Watchdog talks about Amazon closing accounts

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Wearever

I wonder what the response would be if this were to be aired on a show like( 60 minutes ) here in the US. I think many would be surprised by something like, the brother's account would be closed just because his brother returned to many things and they both lived at the same address. Something like that would explode in social media, I would think.

It's well-known here at MR that when Amazon close an account, they also close all accounts they consider to be "related". Ie using the same credit card, living at the same address, etc. No new information here.

[soulfuldog]

I agree with Ripplinger, that was a complete waste of time. And it's pointless trying to take anything from it because they didn't give enough information for us to do so, which is what I expected from Watchdog to be honest, they can be pretty rubbish.

They failed to look at it in any depth, and they either failed to broadcast or simply didn't get any details from the people who had their accounts closed about how many items they actually returned. There is absolutely no way someone had their account closed for non-delivery of a mattress and nothing else.

We've heard in the past that Amazon are very quick to close accounts linked to people they suspect of fraud (usually re-seller accounts was it not?), so possibly more to it than we were told about the guy who's brother also had his account closed.

A pretty pointless piece by Watchdog.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

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.

Then I'm afraid you must continue to be baffled. I've explained why I think it would be a bad idea to set hard limits on the number of returns; you are of course very welcome to hold a different opinion, but at the end of the day the only opinion that matters is Amazon's. They are free to decline to do business with whomsoever they wish, provided that such practises are in accordance with the law.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Then I'm afraid you must continue to be baffled. I've explained why I think it would be a bad idea to set hard limits on the number of returns; you are of course very welcome to hold a different opinion, but at the end of the day the only opinion that matters is Amazon's. They are free to decline to do business with whomsoever they wish, provided that such practises are in accordance with the law.

Your explanation appears to be that if a limit is specificied, people will return that much and no more. I agree, but I'm baffled mainly because I think tha'ts a reason to have the limit. I also think it should be self-evident that more opinions than Amazon's matter when we're discussing whether or not Amazon's conduct is unethical. Finally, I find it ironic (though you apparently don't?) that if business law were as fluid as Amazon's returns policy, then no company would know where to draw the line between competitive practices and illegal ones just as no Amazon customer can now know the exact line between economically sound return decisions and "abusive" ones.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

Your explanation appears to be that if a limit is specificied, people will return that much and no more. I agree, but I'm baffled mainly because I think tha'ts a reason to have the limit.

I don't, and let me give you an example to illustrate why I think it would be a bad idea:

If there was a limit of X% of items ordered, people could abuse the system as the person we had here at MR did, by using Amazon as a "try and return" service for high-value products which constituted a small percentage of their overall purchases. Eg, buy 100 items in a year, amongst which were ten £1000+ cameras. That would not a desirable state of affairs.

If there was a limit of X% of the total value of goods ordered, people could have their accounts closed for returning just one high-value item. Eg, spend a total of £2000 at Amazon in a year, but return just one £1000 camera. This would be even less desirable than the previous situation.

A flexible approach, where Amazon consider the return pattern of the individual purchaser when deciding whether or not they wish to terminate their business relationship with that person, is a much more sensible approach (IMHO).

[eschwartz]

@Difflugia,

Also consider this part of what HarryT said:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Then I'm afraid you must continue to be baffled. I've explained why I think it would be a bad idea to set hard limits on the number of returns; you are of course very welcome to hold a different opinion, but at the end of the day the only opinion that matters is Amazon's. They are free to decline to do business with whomsoever they wish, provided that such practises are in accordance with the law.

Regardless of whether their return policies are "good" or not, Amazon, like any other company, can decline to do business with you just because they say so. There is no law that says Amazon is obligated to sell you something.
(Although of course, you can sue them for racial discrimination if you think that is applicable. Which it isn't.)

[Rizla]

It is in Amazon's interest to not clearly state policy on limits of returns or on account closure or access to digital content. This way, they can effectively do what they want, on a case by case basis, and react to circumstances as suits them.

