Misuse of Return Reasons

[selecttech]

Good morning

I am hopeful, based on senior staff comments, that the spring update addresses these type of returns with further seller protections:

Reason for return: Doesn't work or defective
Comments: Hello, The case is very flimsy for my child. I would like to imitate a return.

Unfortunately, sellers like us deal with these return reasons that damage our seller metrics leading to the higher % fee threshold.  This is a "Just didnt like it" return reason and not a "defective" reason. Either way our returns are free so using a false reason only damages a seller account.

Maybe just a "report it" that can get it struck through with A.I. software. Im sure its a great deal of back end work, but will keep the marketplace fair for both parties. 

Just my thoughts.

[gramophone-georg]

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

---

@slati_2013 wrote:

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

I doubt they will change the MBG rules to allow defective, doesn't work, or poor quality items.  

Sorry.

---

But the problem here is in order to get the seller to pay for the return, many buyers are falsely claiming the item is defective when it is not. This is an issue that has to be addressed. Maybe a fixed return shipping fee based on the original shipping fee. I am pretty sure there will be far less returns if buyers knew they had to pay to return the items. They will take more time to make sure they are buying the right thing. 

---

I understand there are those who falsely claim SNAD so they don't have to pay return shipping.  That is a valid concern.  But to many, there is no such thing as a legitimate return, whether they take returns or whether it is a true SNAD, and thus all may be fought.  I have no answers.  In the case of defective, there is no way to take a picture to show something isn't working.  

---

Yes, but this thread isn't about that.

[fern*wood]

I'm certainly anxious (not sure yet if it's a good or bad anxious) to hear what changes they claim to have in the works on this issue.  

In the past, some changes in protection have only emboldened dishonestly in one party or the other.   Some people, that have no conscience or concern about doing what's right, will search for those openings and those of us that are honest to a fault are usually the ones to get hit the hardest.   I'm talking about both buyers and sellers.  There is no such thing here of problematic people being only on one side.

I'm sure this is a difficult nut to crack.

[gramophone-georg]

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

---

@escuintla wrote:

The old times when buyers would assume responsibility for their failure to ask questions before buying are gone. That is plain and simple as sugar giving you diabetes. 

---

While many don't accept responsibility on either side, I believe there are buyers who do.

---

Castle, shouldn't that be "buyers and sellers who do."  

I accept, and always have, responsibility for every issue that results from something I've done.  I don't think I am in the minority in that regard.

---

Seems she meant what she said.

[this*old*attic]

I’ve personally never returned anything, but I’d love to know what buyers are presented with. I’m not sure they’re lying to get free returns, so much as they are sort of getting hints what to pick.

Seller metrics could possibly stay the same if the current screen is rather prejudicial, and a better one could be formatted.

[tunicaslot]

I still get false SNADS - had one last week on an item I took BO on that was mailed in a PR bubble envelope - opened an SNAD - didn't like it - it smelled. No reason to open an SNAD - I have free returns - just say you didn't like it. There was no smell - still had the dry cleaning tags on it.

[gramophone-georg]

---

@fern*wood wrote:

I'm certainly anxious (not sure yet if it's a good or bad anxious) to hear what changes they claim to have in the works on this issue.  

In the past, some changes in protection have only emboldened dishonestly in one party or the other.   Some people, that have no conscience or concern about doing what's right, will search for those openings and those of us that are honest to a fault are usually the ones to get hit the hardest.   I'm talking about both buyers and sellers.  There is no such thing here of problematic people being only on one side.

I'm sure this is a difficult nut to crack.

---

It's not a difficult nut to crack at all. Make the policies simple and enforce them uniformly. The only reason SNAD is being misused is because eBay allows it!

[tunicaslot]

---

@this*old*attic wrote:

I’ve personally never returned anything, but I’d love to know what buyers are presented with. I’m not sure they’re lying to get free returns, so much as they are sort of getting hints what to pick.

Seller metrics could possibly stay the same if the current screen is rather prejudicial, and a better one could be formatted.

---

There is a pull down list with many selection - SNAD reasons near the bottom - but I don't think buyers really get the concept of free returns without there being a problem. Plus if they return too many items  - Ebay also sees this so to claim the item has a defect protects their buying accounts.

