The previous poster is correct. Suppliers usually bear the brunt of the cost of consumers' returns to merchandising firms (such as Costco, Walmart, etc.). Returns and charge-backs to suppliers normally happens at two different points. There is a so-called "receiving profit center" which charges back suppliers when goods are received (sometimes as much as 10% of inventory value upon delivery on average -- the causes for these charge-backs vary in validity) and also returns or excess inventory. Returned merchadise could be returned by merchandisers as unsold merchandise or through liquidation to salvage (which is probably the likely case for Costco's out of date computer inventory).
I'm surprised that AnAndTest readers responded so vivaciously in support of this change in policy by Costco. In the spirit of name calling, which was begun very early on in this threat by a poster calling people categorically "stupid" and a "scumbag" -- I believe you are probably "conflicted" and "mis-informed." Especially interesting was the poster claiming that utilizing Costco's return policy to return items "costs every member money" (i.e. raises prices). Actually, microeconomics tells us that this is simply not true. Returning merchandise certainly reduces profits for firms (either the merchandising firm or the manufacturing firm, depending on legal obligation for inventory and accounting procedures), but prices are established by consumers' willingness to pay, not a firms' desired profit margin. (If you reject that, think about it this way ... Does your willingness to buy a DVD player from Walmart stem from the fact that it is offered to you for $58.87, in another post on this board, or from the fact that Walmart's profit margin on the item is 1% or 10% or -10%?)
So, why are posters on this board upset at the idea that consumers would return computers 6.5 months after purchasing them from Costco? Let me first say that I don't think it is Costco's *responsibility* to continue this policy, but there are valid marketing reasons why Costco might want to maintain the policy as it was or as it is now. Assuming that the former anytime return policy was well planned (not a loophole), Costco must have been operating under that hope that it's anytime return policy -- on any item -- helped it maximize profits. That is, the revenue that Costco can generate from selling items to customers since they never have to worry about not being able to return them is greater than the Costco associated with accepting back the returns. Costco's change in policy for computers likely resulted from an analysis of member returns of computers which Costco would like to curtail.
But, why would anyone on this message board be excited about getting less (in this case, "in store warranty") for their purchases? This message board clearly doesn't exist to help firms maximize profits ... it exists to help consumers maximize consumer surplus -- i.e. play less for something that you'd otherwise be willing to pay or get more for your money.
However, I'm happy with any store that has a return policy longer than 14 days - which seems like about the 'norm' for computer-related purchases. I'm sure the change is just an interim change. Eventually, the period will shorten even more. There's no need for Costco to cater to the users (and abusers) of their policies.
Facebook
Twitter