Liberal Return Policies vs. "has my camera been used?": A way to Solve This

Started May 6, 2014 | Discussions
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
But would you want those shoes if someone wore them for few weeks?
2

Marty, you are getting carried away ... like "Roseanne Roseannadanna" from that old SNL skit.

Marty4650 wrote:

Imagine if no one would buy a pair of shoes if someone else had tried them on. Or if no one would buy a suit or a dress if someone else had touched them. Or a piece of jewelry that some other customer had tried on. Or if we all refused to buy a car, unless it had zero miles on the odometer. No road tests allowed!

But what about purchased, used for a week ... 14 days ... 30 days even ... then returned.  Would you be fine paying full price for those shoes? Or that car?

And what would happen if no one would marry someone unless they were pure and "untouched?"

These are just cameras. They aren't medical devices that get implanted in your heart. They don't need to be sterilized and sealed to keep germs out.

But they are sensitive pieces of equipment, especially their insides.

Sometimes I wonder if the "I won't buy a camera that was touched by human hands" people actually use the cameras that they do keep. Or maybe they just display them in a glass case, like a museum piece?

But surely you would agree used for a week or two or more is more than touched? Perhaps much more.  Perhaps even mishandled. Perhaps damaged in a way that will not make itself known to you for 6 months.

The buy and try people are taking advantage of everyone else by driving prices up. Retailers are forced to match liberal return policies of the competitors, so everyone's costs go up. The obvious solution is restocking fees, so only the abusers would have to bear this cost.

Forced? Why?  Factory seals would however force retailers to be honest about how they "fund" their liberal return policies.  In other words at their expense, as a marketing tactic, or your expense?

Naturally, if something is defective right out of the box, then a return could be made, and the retailer could get credit from the manufacturer. If it breaks down later, then you still have a warranty.

If you buy a re-sold item, you are the second owner.  The warranty may remain with the first owner.  So you may discover that you have no warranty, but only later on, when you need it.  Let's suppose the warranty does transfer, and you send it in 6 months later because of a problem, only to be told it is an out of warranty repair because the problem is caused by being dropped. Or moisture that got inside a few months ago by the careless first owner, who only bought it to try it out, and never intended to keep it.

But the policy of letting people buy several cameras, try them out, then return them is costing all of us money.

Yes it is.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Sure, but would a reputable, authorized dealer risk that?

Would you pay full price for a new $3,400 camera, or $2,400 lens, on Ebay?  Or from an authorized dealer who as a good reputation?

Suppose it was at a 20% discount?  Ever hear of "if it's too good to be true, it probably is"?

Midwest wrote:

ne beginner wrote:

Why not put a factory seal on the box? Then there would be zero question that Nikon technicians did it at the factory, and the camera was 100% new.

Then you will have people posting 'ABC camera is putting fake factory seals on used cameras!"

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Broken seal = buyer is aware the item has been opened

A factory seal is not just shrink wrapped. There are electronic items with seals that would be very difficult to imitate.  Authorized dealers would not do that, I don't think.  Too much risk.

Broken seals simply alert the consumer that the item has been opened. Suppose the store policy for sold and returned items to be re-sold at various discounts as open box items.  But then store policy is you can try an item in the store with the sales person. Those items are not used because they have not been previously sold. If you trusted the retailer, would you be willing to pay full price for that? I'd bet many would.

Marty4650 wrote:

ne beginner wrote:

Full Frame wrote:

I am sure that every X amount of cameras are pulled from the assembly line and tested. Are they used. What is acceptable actuations. What about having outside of every box shipped from manufacturer and retailer have the number of actuations on it. This way you know what you are buying.

That way, everyone would know with 100% certainty that the new camera or lens they purchased was not sold, returned, then resold? On a camera, any actuations would have been performed at the factory by Nikon technicians.

Sealing the box doesn't solve the problem.

Sealed boxes will still be purchased, seals broken, tried out, then returned. Then you have the "broken seal" problem, and we all know how easy it is to reseal a box. Every record store in America used to have their own shrink wrap machine for this. Boxes can be EASILY resealed.

