In some cases where the price and margin on items is very low, it makes sense for retailers to let customers keep items that they want to return for refund as it is more cost effective. Obviously, consumers can only learn about this policy at the point they are requesting a refund to avoid abuse. Another strategy that retailers should consider is to offer a 20 percent discount if the consumer would opt to keep the item they originally intended to return.

Sure, why do I want to pay to get it back, handle it and ship it a second time? Often it is cheaper to just refund it and let them keep it. Alternatively, there are companies that handle returns and pay some low percentage of the original value and they handle it all and auction off truckloads of items. The retailer gets something and doesn’t have to handle the return at all.

When I was in the party supply business, when we’d contact a vendor because we’d received an overshipment of something, the vendor would generally say “Just keep it.” That told us (as if we didn’t know) that the cost of shipping and handling was simply not equal to the margin on the product.

So it’s really a math problem. If it’s going to cost you more to process it than to write it off, sure, let the customer do what she wants with it. If not, take it back. And, of course, keep a database of “frequent returners” and let them know if they’ve gone over the line, and simply request they start returning products (ideally with a re-stocking fee).

It’s funny — words like “handling” and “re-stocking fees” generally feel like “well, we get to keep some of your money” but in fact, with DTC returns, they’re real things.

And as I’ve said before, especially in apparel, returns are simply a fact of life.

Noticed this on Saturday when I tried to return an item that arrived broken. Felt immediate relief to skip the hassle of repackaging the item, going to the post office and waiting in line while socially distancing. This practice improves the customer experience and can inspire more trust and loyalty, long-term benefits that outweigh returns costs.

To limit abuse, retailers can focus on consumers who request the most returns and require that they either prove a defect or send the item back.

This happened twice to me over the last two months. My first reaction, from a business POV was — SMART! Then I thought about how many consumers will catch on and simply request returns knowing they won’t be required to return.

Here is my suggestion. Have the customer go through the return process. But when they print out the label, the code will indicate for FedEx, UPS, USPS that the product should not actually be returned, but disposed of at the first opportunity.

I understand the logic of the math and of virus control — but the hole just keeps getting deeper.

If it’s cost-effective, yes. Depending on factors such as the cost of return shipping and product margins, or if the product is damaged and/or otherwise unable to be resold or returned to the vendor. It also pays dividends in keeping customers loyal and happy. As a customer, I have liked hearing that I can donate, discard, or keep an item that I don’t want and not have to deal with the hassle of returning it — especially in the pandemic.

A lot of online retailers have been doing this for a while. It looks like more retailers are doing this to reduce the return costs (and I am guessing returns have increased tenfold) and stay in keeping with with the contactless return policy most retailers have adopted.

Ahhh, returns — the red-headed step-child of a profitability matrix. Financially accounting for returns is a make or break strategy for increasing profitability. SMBs are just catching up to the return policies of the Amazons of the world and the goalpost keeps moving! Now, instead of just a lenient return policy, it’s get your money back and keep the item! I mean, this is a no-go for the smaller retailers – it’s too big of a financial burden. Using service providers like Newmine, Happyreturns and Returnly can keep retailers competitive.

The world of reverse logistics for consumer goods has been altered dramatically by the pandemic. Prior to COVID-19, there were mechanisms that easily enabled the return, recycling, redistribution, etc. of goods, often involving pretty efficient third parties. CDC and other requirements caused retailers to limit returns and that has impaired the system. We will ultimately go back to functioning reverse logistics networks but in the meantime it will be more efficient for the supply chain to have customers retain or dispose of products in several categories, including most food items.

I have had this experience and was glad to avoid the hassle of returning the item. Once I was told to donate it if it was still usable; that was great when the item was not what I ordered but usable. In other cases all I could do was throw it away because it was defective and not usable. Given the difference between the cost of the item and cost of the return processing, the policy makes sense and avoids hassle both for the company getting the return and the customer doing the returning. Companies can keep track of what items and which consumers are involved in the returns. If a customer appears to be abusing the policy, then they could be asked to ship the product back. If a company is getting a lot of returns, that product or company could be delisted.

When will we read about how “Keep It” elevates into “keep it and please shop elsewhere from now on”? “Free” deliveries and returns taught customers to buy first with comfort and then sometimes with reckless abandon. “Keep It” now puts a giant exclamation point on that habit. Sounds like the e-commerce equivalent of the ever deepening of the discounting by mall retailers. The math is totally understandable but the solution compounds the problem rather than solving it. Maybe like some other retail practices there will be rules and solutions that have to prevail during the pandemic and then revised practices that will work post vaccines.