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.

[castlemagicmemories]

Yes, but it is about false returns and without that, it is only one side/part of the story.  

It is sad that there are false returns but equally sad that some think there is no such thing as a legitimate return.  Two sides of the same coin, and equally wrong.

My apologies if you or anyone finds that offensive.  

[escuintla]

I remember years ago I sold 2 DVDs. I put the wrong one into the bubble envelopes. It was then, when Ebay had down to earth policies and buyers, and sellers by the way.

So, I sent messages to both of them telling them to "return to sender". Both buyers were like me, going out to say hello to their mail carriers. I got both items back and resent them to their rightful owners.  No drama, no calls to CS to berate me. They understood pretty well I meant business when they got $2 in their envelopes. 

One of the reasons Ebay spends lots of time, and money is customer service. And I believe, without any data to back me up, it's mostly sellers complaining about the unfair returns for the most stupid reasons sometimes. 

Ebay needs to cut that umbilical cord of free returns. Let's make both sellers and buyers accountable. Instead of CS listening to "well, I thought it was dark blue, etc." make the calls about "well, the seller said they are green, but it's blue", so they can nail the...excuse my French here, the dumb seller doing that. 

That will put an end to Macy's, Target, Walmart type of buyers returning anything for the minimal reasons. Make them pay 20% of the original price/shipping when the returns smells like fish, problem solved. 

Oh, months ago I bought a phone cover with a clip on Ebay. It broke the first time I put it on my belt. I told the buyer that I wanted to return it, or, at least, send me the part of if with the clipper. He put a bunch of excuses, but if I wanted to get $5 refund he would oblige. I avoided the drama and accepted his offer. 

We are not A, we are not Macy's, we are not a distribution center. We are common, regular people earning a buck here and there. Treat us like it. Will ya? 

[fern*wood]

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

---

@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.

---

Your statement simply said:  "While many don't accept responsibility on either side, I believe there are buyers who do."

That definitely sounds like you are implying buyers will accept responsibility unlike sellers.    I understand you don't sell, so maybe that is why you go on to claim buyers will accept responsibility, but if you were only meaning to refer to buyers, then maybe the "on either side" part should have been omitted.   By adding both sides to the statement, and then only speaking of one side that will accept responsibility, it naturally leads readers to feel you believe the other side doesn't.

[castlemagicmemories]

I see  your points but mine were only in reference to the buyer because the original statement was.

In reference to buyer don't take responsibility:

They are not the only ones who don't.  Many who don't doesn't mean ALL sellers don't.  That is not mutually exclusive.  

There are some who do.

Nothing nefarious about that, as I said, if you feel it is more complete with there are sellers who take responsiblity, as I said earlier, (perhaps that was missed?) I have no problem with that, and it has nothing to do with my buying or selling.

Nothing nefarious here.

[castlemagicmemories]

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.

*****************************************************************************************************

Fundamentally what I said.

[fern*wood]

We will just have to agree to disagree.  My statement your quoted clearly stated buyers and sellers on both sides and I do not read that in your statement in question---not even fundamentally.

[gramophone-georg]

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

Yes, but it is about false returns and without that, it is only one side/part of the story.  

It is sad that there are false returns but equally sad that some think there is no such thing as a legitimate return.  Two sides of the same coin, and equally wrong.

My apologies if you or anyone finds that offensive.  

---

How?

We're not discussing what's "sad" in general. We're discussing buyers who use SNAD merely to get out of having to pay return shipping. Period. It has nothing to do with whether the seller feels returns in general are "legitimate" or not.

I don't find what you said "offensive" in the least- merely off topic.

[robot-hands]

---

@castlemagicmemories wrote:

no such thing as a legitimate return. 

---

While I believe there are legitimate returns I just ran my numbers on closed returns and over the last 18 months my fake returns outnumber the real ones.

For every 3 Fake, I get 1 real.

[robot-hands]

I just had an excellent example of how ebay will do nothing to help a seller.

Item sells, item ships next morning. Buyer gets it and says his account was hi-jacked. Low value item, $15, weighs 4 pounds going to Texas...shipping is like $18.

Buyer opens a return for SNAD, in messages he stated he never opened the box and again that someone hi-jacked his account.

Call it in, buyer never opened the package and even stated in the return they didn't order the item.

Ebay does nothing and expects me to refund them

Buyer could have filed with paypal or called ebay, wouldn't have cost either of us a dime but they file a fake SNAD instead.

CSR wants to know why I am taking it personally its just business.

I them them that I am personally doing all the business.

[myjunqueyourtreasure]

Back in the day when buyers had to pay for any return, it was common for us to advise buyers that a "good seller" would refund the shipping if it was truly SNAD (and I truly believe most did).

Then ebay decided NO buyer should have to pay to return anything for whatever reason.

We told them returns would go through the roof but they never cared...and here we are today, where a majority of returns are filed as false SNADs and sellers pay the penalty.

[fern*wood]

I hope ebay's answer to the false return problem isn't to require free returns for everything so the buyers don't have to pick a reason at all.

The reason I wonder is because of an email I received yesterday on two of my selling IDs.  It stated my return policies needed attention and went on to explain the policies changed last May and my listings are not up to date with current policy.

Well, I do have a current return policy, but I just don't offer free returns.  The link with that message sent me to the update explaining free returns-- of which I am fully aware of.   So they made it sound like any policy other than free returns is not a current up to date policy that I should use.

[castlemagicmemories]

As the main points were about a buyer, my statements were correct, and many did not mean all (sellers), but of course, we can agree to disagree.

[myjunqueyourtreasure]

Well they already changed the cancellation process so that a buyer doesn't have to have a "reason". I mean why bother as sellers are "expected" to allow a cancellation anyway?

[castlemagicmemories]

---

@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.

---

They are not getting hints at what to pick.   They just see a long list of reasons to choose one and check it off.   I believe the first seven reasons presented, if not more, all concern buyer's remorse reasons, that is the first thing they see.  One would have to scroll down past that to get to SNAD.

[castlemagicmemories]

Possibly the buyer in some cases chooses the wrong seller.   This could happen.

Just as a seller might send the buyer the wrong thing.

Mistakes happen.