The only real solution is to accept returns for defects only. If you simply change your mind, then you should pay a restocking fee. Then the retailer will subtract that fee from the retail price, and sell it as an open box item. This is the ONLY way to prevent the innocent bystanders from paying the price for the "buy and try" customer.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
There are obsessive compulsive people ...
2

... Who worry about a smudge, blemish, or debris. But that's not what we're discussing (well, you are). Not knocking people who want a blemish free item ... they are paying for that after all. And we all have different degrees of what is acceptable in that regard. "Different strokes..." as the saying goes.

But we're talking about cameras and lenses that have been sold, used for a week, maybe as much as 30 days, returned, then re-sold to you, at full price. All completely without your knowledge. There may be hidden damage that would not be covered by the warranty. Or you have no warranty because you are the second owner.

Are you OK with that?

All a factory seal does is inform the buyer, and keep the retailer honest.

Midwest wrote:

Very well said. I've read so many posts from people upset because they bought a camera and the battery was not at 0.00 volts out of the box, or they thought they saw a bit of a fingerprint. One guy saw the tiniest, I mean 1/4 inch if that, little 'mar' line on the LCD frame of a camera. It wasn't even a scratch, it was just a tiny nearly invisible mark. He posted a large photo of the LCD and I could barely see what he was talking about.

You'd think people were going to get cooties or something.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Exactly!

A factory seal keeps retailers honest in that regard, and levels the playing field among retailers. And in gives customers the opportunity to make a decision about what condition they are comfortable with ... before they buy.  As it stands now, retailers can make the decision for the consumer without the consumer's knowledge.

bobn2 wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

The only real solution is to accept returns for defects only. If you simply change your mind, then you should pay a restocking fee. Then the retailer will subtract that fee from the retail price, and sell it as an open box item. This is the ONLY way to prevent the innocent bystanders from paying the price for the "buy and try" customer.

I think retailers have a choice. If they choose to have an easy returns policy, they do it because they think it brings more sales. The cost should be that they resell the returned items at a discount to reflect that they are 'nearly new' - many people would buy under that understanding. Then they can estimate that cost and the extra sales it brings and work out if the policy is worthwhile to them. Instead they want to cut out the cost side of the equation by selling 'nearly new' as 'new'. That's sharp practice in my opinion.

-- hide signature --

Bob

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Any system can be abused ...

Right now, the incentive is to send back a defective unit as "OK, just didn't want it" to avoid any possibility that you won't get a full refund.

It can also be very hard to tell cosmetically, even take a few clicks if running the AF in and out, if there these is hidden damage.

Midwest wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

The only real solution is to accept returns for defects only. If you simply change your mind, then you should pay a restocking fee. Then the retailer will subtract that fee from the retail price, and sell it as an open box item. This is the ONLY way to prevent the innocent bystanders from paying the price for the "buy and try" customer.

That is a very good idea, but then you will have people sending back the camera and swearing it does not work correctly. Then instead of just restocking it, they have to send it back to the mfr, get it all tested out, etc. which all costs money to do. All to allow someone to claim it was defective and get a refund.

If there was a way to be certain that the camera was actually defective and not just being claimed so, I would agree this is a very good approach.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
Bob Wolf
Bob Wolf Regular Member • Posts: 428
Re: Liberal Return Policies vs. "has my camera been used?": A way to Solve This
2

I purchased a D800 and a couple of Nikkor lenses from B&H, and not one of the boxes had a factory seal on them.  If there is any indication that the item was used, I call them and return it. Never had a problem with them, and that' s why I continue to shop there.  I don't beleive Nikon puts factory seals on their boxes.

 Bob Wolf's gear list:Bob Wolf's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D800 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +5 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
No they do not; question is: should they?

Bob Wolf wrote:

I purchased a D800 and a couple of Nikkor lenses from B&H, and not one of the boxes had a factory seal on them. If there is any indication that the item was used, I call them and return it. Never had a problem with them, and that' s why I continue to shop there. I don't beleive Nikon puts factory seals on their boxes.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
nikonjohn
nikonjohn Senior Member • Posts: 1,420
Patrick - Once the box is opened and the equipment is handled, I don't want

to buy the equipment at full retail price as if it is fresh out of the box.  I don't want fingerprints on it, I don't want the menus to be set, I don't want two or three thousand actuations on the shutter count, and I definitely don't want to have to guess whether the "new" equipment has been mishandled regardless of whether it has been kept on or off the premises.