It's an interesting grey-area that Amazon appears to want to keep grey for their benefit. It will be interesting to see if Mr Bozo replies to pdurrant's email with clarification. As I see it, it is not in Amazon's interest to clarify policy, I doubt pdurrant will receive a clearer statement of policy.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

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.

What if it is just basically a very complicated calculation based on many variables that is too complicated to explain (I'd suspect clothes and items bought just before christmas have a higher return rate that factors into their calculation).
Also, without an "official" figure they can change the algorithm when it suits them, given their usual habit of changing things on a whim lightning fast business decision a specific policy seems like a bad idea for them.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

They failed to look at it in any depth, and they either failed to broadcast or simply didn't get any details from the people who had their accounts closed about how many items they actually returned. A pretty pointless piece by Watchdog.

They had full details from us.

[Josieb1]

Under UK Law I am entitled to place an order online and return it within 14 days if its not suitable, paying my own return postage. We have placed 8 physical orders with Amazon since the 'letter', and all have been for low cost value and kept (of course).

Today we received a replacement ipad air case for hubby, a good make, logitech, we were very careful when selecting it, however we forgot to find out the weight. Yes our mistake, but now we have a £18.50 case which will simply go in the loft until we sell the Air and include it with it, we dare not return it as in our case one last return could be the return that gets our account closed.

So regardless of the law we can't return an online order we made a mistake with. Even though the law says we can.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

So regardless of the law we can't return an online order we made a mistake with. Even though the law says we can.

The "distance selling" regulations say that you're entitled to return it. They don't say that the retailer is obliged to carry on doing business with you after you do so. Your legal rights are not being infringed.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't, and let me give you an example to illustrate why I think it would be a bad idea:

If there was a limit of X% of items ordered, people could abuse the system as the person we had here at MR did, by using Amazon as a "try and return" service for high-value products which constituted a small percentage of their overall purchases. Eg, buy 100 items in a year, amongst which were ten £1000+ cameras. That would not a desirable state of affairs.

I don't think that Amazon's policy in any way discourages "try and return" and given Amazon's desire to replace B&M stores, I would consider a customer using Amazon's returns system this way to be acting in good faith. If I felt that Amazon stated in some way that customers are expected to avoid making returns, then I would feel differently. I think, however, that Amazon actually wants the business of some "try and return" customers, but not others.

I think that there are ways that Amazon could explain its policy without jeopardizing its ability to combat genuine fraud. To not do so is unconscionable.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If there was a limit of X% of the total value of goods ordered, people could have their accounts closed for returning just one high-value item. Eg, spend a total of £2000 at Amazon in a year, but return just one £1000 camera. This would be even less desirable than the previous situation.

There are claims that this is happening.

Originally Posted by HarryT

A flexible approach, where Amazon consider the return pattern of the individual purchaser when deciding whether or not they wish to terminate their business relationship with that person, is a much more sensible approach (IMHO).

Even if I'm willing to afford Amazon maximum flexibility on whom to choose as customers, I still think that Amazon should have to disclose the criteria. I don't actually think that Amazon is worried about people figuring out how to game their rules, rather they think that if people know what the rules are, they'll lose customers. I think that Amazon is culling customers that are unprofitable, but customers aren't given enough information to make an informed decision about whether to be Amazon customers in the first place. Furthermore, I think that Amazon is cultivating this exact state of affairs. To me, that's deeply unethical.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by Wearever

I wonder what the response would be if this were to be aired on a show like( 60 minutes ) here in the US. I think many would be surprised by something like, the brother's account would be closed just because his brother returned to many things and they both lived at the same address. Something like that would explode in social media, I would think.

Is "same address" in the US an allowed item for credit scoring say ?

So you can legally be marked down for the bad debts of someone or some relative at the same address until you move and disassociate from them ?

Anyone know ?

And I do note that there are folk offering to help you 'game' credit scores.

[JSWolf]

One issue is that Amazon is not taking into account how long the account has been open and how much has been purchased since the account has been open. I Amazon did that, less accounts would be closed.