View Single Post
Old 11-06-2015, 09:32 AM   #153
Difflugia
Testate Amoeba
Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Difflugia ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Difflugia's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,049
Karma: 27300000
Join Date: Sep 2012
Device: Many Android devices, Kindle 2, Toshiba e755 PocketPC
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
No, I don't agree with that. If Amazon said "you can return up to 10% of the items you buy", the inevitable result would be people who would game the system, and return 9.9% of their products for no good reason.
I completely fail to understand why you think that's better than the inevitable result of not specifying a limit, which is that customers acting in good faith have their accounts closed for undisclosed reasons.

9.9% is too high? Make it 7% instead of 10%. Is "no good reason" the problem? Specifiy valid reasons for returns.

These aren't pricing models or market segmenting strategies that they're refusing to disclose. They are stating a returns policy, but then enforcing a policy that is at odds with what they claim.

You seem to be saying that Amazon dissembling its policies should not only be considered a legitimate business practice, but is indeed somehow necessary to avoid being defrauded by customers. This baffles me.
Difflugia is offline   Reply With Quote