A seal on the box would certainly take care of my concerns.  If you want to get the experience of handling and trying out the equipment, then how about renting it instead of expecting the brick and mortar operators to crack their boxes or, worse yet, buying it off the internet and returning it for some esoteric reason.

absentaneous Contributing Member • Posts: 532
Re: yes, please...
1

Patrick McMahon wrote:

I like to go in and try out a lenses. The idea that my asking a camera shop to try a lens would effectively reduce the value of a lens because of a seal is unfair.

the real question is why should this be free? why should it be free for you to try out a lens? why should other people pay for that and not just the person who wants to try out the lens? I have no problem with you wanting to try out something before you buy it and I have no problem with the shop letting you do that. but hey, not on my expense! if something was tried out before than I have the right to know that and choose whether that is ok for me or not. don't hide that from me. that's all I ask.

when people buy something online they expect it to be "new" not "tried out". so, if it's something that was "tried out" before I want to know it. that's the whole story. do whatever you want, give people a chance to try it out for a month if you want, I don't care. but don't sell me something as "new" when it's not. is this really an unfair thing to ask?

Additionally, the notion that a shop should have one extra of every lens as a trial places another unfair burden on them. Lens are not raspberries, they are not going to be bruised and destroyed by people handling them under the supervision of a sales technician.

yes, a lens won't just get useless because someone tried it out or because 20 people tried it out but the question is why should I get that lens when I can get one which wasn't tried out at all and pay the same amount of money for it? so, you go and try things out and then buy stuff that other people tried out as well if you like but why should everybody else who don't try things out do that? again, try things out, do whatever you want but not on my expense!

I get the concept... but again, if this is something that concerns people then stop shopping at Amazon. And if you don't want to buy from a local, trusted camera shop then buy from a retailer who charges a 20% restocking fee.

yes, that's what I do when I get scammed by an online shop. I stop shopping there. because it's a scam.

And if you buy from Amazon and know that you have a camera that is a return, and it bothers you in some subjective way... return it.

the problem is that it's not always that obvious that something was a return. some shops are really careless and they can really send you a product that is obviously used because you find tons of fingerprints and whatnot all over it. but others may do a pretty good job in repacking things in a way that it would be hard to know it was actually already sold and used. and what allows them to do so is exactly the fact that there is no firm policy about giving a customer a guarantee that the package wasn't opened after it left the factory.

so, the issue is really simple. if I have to choose between a brand new product and product that was already tried out even just once for the same money then I'd obviously choose the brand new one product. and I think it's fair that this choice is given to me. so, whatever else the shop want to do it's their own business as long as they give me that choice.

so, if something is brand new then tell me it's brand new. if something was used then tell me it was used and how much it was used and let me decide if I still want to buy it or not. do not scam me by selling me something that was already used as "brand new".

and why should I be the one who has to figure out whether what I got was used or not and then bother to return things back if I wasn't happy with that?! is this really a fair way to do business? I don't think so. why should't I have the right to make that choice before I even order a product?

so, maybe what shops should do is to keep a list of those people who return goods for "no reason" and then sell them return goods as well. I think that would be fair and everyone should be happy. so, if it happens that you return something even if it was working perfectly fine and you just had some subjective reason you didn't like it then you should be put on the list of people who will be sold used goods too. so, what you return will be then sold to a person who also returned something just as you did and you should get what other people returned. and same goes to local shops. so, when you try something out in the shop and you like it then you buy that exact lens or camera you've been trying out and pay for it as much as you'd pay for brand new one if that's what makes you happy.

absentaneous Contributing Member • Posts: 532
Re: For God's sake... it's just a freaking camera
2

Marty4650 wrote:

Imagine if no one would buy a pair of shoes if someone else had tried them on. Or if no one would buy a suit or a dress if someone else had touched them. Or a piece of jewelry that some other customer had tried on. Or if we all refused to buy a car, unless it had zero miles on the odometer. No road tests allowed!

And what would happen if no one would marry someone unless they were pure and "untouched?"

These are just cameras. They aren't medical devices that get implanted in your heart. They don't need to be sterilized and sealed to keep germs out.

