Thread: Is this Barnes & Noble crazy or am I?

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Why didn't you just return them on the spot and come back for them later? Sorry if this was already covered; not flipping through four pages of a thread on something so trivial.

well then STFU....

totally kidding , couldn't help myself.

Originally Posted by El Presidente

Golly gee, I'm SO insulted.

Clearly your charisma insulated you from my cutting wit.

Originally Posted by Rumor_Watkins
I remember reading some undercover writer's experience at wal-mart, and their overriding concern and message to their new hires was that Wal-Mart did not want to do *anything*, I mean *anything* to upset a customer. Because they knew that from the first day that someone walked through their doors, if they kept shopping there, they would drop a quarter of a million bucks in their stores in their lifetimes.

IMO policies like that, set by the boys in the offices instead of people who actually deal with customers , are part of the problem. I suppose in the end it's just a number on the bottem line and that's what counts but those policies encourage a certain percentage of the public to pull some shit they shouldn't get away with. I've dealt with the "if I raise a stink I'll get something" customers and blatent thieves trying to use that type of policy to screw the store. I've seen public expectations change over the years and not nessecarily for the better.

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

While I know Wal-Mart is extremely liberal with their return policy, a quarter of a million dollars requires someone to spend $100 a week at Wal-Mart every week for 50 years. That is only possible if someone is a grocery shopper at Wal-Mart and even then it seems high.

That doesn't seem ridiculously high for someone buying for a family. Groceries, a large electronic item every so often, clothes, housewares, lawn products, oil changes, toiletries, etc...


here's a sampling of the article:

Still, she wasn't afraid to tackle the topic of termination. During our initial six months on the job, we would be on probation on a "three strikes" basis. One major screw-up would trigger a session of "verbal coaching." (Since positivism is endemic in Wal-Mart, words such as "discipline" are seldom used. The goal is self-improvement.) A second offense would trigger some written coaching. On the third offense, the employee would be sent home to think long and hard about what happened, and would have to come back the next day with a good argument for not being fired. In effect, Wal-Mart would say, "You seem to be a hopeless case. Now tell us why we're wrong." We were given only a handful of outright prohibitions. No swearing in the store, for instance - not even the word "damn," because some people might be offended. No funny-colored hair or blatant skin piercings, because some people might be offended. In fact almost all the rules devolved to the sacred principle of never, ever offending a customer - or "guest," in Wal-Mart terminology.

The reason was clearly articulated. On average, anyone walking into Wal-Mart is likely to spend more than $200,000 at the store during the rest of his life. Therefore, any clueless employee who alienates that customer will cost the store around a quarter-million dollars. "If we don't remember that our customers are in charge," our trainer warned us, "we turn into Kmart." She made that sound like devolving into some lesser being - a toad, maybe, or an ameba.

And so we came to the Wal-Mart Pledge. Solemnly, each of us raised one hand and intoned: "If a customer comes within 10 feet of me, I'm going to look him in the eye, smile and greet him." Having pledged ourselves, we encountered the aspect of Wal-Mart employment that impressed me most: The Telxon, pronounced "Telzon," a hand-held bar-code scanner with a wireless connection to the store's computer. When pointed at any product, the Telxon would reveal astonishing amounts of information: the quantity that should be on the shelf, the availability from the nearest warehouse, the retail price, and (most amazing of all) the markup.

FLY ON THE WAL: UNDERCOVER AT WAL-MART, THE HEARTLAND SUPERSTORE THAT MAY SAVE THE ECONOMY, By CHARLES PLATT

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

They have a policy of refunding purchases. And they have a policy of selling things. And those are the only two things I wanted to so. So what policy did they lack?The sales weren't identical. The first sale was "buy two, get one free" on all DVD's. The second sale was half price on all Criterion DVD's. They just happened to overlap in my case because the DVD's I bought in the first sale were all Criterions.

and here's the specific question I'll again just so it doesn't get missed and because you haven't speifically addressed it even though a poster pointed it out.

