If you don't have 10% returns then you aren't tryin!

Michael,

It goes back to who says a 1% return rate is the right rate or 10% is the right rate? It all comes down to the numbers. Feelings... impressions... opinions have nothing to do with it. Apparently Joe using the information at his disposal found that a 10% return rate was acceptable given the amount of sales of a given category. I think given his sales his method was successful. That's not to say it would be successful in all categories.

The bottom line is everyone tells us what the 'bench-marks' should be but I doubt most have the numbers to back it up.

Take care,

Mike Winicki

> If I had a 10% refund rate, I would examine
> my promotional piece for accuracy because

> I was obviously over-promising and
> under-delivering.

> It may be true about different degrees of
> customer satisfaction and whatnot. Though,
> now it is You who is making the assumptions.

> The answers given are opinions. Each as
> valid as Sugarman's. At least, the opinions
> given here can be made clearer if needs be.
> Sugarman's quote doesn't do that... Sugarman
> is not here to make what he said more clear.
> All we have is your interpretation of it...
> and your interpretation is as valid as
> everyone else's.

> Also, lets consider the FTC aspect. If you
> are dis-satisfying at least 10% of your
> customers enough that they ask for a refund,
> how many also complain to the FTC about you
> and your product?

> All variables considered, with a 10% refund
> rate, you are going to get complained about.

> So you have to ask yourself... is making one
> person in ten unhappy with you and your
> business a good thing to be doing? Is making
> a large number of people unhappy so as to
> generate FTC complaints a good things for
> you and your business? And is generating so
> much bad word-of-mouth good for you and your
> business?

> I would rather have fewer sales and a lower
> refund rate, than to annoy ever increasing
> numbers of people just to turn a buck. That
> is MY opinion. Sugarman can annoy as many as
> HE wants to. He is him and I am me. We both
> have opinions on the matter and conduct our
> businesses accordingly.

> As for apparel... come on Mike... don't
> start picking and choosing industries to
> help strengthen Sugarman's point. From what
> I can tell, Sugarman's statement is aimed at
> a general market. Apparel by mail has many
> things going against it that other
> "general" market products do not -
> color, size, how it looks on, how clean the
> item is when it arrives, any pulled
> stitches, and a market known for buying,
> wearing once and returning.

> Lets apply Sugarman's 10% rule to other
> industries...

> Cars... Ford, how do you feel about getting
> a 10% request for refund rate? Out of
> business and sued left, right and center
> most likely.

> Tires. Is a 10% refund rate good for you?

> Appliances.

> Sony, want a 10% refund rate on the
> PlayStation? Nintendo? Microsoft?

> Sugarman may be comfortable wanting to
> create so many unsatisfyied people it
> generates a 10% refund rate. That's him.

> You may be comfortable with that too. And
> that's you.

> I am not comfortable with it. So are others
> in this thread. And as we are each in charge
> of what our respective businesses do and how
> we want to run them, what we do in our
> business is as valid as what Sugarman does
> in his.

> Sugarman is obviously more concerned with
> bigger bucks because he is willing and eager
> to make more people unsatsified. And others
> are more concerned with customer
> satisfaction.

> As Jim Straw says, sort of... everyone is
> right and everyone is wrong.

> As with all things... take what you can use
> and discard the rest.

> This is one bit of Sugarman advice I will be
> discarding based on the available evidence
> and how I want to conduct business.

> Michael Ross

> P.S. Mike, you do know it is against credit
> card regulations to issue refund checks when
> the purchase was made via credit card, don't
> you? You could be risking your merchant
> ability by doing this.