SHOPFLOOR ANALYSIS | Product returns


RETURN TO SENDER


Toby Griffin investigates the true cost of product returns and what your options are, as a retailer, if a return is not accepted by the supplier


facturers selling to retailers. Either way, we are giving away products or services in exchange for money. Simple. But sometimes the relationship is flipped on its head. Running directly alongside the sale process, are occasions when a product needs to be


W the


returned. The item might be damaged, faulty, the “wrong” colour, style, or function of model requested, or even the completely wrong model. On pre-installation strip-out of a room, it can be seen that a design won’t work or, on a new build, that the room isn’t made to architect’s dimensions. In either case, this could mean that one or more products are now no longer suitable. There are a million-and-one different reasons why a product might need to be returned, and it can be a minefield of blame, responsibility shifting, and occasional refund-avoidance as all parties seek to minimise their losses. With that in mind, let’s look into this contentious topic, considering delivery methods, packaging, damages,


uplift charges, examples of when


suppliers have refused to take in a return, when to get the rep involved, returns from customers, and the timescales within which we should expect returns be collected and credited. I’ve got the thoughts and insights from a cross-section of industry experts to try to make sense of it all. I began by setting a LinkedIn poll, with the question: “Do your suppliers handle returns well?” As always there were a variety of responses, but interestingly the vast majority (90%) agreed that either “some do” or “most don’t”, with only 5% saying that all of their suppliers handle returns well, and 5% saying that all don’t. So, let’s start with the rela- tionship that involves most readers of this publication – that of the retailer and supplier – and how returns are handled. First off: Are returns a priority


for suppliers, and if not, why not? When posing this question to various personalities in the industry, I got quite a consistent response that they are not, with the reasoning being explained in different ways. Angus Kerr, sales director at The Bathroom Company Edinburgh, tells me: “I don’t think that returns have ever been a priority for suppliers. This is due to logistics and costs of the repackaging, double handling, etc.” Lorraine Taylor, bathroom showroom supervisor at builders and timber merchant Gibbs and Dandy


36


e’re all in the business of selling. Be it retailers selling to the general public, or distributors or manu-


adds: “Suppliers have no interest in their own returns policy, mainly because they make money by selling and not on returns. So why would you make that your priority service when it costs them to collect and costs them to replace or dispose?”


Logistics


It seems that the method of delivery to the retailer in the first place makes a difference to the experience. Although multi-drop couriers can often provide flexibility and be inexpensive per drop, it seems that they aren’t much liked by the retailers receiving the deliveries. Speaking to Rebecca Geddes, head of procurement at kitchen-specialist JS Geddes in Kilmarnock, she says: “Supplier’s own transport is our preferred method as there is more reliability, as sometimes with a courier, they arrive outside office hours… or we don’t receive paperwork”. These thoughts are similar to Gibbs and Dandy’s


Taylor, who states: “I always prefer suppliers’ own transport. Usually if a third party is used 99% of the time there are breakages. Which is also harder to argue with suppliers if items do turn up damaged.” Sinks seem to be commonly delivered by courier, with Alex Jenman, director of Gainsborough Kitch - ens, pointing out the contradiction that: “Most suppliers state that the products must be inspected on delivery, but the multi-drop couriers won’t wait.” Nevertheless, although in general agreement with the above, Paul Whiers, partner at Interiors of Harrogate, does see some advantages: “When products are delivered by carrier, we get a few damaged items, but they are fast at getting a replacement out to us”.


I would have complained at having to jump through such administrative hoops, but I’ve learnt to just accept it. It’s a cost of business and you can’t win against the bureaucracy Matt Lawson, director, Lima Kitchens


On the topic of damages, does the packaging make a difference? “I cannot think of


any products that are not well packed,” explains Whiers. “I get an occasional dam - aged appliance but it’s soon sorted (if they have stock)”.


Despite this, Taylor at Gibbs and Dandy feels that there are


improvements to be made. “A lot of the items are not packaged very well,” she says. “With a lot of companies cutting back on costs, this area is suffering with more damages, more returns, more unhappy customers. Surely it would cost them more to keep replacing these damaged items than to spend slightly extra on good packaging.” In the case of a product being ordered by mistake, or the customer changing their mind or rejecting it for some reason, across the industry many suppliers apply an uplift charge to reflect the


cost of the collection and associated administration costs. But this is often seen as petty and over- priced by many retailers; as Geddes states: “Most of the time, there shouldn’t be an up-lift charge.” Taylor argues that “if they are coming our way, then there should be no charge for collection,” and that if a product from the same supplier is being reordered as a replacement, then “the price shouldn’t be as high”.


In some cases, suppliers have arrangements


with retailers that means that no returns fees are sought, with The Bathroom Company’s Kerr pointing out that their main bathroom distributor doesn’t charge for returns at all. It seems then that there is some flexibility depending on company policy and what the retailer spends with them. Also, some suppliers are willing to be pragmatic. “Although we do have returns charges and restocking fees”, explains Jack Healey, marketing manager of Dunavox, “we try to work on a case-by-case basis. If any issues arise rather than imposing unnecessary charges on our retailers.”


Unconventional There do seem to be times though when a return is due to unconventional circumstances and some- what ‘stuck between two stools’, with systems and procedures that can’t handle them, causing a loss of time and much frustration. To cite a few examples: Matt Lawson, director of Lima Kitchens, revealed that he had been delivered an extractor hood from a major brand, which included a chimney piece from its sister brand in the box. When calling to ask for a replacement, he was told “that it was reported over 28 days after delivery so it couldn’t be returned”. “It’ll probably take me time to fill in some sort of form, and in the past, I would have complained at having to jump through such administrative hoops,” he says, “but I’ve learnt to just accept it, as it won’t change. It’s a cost of business and you can’t win against the bureaucracy.” In a similar mix-up, Gainsborough Kitchens’ Jenman says one well-known appliance brand “sent us an under-counter fridge in a box labelled as the dishwasher we’d ordered. I spoke to them, but three months later it still hadn’t been collected, and their accounts were chasing for payment”. An aspect to this flagged up by many retailers is the time limit set by suppliers from delivery to reporting issues, as this doesn’t always fit circumstances. Jenman points out that “Suppliers that have incomplete stock levels is a problem, as they will often send what they have in stock, then the rest afterwards. But the clock is ticking for the first batch. Also we order so far in advance now that it can easily be three months before we install.”


· February 2023


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76