Returns management has been significantly altered by evolving consumer expectations. Convenient, hassle-free return options and prompt refunds are anticipated by online consumers. In the interim, consumers have become more discerning in their purchasing decisions due to the constraints of their budgets, which has resulted in a high number of customer returns.
In order to accommodate the increase in returns and remain in accordance with consumer expectations, retailers have been compelled to innovate and explore emergent trends.
These options may have unintended consequences for both consumers and retailers, despite their intended purpose of enhancing customer satisfaction and the overall returns management process.
1. “Boxless” returns
“Boxless” returns, which involve consumers returning items without the exterior packaging, are gaining popularity. Shoppers are not required to locate packaging in order to transport objects to a drop-off point.
The removal of the necessity to repackage products appears to be consumer-friendly; however, there are drawbacks to this approach. Certain types of items that are not packaged with protective materials are more likely to sustain injury during transit, which can affect their potential for resale. Privacy concerns are also present; some customers may prefer not to have their purchases visible when transporting them to a drop-off point.
This can also be misleading from an environmental standpoint. Although the absence of packaging appears to be environmentally favorable, numerous products are repackaged into thin plastic envelopes or bags at the drop-off location. The biodegradation of these materials is slower than that of cardboard, and they generate superfluous plastic waste due to the necessity of repackaging the items for future replenishing. Consumers are increasingly considering environmental factors; therefore, even unintentional misinformation regarding the environmental consequences of boxless returns could potentially undermine brand loyalty.
2. The term “returnless” generates an outcome.
An increasing number of consumers are now receiving refunds without the necessity of returning the item. These are “returnless” returns, which have become increasingly prevalent since the implementation of Amazon’s “Returnless Resolutions” program in August.
This method may be justified when the cost of returning an item exceeds its value. Alternatively, if an item is damaged and the retailer is unable to recoup funds from the manufacturer or does not have the capacity to restore it. It also has the potential to encourage the consumer to purchase an additional item with their refund, thereby allowing the brand or retailer to generate an additional sale.
Nevertheless, it establishes an exceptionally high standard for customer convenience by entirely eliminating the inconvenience of transportation. Consistently adhering to those standards is the obstacle. If this option is presented to customers once, they may develop an expectation that it will be available on every subsequent visit, which can result in disappointment when it is not available.
There is also a concern that this approach could result in retailers and brands being exploited through fraud. There is a potential for a substantial increase in fraudulent customers who are solely interested in gaming the system once knowledge of “returnless” returns becomes more widely available, as is the case with opportunists on the black web. The approach will be expensive unless the organization has robust customer data and policies in place to prevent multiple returnless returns from the same customer.
Additionally, it introduces substantial sustainability concerns. Certainly, it minimizes the need for unnecessary shipping; however, it also leaves an undesirable item with the consumer. Academic research conducted by the University of Negev and supported by ReBound has determined that an item can be returned, refurbished, and resold up to 16 times before it reaches the carbon emissions associated with the production of a new one. Allowing customers to retain undesirable products can result in an increase in waste, as they are frequently discarded rather than repurposed.
3. More stringent return policies
It is unsurprising that returns policies have been tightened this year, given the alarming increase in returns fraud and the record-high return rates.
Before making a purchase, approximately two-thirds of consumers review the returns policy. It is a critical component of their purchasing decisions. Therefore, even though a policy with a shortened returns window may be reducing a retailer’s returns, it is accomplishing this by initially discouraging sales.
The majority of individuals anticipate a return period of at least 30 days. In that scenario, consumers typically require an average of 12 days to initiate a return. Nevertheless, the average return time is only increased to 16 days by increasing the interval to 60 days.
Rather than reducing returns windows, retailers can extend them, which will only marginally impact logistics but substantially enhance the consumer experience.
In order to mitigate the environmental impact and increasing transportation costs, certain retailers are also discontinuing the provision of free returns. Customers who have become accustomed to receiving unlimited free returns may become irritated by this. By enhancing other aspects of the returns process, retailers can mitigate this issue. For instance, 92% of consumers indicate that they would purchase from a retailer again if the returns process is user-friendly.
Undermining the customer experience is a potential consequence of implementing any returns management trends without first investigating the data to determine the reasons for the returns. They may appear to simplify procedures or reduce expenses; however, they can generate novel complications. It is advantageous for both the retailer and the consumer to resolve the root causes of returns initially.
Not only will the number of returns decrease, but consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty will also be enhanced by providing a user-friendly, seamless returns process. Retailers can prevent the repercussions of well-intentioned returns policies and the erosion of long-term relationships by concentrating on the data.