Would this be wrong/unethical?

[CrocsRock]

Just do it. You've made up your mind already, and no matter how many people point out that it's a little unethical, I doubt we're going to give your moral compass a shake. That one's up to you.

But please... ask the retailer what they think of it. Ask your interviewer. No reason, aside from my own personal edification.

 

[oneeightyseven]

lmfaaaooo at the poster above..please tell me your screename/avatar is broadcast in a facetious manner..

 

[ChicagoRon]

I'll sum up my Business School ethics class as succinctly as possible. And then I will relay a similar anecdote.

An ethical discourse dilemma can be resolved when you can prove that your solution is
1> Reasonable (it has been reached through logical analysis)
2> Feasible
3> Consistent (it is aligned with your self-assumed morality, and is consistent with your level of moral reasoning [levels are - Fear of punishment / Desire for benefit or reward / Desire to follow laws and rules to maintain order / Desire to protect community / Desire to do what is best for the most people / Absolute Altruism])
4> Reversible (if you were the other party, would you be okay with this solution?)

A previous poster mentioned that you should ask the retailer. This would give a definitive answer to the reversibility question, although it is not absolutely required for the other party to actually agree to meet the guideline... as long as you would genuinely think it were okay for someone else to do the same thing to YOU then you can defend your action as ethical fairly easily.

I have been in some similar situations myself. I am not sure I would do what the OP is suggesting, for various reasons that have been mentioned above. Mostly I do believe that the B&M store is charging a premium for convenience, and the OP wants the convenience without the premium.

Once, however, I returned something to Nordstrom which was defective, but not purchased there. I told them explicitly that it had been purchased elsewhere, but they assured me it would be replaced by the manufacturer, so it did not make a difference.

 

[acidboy]

Originally Posted by peree

ah well argued. I think I will just have to wait for my order to arrive. Does anyone care to argue the other side?

And it isn't just one, it's interview week as everyone knows for finance for I have 6 interviews this week with super saturday.

I wish I never read this forum as then I would never have been self conscious about the stupid kcs. sigh ignorance is bliss

Just what the financial sector needs, another guy with questionable ethics.

 

[apropos]

Originally Posted by acidicboy

Just what the financial sector needs, another guy with questionable ethics.
+1

 

[dfagdfsh]

Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?

 

[bdeuce22]

Originally Posted by Teger

Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?

i always feel bad for doing this, but when i know i am going to try on just for size, i usually try to help myself with very little interaction from the SA. that being said, i typically try to pick up at least something when i do this.

 

[ChicagoRon]

Originally Posted by Teger

Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?
I think that there is an element of goodwill involved here on the store's part as an investment. If you do it all the time and you never have any compulsion to throw the store a bone, then I say "to each his own". I would expect most shopkeepers know this happens, but are happy to build a relationship with prospective customers. And if it's Nordy's or something like that, I feel no guilt. They are not specialty retailers and if they are not competing on price, that's their fault.

 

[yawn123_#21]

Plenty of people who voted yes, do stuff just as "wrong" as what the op suggested. Going to the store and jacking off sales associates wasting their time, only to later buy the item online for a cheaper price. People mentioned buying stuff and trying to vend it at the B/S forum, and return anything unsold.
@ Op, returning is at your own risk. Retailers are bitching about taking losses, meaning they would love to sell and take your money away, but returning they don't like

. If Shopping online kills brick-and-mortar stores so be it. Survival of the fittest? Why should people feel the obligation to "not cheat these poor stores" These aren't mom and pop owned stores. Big large corporations, Who should have taken such things into consideration when charging the price in it. This is no different than someone who a sales person pushes crap onto, brings it home and thinks about it for a week then returning. It's in the premium price that you are paying.
I could start another poll, is it ethically right for retailers to charge you 2-3 or more times it's cost to make a profit? Is it ethical to sell an item for $500, then later decide to raise it to $650? Is it ethical for Corporate Executives to make millions of dollars, Ride private company jets on 20k a pop, while min wage paid workers can't even make that in a year?
This is a capitalism, not Communism. Plus it's a free country. Ethics is a highly gray area. If you want to do things, go ahead and do them, as long as you feel good at the end of the day, if you have second thoughts, then it might be better not to do it. You might regret it later on but by then it'll be too late to take something back.