[this*old*attic]

Seriously? Seems like buyers might get burned by policies meant to protect them and improve their buying experience  just like some of our protections are a double edged sword.

Ebays yells return, return, return, then restricts their buying privileges if they actually do?

Honestly, the whole web is becoming return crazy - I do Stitch Fit (love it!).... every month it arrives with a prepaid Priority envelope in case I don’t like any of it.

[this*old*attic]

Which I never do, btw - the discounts are so steep if you keep the whole order it isn’t worth returning one item of the batch. The package ended up more expensive minus the one item.

Easier to throw it up NWT on EBay.

[luckythewinner]

---

---

Maybe a fixed return shipping fee based on the original shipping fee.

So you think that charging honest buyers a fee when they receive a truly defective item is the way to solve the problem with dishonest buyers? 

I am pretty sure there will be far less returns if buyers knew they had to pay to return the items.

I am pretty sure there will be far less buyers if honest buyers knew that had to pay to return a truly defective item.

[papermoneyforme]

---

@selecttech wrote:

Good morning

I am hopeful, based on senior staff comments, that the spring update addresses these type of returns with further seller protections:

Reason for return: Doesn't work or defective
Comments: Hello, The case is very flimsy for my child. I would like to imitate a return.

Unfortunately, sellers like us deal with these return reasons that damage our seller metrics leading to the higher % fee threshold.  This is a "Just didnt like it" return reason and not a "defective" reason. Either way our returns are free so using a false reason only damages a seller account.

Maybe just a "report it" that can get it struck through with A.I. software. Im sure its a great deal of back end work, but will keep the marketplace fair for both parties. 

Just my thoughts.

---

Don't hold your breath!

[robot-hands]

---

@*coins wrote:

Sorry you are experiencing problem buyers like this. Sadly, there isn't really a way to stop it.

---

Oh there most certainly is, just nobody that can, will do anything about it, in fact they encourage it.

[tunicaslot]

lucky- let's face it - returns are a very small part of most of our business and the majority of good sellers make good to keep their customers happy. I pulled the wrong item from my inventory the other day - the buyer opened an SNAD as she received the wrong item. I was notified of the return - realized my mistake and emailed the buyer to just keep that item and gave her the tracking number for the correct item that I threw in the mail. My mistake - I own it and most sellers do. You've been listening to too many stories about bad sellers on here.

I have seen an increase in buyers who don't read listings and open false SNADs because so few want to take responsibility for their own actions. Then you have impulse buyers - who buy something and then a few days later decide they don't like it - but claim SNAD. You may not have the problem in your categories - but clothing sellers have seen an uptick.

A have a friend who impulse buys and has for years - spends hours in the store - finally decides on an item - and then a day or two later takes it back claiming it's too small. Fact of the matter is that she just decided not to keep it but feels she has to lie about the reason for the return. People are strange.

[castlemagicmemories]

---

@sharingtheland wrote:

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

---

@escuintla wrote:

The old times when buyers would assume responsibility for their failure to ask questions before buying are gone. That is plain and simple as sugar giving you diabetes. 

---

While many don't accept responsibility on either side, I believe there are buyers who do.

---

Castle, shouldn't that be "buyers and sellers who do."  

I accept, and always have, responsibility for every issue that results from something I've done.  I don't think I am in the minority in that regard.

---

Sherry, I wasn't implying that there are sellers who don't take responsibility.  The original statement referred to only buyers, so it was in that context I responded, so no, it shouldn't have been buyers and sellers do as the point originally made only referred to buyers and my point simply addressed that thought.  But thank you.

[castlemagicmemories]

Please disregard that previous.  Ran out of edit time.

The statement is correct as it is.  The original point was buyers don't take responsibility.  My response pointed out that many on either side don't, but that there are some buyers who do.

Focus of original post responded to was buyers don't take responsibility, thus those on both sides may not, and there are some buyers who do~all referring to buyers as the original statement.  This statement is no less true but if you want to read sellers into it, your perogative and I don't disagree there are sellers who take responsibility.  Just that either side has those who don't.  For those who feel it is more complete if sellers were mentioned as well, that's fine, and I was not implying there weren't sellers who did take responsibility.

Thank you.