In what way do trends in returns management affect customer experience?
Returns management has been significantly reshaped by changing customer expectations. Online shoppers anticipate easy and convenient return options, as well as swift refunds. In the meantime, consumers have become more discerning in their buying choices due to constrained finances, which has resulted in a surge of customer returns.
In order to handle the increase in returns and meet consumer expectations, retailers have had to come up with new ideas and pay attention to developing trends.
Although intended to enhance customer satisfaction and the overall returns management process, these options can lead to unintended outcomes for both consumers and retailers.
1. Returns without boxes Returns without boxes, where customers return items without using outer packaging, are becoming more popular. Shoppers can take items to a drop-off point without the need to find packaging.
While eliminating the need to repackage goods appears to benefit consumers, this method has drawbacks. Some categories of goods dispatched without protective packing are more vulnerable to harm in transit, which may affect their potential resale. Privacy concerns also exist; some customers might not want their purchases to be visible when they take them to a drop-off location.
From an environmental standpoint, this can also be misleading. Although the absence of packaging appears to be environmentally friendly, numerous products are repackaged into flimsy plastic bags or envelopes at the drop-off location. These materials have a longer biodegradation period compared to cardboard, leading to unnecessary plastic waste due to the need for repackaging items for restocking. As consumers increasingly factor in environmental considerations, misleading them about the ecological consequences of boxless returns—even without intention—could jeopardize brand loyalty.
2. “Returnless” returns An increasing number of customers are being refunded without the requirement to send the item back. These are returns without returns, and their prevalence has increased since the introduction of Amazon’s “Returnless Resolutions” program in August.
This approach is reasonable when handling items for which the cost of return exceeds the item’s value. Or, in cases where an item is damaged and the retailer lacks the means to recuperate costs from the manufacturer or cannot fix it themselves. It also offers the possibility for customers to buy an additional item using their refund, allowing the retailer or brand to make another sale.
Nonetheless, it raises the standard for customer convenience to an extraordinary level by eliminating all shipping-related inconveniences. The difficulty is in being able to meet those standards consistently. When customers are given this option once, they may begin to anticipate it for every return, resulting in disappointment when it is not offered.
Another concern is the possibility of retailers and brands being exploited through fraud as a result of this approach. As awareness of “returnless” returns spreads, particularly among opportunists on the dark web, there may be a considerable rise in fraudulent customers whose sole aim is to exploit the system. The approach will incur significant costs unless the organization possesses robust customer data and rules to prevent multiple returnless returns from the same customer.
It also presents considerable sustainability challenges. Indeed, it cuts down on needless shipping; however, it results in a customer having an undesirable item. Research conducted by the University of Negev and backed by ReBound has revealed that an item can be returned, refurbished, and resold up to 16 times before its carbon emissions equal those of producing a new item. Permitting customers to retain unwanted items can result in increased waste, as these items are frequently discarded rather than reused.
3. More stringent returns policies As returns fraud increases and return rates reach unprecedented heights, it’s hardly surprising that returns policies have been tightened this year.
About two-thirds of customers look at a returns policy prior to finalizing their purchase. It’s crucial to their purchasing decisions. A policy that establishes a shorter returns window may decrease the number of returns for a retailer, but it does so by discouraging sales to begin with.
The majority of people anticipate a return window of no less than 30 days. In such instances, the average duration for consumers to initiate a return is 12 days. Nonetheless, when the window is extended to 60 days, the average return time rises only to 16 days.
Instead of shortening return windows, retailers could lengthen them. This would have a small impact on logistics but greatly enhance the customer experience.
To counteract the increased costs of transportation and environmental effects, certain retailers are abandoning the practice of providing free returns. This may irritate customers who have grown to anticipate unlimited free returns. Retailers can alleviate this issue by enhancing other elements of the returns process; for instance, 92% of consumers report that they would make another purchase from a retailer if the returns process is easy to navigate.
Without first analyzing the data to comprehend the reasons behind returns, implementing any trends in return management may jeopardize the customer experience. Although they might seem to simplify processes or reduce costs, they can give rise to new issues. Addressing the root causes of returns first is much more beneficial for both the retailer and the customer.
Providing a seamless, user-friendly return process will not only decrease returns but also enhance customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Retailers can concentrate on the data to ensure that returns policies based on good intentions do not have adverse effects and harm long-term relationships.