David Nicholls: Browsing bookshops then buying online is a 'genteel form of shoplifti

[DiapDealer]

As I said; I have no problem with the logic of that vewpoint--other than simply not agreeing with it at all.

But considering how people have never swamped newspapers with "shopping at one store and then buying at the discount store down the street is dishonest (or shoplifting)" articles, I have to assume that "...and then buys it online carries some sort of extra unethical ramifications for many people. I find that thinking weird and illogical.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

As I said; I have no problem with the logic of that vewpoint--other than simply not agreeing with it at all.

But considering how people have never swamped newspapers with "shopping at one store and then buying at the discount store down the street is dishonest (or shoplifting)" articles, I have to assume that "...and then buys it online carries some sort of extra unethical ramifications for many people. I find that thinking weird and illogical.

I certainly didn't mean it that way; I was just following through with the specific example used in the article that the OP posted. Apologies if that wasn't clear .

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "... with the intent of buying it online" is simply one example of "... with no intention of buying it in the store", and happens to be the example used in the article that started this discussion. Of course you could equally say "... with the intention of buying it in the discount store down the street" and the example would be equally valid, and the behaviour equally unethical.

I think that the point that some are trying to get across is, what about going in with no intent? Or going in with the intent to buy, but the price is just too high, or the store doesn't carry exactly the item that you are looking for? Either of those scenarios could end with someone taking the time of a salesperson/using the store's resources with no sale in the end.

When I was looking for a new clothes washer, I went to 3 different brick and mortar stores and looked online as well. I talked to salespeople in every store, and used a lot of resources from Best Buy.com, Amazon.com, and Sears.com. By your logic, I should have just purchased it in the first store that I went to, as anything else would be unethical.

Shari

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I certainly didn't mean it that way; I was just following through with the specific example used in the article that the OP posted. Apologies if that wasn't clear .

No problem. It wasn't you specifically. I just got the impression (from the article and the discussion in general) that the "online" part was somehow integral to (or intensified the degree of) the unethicality of the practice.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by shalym

When I was looking for a new clothes washer, I went to 3 different brick and mortar stores and looked online as well. I talked to salespeople in every store, and used a lot of resources from Best Buy.com, Amazon.com, and Sears.com. By your logic, I should have just purchased it in the first store that I went to, as anything else would be unethical.

No, that's something dfferent -- each of the stores you went to, had a chance of selling you the clothes washer, and, in a fair fight, the best one won. Next customer, next product, is a new game, and one of the other two stores may win -- so, on average, they'll invest salesperson time in three potential customers to make one sale, and their sales margin will have to cover this. The customers' money gets distributed among them, and you pay for their service by possibly buying from them. But if someone already knows they'll certainly buy someplace else, isn't this like selling lottery tickets which they know to be blanks?

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

As I said; I have no problem with the logic of that vewpoint--other than simply not agreeing with it at all.

But considering how people have never swamped newspapers with "shopping at one store and then buying at the discount store down the street is dishonest (or shoplifting)" articles, I have to assume that "...and then buys it online carries some sort of extra unethical ramifications for many people. I find that thinking weird and illogical.

B&M stores have higher overhead before employee costs. B&M must be located in the Higher Rent 'Retail' Zone (here it $10+/ft vs $4/ft for Warehouse Only zones)

Shopping the B&M competitor (in either brand, style or services), is fair, as they all have similar overheads. Take the example of Shoes. Fashion and Fit Selection may be as much a reason for being dragged to those 20 stores as price. (And price varies only a small amount when models overlap, because the stores costs are similar).

OTOH Warehouse clerks don't need to spend time repackaging or sorting and re-shelving 'shopper' mixed up product bins. Product leaving the premises without checking out is way lower. ( I have worked Retail; finding empty packages stuffed around the store is common. Even in wealthy neighborhoods)

So in my book, it is stealing employees time, if before entering, you know you will buy online.
(There is the Maserati showroom down the block. I don't go in because I will never buy that cla$$ of gorgeous car . I would be stealing many $$ of commission away from the salesman who could not handle a true shopper. I do drool from the public sidewalk )

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No problem. It wasn't you specifically. I just got the impression (from the article and the discussion in general) that the "online" part was somehow integral to (or intensified the degree of) the unethicality of the practice.