Sometimes I wonder if the "I won't buy a camera that was touched by human hands" people actually use the cameras that they do keep. Or maybe they just display them in a glass case, like a museum piece?

missing the point completely. I buy second hands product too. have no problem with that. thing is that when I do that I KNOW I am buying a used product. so, it's my choice and I am given that choice.

what I have a problem with is that I am basically lied to. if something was "used" just tell me so and I will then decide if I want to buy it or not. as simple as that. don't force things on me by hiding the fact that it was used, tried out before etc.

so, the problem is not so much in the "used" part but in the attitude with which you as a customer are treated because you are denied a choice.

OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Good point: who funds the free trial?

If I'm a retailer, and I want to offer my customers the opportunity to try things in the store, then that is a decision I am making in order to attract customers, and\or maintain customer loyalty.  Should that be free? Or should I absorb the cost, and responsibility,  in some way for making that decision?

Should I have demo units?  Many manufactures provide demo units, or demo allowances, which allow a retailer to sell demo units at a discount.  In such cases, is it ethical for me as a retailer to sell the demo unit at full revenue, or just pocket the demo discount allowances,  because I need the money for my bottom line?  AND then use new off the shelf items as demo units, then just put them back on the shelf?  If so, then that retailer is making the customer pay for their demo units and, if provided allowances or demo units by the manufacturer, cheating their supplier to boot.

Same thing with liberal returns policies. That is also a business decision made by the retailer.  "Recycling" those returns on unsuspecting customers is in the same sense ipso facto making customers pay for the retailers marketing tactic ... but in a deceptive way.

It also makes consumers pay at another level: if they get an item that was returned and does show signs of wear or use, they can just send it back, where it gets recycled again.  That is an added burden placed on the customer.   (The very fact that retailers are so willing to do that without hesitation BTW supports that they know they are cheating and are afraid of getting exposed.)

Or what about the defective item that is "recycled"?

Or that customers have to be wary of getting recycled items in the first place, necessitating careful inspection and testing to be sure the item is defect free?

I'm not arguing against these liberal policies, or in-store demo's.  Not at all.

My point is that these tactics are a retail's business decision. As such, they should fund them. And at the very least, be open and honest with their customers about how these tactics may effect the product they are buying.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Factory sealed boxes may spawn a whole new business opportunity

Right now, why pay to rent when you can rent for free?  Liberal return policies are, essentially, free 1 week, 2 weeks, as much as 30 days, rentals.

Factory seals may open a whole new business opportunities for retailers by suddenly making rentals an viable option. How about rent to own?

This could be a real opportunity for the local shops where, if you're interested in something, you can drive over and rent one in the same day. That's an advantage over mail order.  If you buy it, the rental fee is deducted from the price.  If you don't, the rental fee can be used to off-set selling the item as open box.  That ensures the retailer makes the same profit, either way.

Here's another business opportunity that creates for local B&M stores: a rental business will result in open box specials, which can bring potential customers into the store hunting for deals.

The key for the local store would be to use and advertise these tactics as "lost leaders": break even, traffic generators.

nikonjohn wrote:

to buy the equipment at full retail price as if it is fresh out of the box. I don't want fingerprints on it, I don't want the menus to be set, I don't want two or three thousand actuations on the shutter count, and I definitely don't want to have to guess whether the "new" equipment has been mishandled regardless of whether it has been kept on or off the premises.

A seal on the box would certainly take care of my concerns. If you want to get the experience of handling and trying out the equipment, then how about renting it instead of expecting the brick and mortar operators to crack their boxes or, worse yet, buying it off the internet and returning it for some esoteric reason.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
OP ne beginner Senior Member • Posts: 2,147
Thank you, you hit the nail on the head
1

Marty deliberately misrepresented the point, a common argument and debate tactic. He created a straw man, then argued against THAT instead of the real point. He use the absurd in that argument, so that someone who only read his post would agree with him, and dismiss the whole thread as absurd.

Marty may, or if not should, be a politician, because that is SOP in when you can't argue on the point. When you can't win, shift the argument.

absentaneous wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

Imagine if no one would buy a pair of shoes if someone else had tried them on. Or if no one would buy a suit or a dress if someone else had touched them. Or a piece of jewelry that some other customer had tried on. Or if we all refused to buy a car, unless it had zero miles on the odometer. No road tests allowed!

