I’ve noticed in the thread words like “abuse” and “exploit”.
Generous return policies are carefully considered by retailers to be competitive in the marketplace and appeal to customers. I don’t think there is “abuse” or “exploitation” happening in cases of indecision. Faulty product and fraudulent claims are something else.
I don’t understand why people have such a problem with this practice if this is the new de rigeur landscape of retail sales in the online age. Retailers no longer have to pay for expensive store space in well-travelled parts of town, they don’t have to worry about the classic challenge of finding knowledgeable floor staff who isn’t anti-social…the landscape has shifted. This is the way it is.
If we only purchased instruments from a brick-n-mortar retailer, we’d have chances to try stuff out and buy one thing. Well that’s not how it works now.
I think there’s a different set of frustrations that are hiding under this topic. I don’t think this is about an “injustice” to retailers…I think it’s just a reality of the internet age…and it’s wasteful and a bit sad…not just for the supply chain, but I think it’s making customers too picky.
I think that when the sales and marketing channel perfects the influencer/reviewer model even better, you will get very specialized reviewers who cover ALL the things that YOU the customer really cares about including “feel” and “playability” (I have never and will never order a MIDI keyboard controller online without having played it first). The reviewer whose reviews result in the most clickthroughs to sales which end up CONFIRMED and UNRETURNED will win. We need to incentivize that.
I also think there’s an underlying frustration here with the tsunami of products in the marketplace…specifically products which are meant to encourage creative play, yet keep responding to market demands for instant gratification.