I'm not sure if it's ethical, but buying locally does a lot more for the economy around you than buying online. Who knows, maybe it will become a matter of ethics in time, if jobs keep getting scarcer?

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But considering how people have never swamped newspapers with "shopping at one store and then buying at the discount store down the street is dishonest (or shoplifting)" articles, ...

Actually, there was a lot of exactly this complaint from small computer stores in the early and mid-90s, before they went out of business (I know, because I sold computers back then).

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

... I have to assume that "...and then buys it online carries some sort of extra unethical ramifications for many people. I find that thinking weird and illogical.

I don't think it's entirely illogical. If I go to one store with the intent of buying down the street, the first store still has a chance to convince me -- they may offer me a discount, or they can explain that their post-sales service is better, or I may just like the salesperson's smile and think it's worth a little surcharge -- or, it may turn out (as it often enough does) that the discount store actually asks a higher price than they do.

If I go to a bookstore fully knowing that I won't buy a pbook, neither from them nor from anyone else, this is somewhat different, isn't it? You're still welcome to disagree, of course

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

If I go to a bookstore fully knowing that I won't buy a pbook, neither from them nor from anyone else, this is somewhat different, isn't it? You're still welcome to disagree, of course

How are they loosing a customer then? You were never meant to be one. At best your like a background noise in their shop.

[DiapDealer]

My whole problem with the ethics debate is that it hinges on the idea that there's some sort of implied social contract that one has to be at least open to the idea of being sold something before one is able to ethically enter a place of business. I know of (nor recognize) any such binding social contract or duty. I will walk into a public place of business and back out of it with any mindset on purchasing/not purchasing that I choose--with my ethics entirely intact.

If and when I walk past a sign that indicates that looky-loos, browsers, and showcasers are not welcome in this establishment (or the proprietor tells me so), then that is the point when my ethics can be questioned by others. Until such time, only my own ethics apply.

[PandathePanda]

THink the whole ethics debate is a bit skewed.

too take an extreme example of the ethics debate (and doing it OTT) if I need to buy a new car, and I currently feel that a Ford Ka is what I need (and might end up buying it), I'm not allowed (according to my understanding of the arguments made by the ethics side of the debate) to go "shop" around at Opel/Mazda/Fiat, since I would be wasting their time (and a chance of them convincing me otherwise).

I've worked retail, and I was told to see each customer that enter our shop as a potential customer. So if someone enters the shop and ask something about our stock, he's not wasting my time, He's giving me an opportunity of convincing him to buy with us I'm bolding this statement as it seems to be missed by the ethics only side. There is no "contract" with a shop to buy something there once you enter a shop.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by PandathePanda

THink the whole ethics debate is a bit skewed.

too take an extreme example of the ethics debate (and doing it OTT) if I need to buy a new car, and I currently feel that a Ford Ka is what I need (and might end up buying it), I'm not allowed (according to my understanding of the arguments made by the ethics side of the debate) to go "shop" around at Opel/Mazda/Fiat, since I would be wasting their time (and a chance of them convincing me otherwise).

I've worked retail, and I was told to see each customer that enter our shop as a potential customer. So if someone enters the shop and ask something about our stock, he's not wasting my time, He's giving me an opportunity of convincing him to buy with us I'm bolding this statement as it seems to be missed by the ethics only side. There is no "contract" with a shop to buy something there once you enter a shop.

And even if the customer isn't convinced to buy said item THIS TIME, he or she may come back in the future for something else because of the good experience. Or may make an impulse buy of a different unrelated item that happens to be on display.

But no matter how you slice it, browsing without buying has nothing to do with ethics.

[DiapDealer]

The person who walks into a store with NO intention of buying anything there is still easier to sell something to than the person who never enters the establishment at all.

[eschwartz]

So I guess we are all agreed that the article would have at least been on less shaky ground, if it had been discussing browsing and interacting with a salesperson?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

So I guess we are all agreed that the article would have at least been on less shaky ground, if it had been discussing browsing and interacting with a salesperson?

And if the salesperson is clever and persuasive enough to get you to change your mind, it cancels the unethical mindset with which you entered the establishment.