And what would happen if no one would marry someone unless they were pure and "untouched?"

These are just cameras. They aren't medical devices that get implanted in your heart. They don't need to be sterilized and sealed to keep germs out.

Sometimes I wonder if the "I won't buy a camera that was touched by human hands" people actually use the cameras that they do keep. Or maybe they just display them in a glass case, like a museum piece?

missing the point completely. I buy second hands product too. have no problem with that. thing is that when I do that I KNOW I am buying a used product. so, it's my choice and I am given that choice.

what I have a problem with is that I am basically lied to. if something was "used" just tell me so and I will then decide if I want to buy it or not. as simple as that. don't force things on me by hiding the fact that it was used, tried out before etc.

so, the problem is not so much in the "used" part but in the attitude with which you as a customer are treated because you are denied a choice.

 ne beginner's gear list:ne beginner's gear list
Nikon D750 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
Patrick McMahon
Patrick McMahon Senior Member • Posts: 1,253
reading but not listening...

I guess we are in a bit of a pickle... I have sworn to whole heartily support the cause for seals, the meager request I made was to stop forcing Brick and mortars to charge hundreds more in the form of sales tax.

Right now the system is rigged in a way that does not trouble me in the least.

1. My retailer rigorously inspects any returns and if all their stringent guidelines are met and the goods are in new condition, they sell it as new. That is not dishonest at all, they have never told me otherwise and it is supported by the UCC. Completely lawful. It is new under the law.

2. If I am ever unhappy with a good I purchase I simply ask my retailer to rectify the situation.

I completely understand the points being made (though I do not subscribe to many of them) and I have simply asked that if you are going to completely shift the paradigm which as been in place for decades- do the same exact thing that other countries with seals do - Do not force brick and mortars to charge hundreds more. This has been met with resistance... so, where are we at?

I get it, some kid bought it to do an unboxing video, or someone wanted to try out multiple Dfs before buying another camera. A pro couldn't decide on which color Df... As for the whole- someone took it on an arctic expedition because they didn't want to bring their own camera... well we could get into a whole host of speculation.

I would be very weary of any retailer with a liberal return policy who tells you they do not do this, unless I was face to face with them.

Anywho- the whole "No! No! No! It's my way or the highway!" is not a very good way to work change into the system.

 Patrick McMahon's gear list:Patrick McMahon's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +5 more
Eamon Hickey Veteran Member • Posts: 3,990
think he was talking about demo'ing, not selling
3

absentaneous wrote:

Patrick McMahon wrote:

I like to go in and try out a lenses. The idea that my asking a camera shop to try a lens would effectively reduce the value of a lens because of a seal is unfair.

the real question is why should this be free? why should it be free for you to try out a lens? why should other people pay for that and not just the person who wants to try out the lens?

I can't speak for Patrick, but I think he was only talking about the concept of the seal on the box, and how that affects demonstrating a product in-store. I don't think he was specifically talking about letting somebody take a lens home and use it for a week or two, then re-boxing it.

The tradition, going back 80 years or more, in the brick-and-mortar camera retailing business in the U.S. has been to allow customers to handle lenses and cameras in-store before buying them. A factory sealed box would prevent that in some cases (explanation below). I believe that's the narrow issue Patrick was talking about.

This has always been a bit of a delicate dance. In the camera store that I managed way back in the early 1990s, we did our best to keep only one demo unit of any popular camera, and only use it when customers wanted to handle a camera before buying. If they decided to buy, they'd get a fresh, unopened unit from our inventory. Then we'd sell the demo for a discount after a year or so.

That works fine for any product that the store carries in quantity. Buy the practical fact is that, for many products for most stores, it's economically prohibitive to carry multiple units. Most brick-and-mortar stores are only going to carry one Nikon 14mm lens, for example, if they carry it at all. If a customer wants to see how heavy it is, and how it feels in the hand, it has to come out of its box.