That first sale, the buy two get one free sale, was there a no refunds add on to that specific promotion?

If there was then please elaborate on when you found out and how that fit into the conversations you had with several people.

Why didn't you just return them on the spot and come back for them later? Sorry if this was already covered; not flipping through four pages of a thread on something so trivial.

Partly it's a matter of inconvenience. I don't want to have to make two seperate trips to the store.

And, despite what some here have said, I'm a fundamentally honest person. I don't agree with the store's rules but I don't feel that gives me the right to break those rules. I was trying to get what I wanted honesly and openly not by subterfuge.

Originally Posted by El Presidente

That's because they realized you were scamming them.

Chill. I used to work for a large chain bookstore and would authorize this kind of thing all the time. And I don't really care for most people so it wasn't like I was going out of the way to do anyone any favors.

To keep things kosher, I would have the customer bring back the merchandise and the receipt. I realize some stores will do this sort of thing based on just the receipt but it becomes an LP issue if the item is paid for in cash...someone could easily pick up the receipt someone tossed out on the way out of the store and demand the cash difference. Still, you want to read the the latest piece of crap from Nora Roberts but it isn't hitting the best seller list until next week. and so isn't discounted right this very minute? No problem, bring it back in a few days and I'll refund you the difference, now go away. This was just SOP where I worked.

So yeah, they could be tools or it could an LP issue I haven't heard of. DVDs are always problematic in this regard but especially so when sales are ongoing. Either way, it looks like you're out of luck so I'd try and move on with your life.

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

The question is, did anyone explain that your purchase was part of a special promo and not part of the standard return policy?
The fact that they eventually agreed to give you a refund is understood but my question is did you know either before the sale or when you came back, that the sale you had taken advantage off had the added detail of NO Returns. THat makes a difference.

Why would that make a difference? First off, I think Little Nemo has already answered that no one ever pushed back on the refund. It didn't seem to be an exception.

But let's suppose it was. Once they decided they'd do so, LN's question would stand--isn't the qualifier they attach to it illogical? It makes no sense to say, yes, we'll give you your money back, but since we're making an exception for you, you can't use the $$$ (in a single transaction) to make a perfectly legitimate purchase of the items you're returning. They might just as well have said, "Well, we'll make an exception and give you your money back. But since it's an exception, first you'll need to walk backwards ten steps humming Yankee Doodle." Uh, why?

I think a lot of people in this thread come from areas where return policies are not so liberal, and they just can't get past that point. Try to. If the store is gladly returning your money, how in the world--by what logic?--does it make sense to say you can't now buy the same items based on the current sale? Don't answer the question of whether or not you would have such a return policy, or if they could legally make such a restriction. LN's question was, who is illogical (crazy, actually), and the answer is B&N. This makes ZERO sense. It serves only to aggravate someone.

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

This is really simple. Ir isn't even crazy, though it's pretty stupid. They are viewing this as one complicated transaction, and their accounting/cash register software can't process it.

The can't push the right buttons to make it happen. The cashier who would give you credit for the return is probably not the same person who would re-enter the items into inventory to prepare them for resale.

Seriously? No, no and no. You've got absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by manila

I don't fully understand the pile on here of El Presidente. Particularly that last post regarding masturbating, but I guess thats the pit.

But also I don't understand that if you accept one sales deal which is a 'special' that is, the buy two get one free, can you then take advantage of another special, that is, the reduced price?

And if after that the unsold items in the sale end up in the 99 cent bin can you continue to nickel and dime them to that level. Note I am not commenting on whether its 'ardent budgeting' or penny pinching.

But where is the line drawn in these cases?

That's a negotiation between the store and the customer and dictated in part by the specific terms of thier return policy. Whether someone is being too cheap or frugal is a matter of opinion.

In most retail in the US if the return policy allows you to save a couple of bucks by returning it and buying it opn sale , that's accpetable.