Brooks Brothers return policy change, September 2012

[viator]



It is unacceptable because, at least with most stores, people have every opportunity in the store to try on clothing and to decide if they like it. The fact that people have buyer's remorse or decide they do not like the product in no way suggests a failure of the store to deliver the promised quality of merchandise. In other words, buyer's remorse shouldn't result in a store losing a sale.

I think if the tags are on and it is in resalable condition, there's no harm in returning something just because when you got home and had more time to try the item on, you decided it didn't work for you after all. Stores want you to do this, because in the end knowing you can return something leads to more sales.

 

[MickCollins1916]



I'm not sure I understand your point here - you agree that returning $4k in NOS stuff from the 1970s is abusing the policy, but you think they shouldn't do anything about it because of their customer service commitment. I think the modified policy is appropriate given the price point they compete at - BB is competing with Tyrwhitt and the other Retailer Xs. If they were charging Charvet prices, I would expect more of a commitment to the garment for its normal life span.
In my mind, there is a period of time after I buy something where, if a problem pops up, I would think that a given seller should make it right. If I buy a sweater at BB and it pills after a month, then I would be comfortable taking it back. After a year? Then I just have to decide whether I am comfortable with the level of quality I got for my money when deciding whether to shop there again. (Sort of analogous to dining out: you wouldn't send your meal back or complain to the staff if the food was a little disappointing, you just might not return. But if you get a cockroach in your food, you would obviously expect the staff to make things right for you.) On the other hand, if I paid $$$ for a bespoke suit and the sleeve fell off after a year, I would feel the tailor should make it right. I guess in my mind it comes down to whether you paid a luxury premium that would lead you to expect "legendary customer service." At BB I don't think you do.

No, I don't think the customer who returned all the stuff her old man was squirreling away abused the policy. I think the guys peeling off their old socks at the register arguably were. Regardless, you're sort of making my point here, though I do like your meal analogy. I wouldn't have any problem with Brooks dropping their old policy, given the new one is similar to other Retailer X's. It is, when compared with them, reasonable and totally on par. It's not awful, or draconian by any means. I have a problem with the company suggesting that it is anything other than common these days, and continuing to tout it's 194 years of tradition providing legendary customer service, bla bla bla, while employing the new policy. If the story is that it's lowering itself to compete with Tyrwhit or Joseph Banks, or whatever, then that's fine. There is clearly a market for that.

 

[msulinski]

It is unacceptable because, at least with most stores, people have every opportunity in the store to try on clothing and to decide if they like it. The fact that people have buyer's remorse or decide they do not like the product in no way suggests a failure of the store to deliver the promised quality of merchandise. In other words, buyer's remorse shouldn't result in a store losing a sale.

I'm not even sure why we are arguing this, as Brooks Brothers still allows returns after 90 days, but I'll bite. Trying something on in a store is not the same as trying it out at home with the rest of your wardrobe around. I never said that buyer's remorse was the store's failure to provide promised quality of merchandise. It is, however, a feature of the store that they are willing to take things back for the buyer's remorse reason. The simple reason is, they can still make more money, at least from me. If I know I can take something back, I am much more likely to take a chance and buy it. If I can't take it back, not so much. 7 out of 10 times, I will keep the items. The 2 out of the other 3, I will simply exchange the one item for another, still providing the store with a sale. Without a return policy like this, I would likely only buy half to three-quarters the number of items, or just shop at a store that provides such a policy.

 

[katch]

I was lucky enough to have a store associate give me 30% off cordovan tassel loafers during their corporate sale. I had an issue with the right shoe where the seem on the heel rubbed and gave me a nasty blister. They took them back and gave me a new pair which is normally against any shoe store policy. I had an email from alden that BB should send them back to the factory. I hope the shoes can be salvaged.