This tradition is not unusual, as Patrick noted. Jewelry is sold this way. If you buy a diamond ring in a jewelry store, there's almost no chance that it's never been put on somebody else's finger. If you buy a shirt in a clothing store, it's very likely been tried on by somebody before you. If you buy a car, there's a very good chance somebody else has test driven it. Getting a discount because of this is not automatic. Of course, sometimes it's possible, depending on the industry and the store.

And demonstrating products in-store is not the same thing as a liberal return policy. The practice of letting somebody take a lens home, use it for two weeks, and then return it is really a different issue, at least for anyone who has ever worked in a camera store, or tried to figure out how to manage one so that employees' paychecks don't bounce and you just might be able to give them health insurance.

So the factory seal idea, in trying to solve the liberal return policy issue, creates a consequence for a different issue.

Of course, I did get customers who didn't see a difference -- they wanted a lens that had never been handled by any human being after it left the assembly line. We would try to accommodate them, but it was sometimes difficult to find factory-fresh inventory (with low volume products especially), and it usually meant a special order and the attendant wait of a week or two.

Later on, when I went to work for Nikon, I did have one dealer in a large city who specialized in carrying basically everything Nikon made, but often only one unit deep. He would not demonstrate a lens. If you bought it, you could see it. Otherwise, no. And -- no surprise here -- his return policy was: "No. Next customer." He had a big tourist business, so it worked, but most American customers, used to U.S. retailing practices, found his policy really off-putting.

karlreed Senior Member • Posts: 1,593
But, what about the value of a returns policy?
2

I buy new to get the service associated with "new" and, the manufacturers warranty. I also tend to buy from shops (but, there are about 15 pro or near pro camera shops within 45 mins of where I live.

I also return gear. These are expensive items and I really want them to do what I want. Suppliers I have dealt with look at my returns, and say "Wow, you really do take care..".

I have no doubt that I have items that were returned, indeed, I know I have in one case for sure.

I also know that in some cases, returned items go back to the factory for checking..

OK, I don't mind getting a returned item if it carries the new warranty and has the "new" levels of service. If I have returned it because it was not functioning, then, I expect the supplier to send it back to the factory.

I simply will not buy gear from places that do not have a returns policy, and, I don't mind paying just a bit more for this.

-- hide signature --

karl reed

 karlreed's gear list:karlreed's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus E-M1 II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +7 more
Patrick McMahon
Patrick McMahon Senior Member • Posts: 1,253
Re: think he was talking about demo'ing, not selling
1

Thank you Eamon,

You are correct as it applies to the brick and mortars. And I appreciate your insightful reply.

I would imagine that anyone who established a relationship with a B&M, as you described, would have little trouble getting a "never touched by human hands" camera, upon special request.

I think this boils down to having your cake and eating it too. People want a liberal return policy, they don't want to pay sales tax and they want a camera box that has never been open.

 Patrick McMahon's gear list:Patrick McMahon's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +5 more
Patrick McMahon
Patrick McMahon Senior Member • Posts: 1,253
Re: But, what about the value of a returns policy?

karlreed wrote:

I buy new to get the service associated with "new" and, the manufacturers warranty. I also tend to buy from shops (but, there are about 15 pro or near pro camera shops within 45 mins of where I live.

My Gosh that must be nice... and in this photographer's Utopia you describe... tell me, Do they force a camera store to charge hundreds more in VAT than online retailers?

 Patrick McMahon's gear list:Patrick McMahon's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +5 more
scokill Veteran Member • Posts: 4,195
Re: But, what about the value of a returns policy?
1

Patrick McMahon wrote:

karlreed wrote:

I buy new to get the service associated with "new" and, the manufacturers warranty. I also tend to buy from shops (but, there are about 15 pro or near pro camera shops within 45 mins of where I live.

My Gosh that must be nice... and in this photographer's Utopia you describe... tell me, Do they force a camera store to charge hundreds more in VAT than online retailers?

Every shop I've been into in the DFW area acts like they are doing me a favor for having a store.  This and the fact that they are automatically 8.25% higher off the bat makes the internet stores a no brainer.  I've never had a problem with B&H and Adorama.  Don't care if something has been opened as long as it works as it should and has full warranty.  I've returned several items over the years and haven't abused a return policy even though some do.

 scokill's gear list:scokill's gear list
Nikon D4 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads