizing someone making a mistake. Unless you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth, chances are that when you first become a true consumer (making decisions/choices for yourself) you will start out on the lower end of the scale and hopefully move up as your life progresses. If you make a purchase (whatever the product or price) without doing due diligence the only person at fault is you and the merchant nor the rest of their customers should have to absorb the cost of your mistake.
“We’re not paying for it any differently than we’re paying for their marketing budget.”
This is going to go kind of off topic but it doesn’t matter how directly or indirectly we’re paying for something. The problem is that people have gotten so used to hidden and differed costs that they turn a blind eye or just accept it as the status quo as part of doing business. On a grander scale, the mentality of not worrying about differed costs, is problematic to everyone. Look at all the various state and federal government aid programs that are in place or coming online and are or will be taken advantage of. We most definitely are not paying for them directly but we are paying for them all the same. Should it matter that the cost is distributed across many people (or in the case of shoes many units)? Should those who don’t take advantage of the situation be penalized and made to support those who do?
It doesn’t matter if it is a pair of shoes that costs a few hundred dollars or a program that costs billions of dollars, it is the same basic principal.
To be clear, there are vast differences between legitimate reasons and simply taking advantage of a system because the system sees no difference between one individual/complaint and the next. Returning a defective item and expecting compensation is legitimate. Returning an item after wearing it for a prolonged period because it is the wrong size and expecting compensation is taking advantage of the system.
Nice thing about B.R./Gap/Old Navy products (and this should have sped things along) is that all of their sewn in garment tags have codes on them that allow the associate to look them up and assign a return price if no receipts are presented. Of course this price generally is the same as what was originally paid though.
I’m not sure you don’t already work for the airlines.
You are correct. That is a way of rationalizing a mistake. Most sane people don’t usually do things with no rationale behind their actions. Allowing the guy to switch out his shoes is a way to get him to buy more $400 shoes.
Since the sales rep immediately switched out the shoes, with no prompting, it seems like Nordstrom has made a decision that it makes financial sense to cater to people that are willing to spend a lot of money. I think you will find that most places have made the financial decision that it makes sense to cater to people who are willing to spend a lot of money.
I think I recognized in my comment that the consumer was at fault. It has nothing to do with fault or right and wrong or what Nordstrom “should” do. They are not bound to do anything. It only has to do with their decision on how to make the most money. If you want a strict caveat emptor environment where you are not paying for customer service there is always craigslist and ebay.
I do wonder how black & white all these commenters would be if they were the ones that just dropped 3 bills on shoes they can no longer wear though.
Interesting topic. I agree with the general point. I just don’t think this particular example is a great one with which to make it. The guy didn’t go into the store demanding to be made whole for his year old mistake. He didn’t blame it on the sales person or the manufacturer. He just made a comment and the store decided what to do from there. This doesn’t sound like an entitled customer run amok.
Researcher for tech company. I pay too much to fly, just like you.
Correct. Tell me, what is nordstroms percentage?