 

[CrocsRock]

Originally Posted by oneeightyseven

lmfaaaooo at the poster above..please tell me your screename/avatar is broadcast in a facetious manner..

But of course. I was debating between the pink and the black dress Crocs. These seemed like the more offensive.

 

[james_gsx]

Women tend to do this quite frequently - albeit in a different manner. They tend to buy a nice shoe (say a Stuart Weitzman, Jimmy Choo, etc) then return it a week later and complain they hurt their feet - in reality it was just for a party. This was especially popular with girls in college and Betsey Johnson.

If you can buy the shoes from a company that will actually take the return, chances are the SA will blow it off as another return. It still sucks, and the SA will most likely figure out that you just rented the shoe and will be slightly annoyed.

Why don't you just tell the SA your problem and see if they would be willing to match the price for you? Slow times like this they might be willing to work something out for you. They do want to make sales after all.

 

[neyus]

Its wrong, you know its wrong, but to the retailer, they don't care as long as the item you are returning is stocked by them, you have a receipt and is in a sellable condition. I think alot of the retailers set them selves up for this. I work for a large department store here in Australia and I think before they tightened up their returns policy they used to lose about 300 million dollars a year on returns many of which were fraudulent.

 

[Threadbearer]

Originally Posted by DrZRM

While I agree that you risk losing your local shops if you shop on-line, do you really think that walking into a brick-and-mortar ship to try something on and then buying it on-line is the moral equivalent as returning something to a store that you did not buy there claiming you did?
I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of the difference.

If so, this community holds a very high moral bar, I must say.

Not the entire community, certainly. But a few of us do -- thankfully -- seem to be holdouts for higher standards of behavior.

To say that is the equivalent to using a public merchant to see if an item fits or suits your taste seems...overstated to say the least.

Again, I'd like to hear an explanation for this opinion.

Let's say that I log on to Amazon.com and buy a copy of a new book called The Cheapskate by George Costanza. I know there's no way the book will arrive before my book club is scheduled to discuss it in two days, so I trot on down to a local mom'n'pop bookstore and buy a slightly more expensive copy of The Cheapskate from them. I read it, mark it up with my highlighter, dog-ear the pages, and use it at the book club meeting. A week or so later, when my brand new copy arrives from Amazon, I take it to the local mom'n'pop bookstore, along with the receipt they gave me for the copy they sold me, and "return" Amazon's book to them as if it were their own.

The harm done here is that I've saved money at the bookstore's expense. The bookstore pays overhead to be there in my neighborhood. The bookstore was there when I needed it, and Amazon wasn't. Shouldn't I have the decency to pay the bookstore for that service instead of pocketing the difference in price and thinking myself a very clever fellow?

Originally Posted by Teger

Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?
I vote no. If you want that store to be there for you in the future, pay them for the services they're providing you. At the very least, you should purchase the item you examined (assuming you like it, of course). Once you know your size in that particular brand (let's say it's a shoe), then I suppose your could buy more shoes of that same brand from an online discounter with a clear conscience. But don't complain too loudly when that brick & mortar shop disappears, as you will have had a hand in its demise.

I have a question for the OP: Just out of curiosity, what's the difference in price between the pair of shoes in the shop and the pair you bought online?

 

[yawn123_#21]

If the store can't afford to pay the overhead of being in your neighborhood and still turn a profit, then they shouldn't be in business. Although many shop price point, not everyone does, and stores can target those markets. Nothing is stopping them from opening their own online store as well. Or lowering their price to be competitive. It's not in the interest of the op to worry about keeping stores alive. That's what employee's of the stores are paid to do, and at the same time getting customers into the store and purchasing stuff.

 

[FIHTies]

Originally Posted by yawn123_#21

That's what employee's of the stores are paid to do, and at the same time getting customers into the store and purchasing stuff.

Right.

Not Borrowing them.