>If your defense against “free rentals” of your items is a restocking fee (which may not cover the devaluation of a new item if it’s returned not-new), then you can be reassured that this change being billed as “a nifty way to reduce a metric that is still in beta and doesn’t affect your selling rating” is an even bigger stretch than it seems at face value. If you are competing against Amazon – which by definition has at least 15% of price to give away on each sale – and they don’t charge a restock fee, you can bet sellers(sic) will complain when you do.
>Amazon will do nothing to set expectations of a restock fee, and will continue to muddy the difference – to buyers – between 3PS and Amazon-fulfilled, and in the absence of condition notes, the chances buyers will see that info in advance is about 0% .
Amazon does charge restocking fees in some cases.
In any event, I continue to be amazed at sellers who do not charge restocking fees but who think they can lecture those who do about what happens when you do. Hint - you can’t. As I have posted previously, the chances of being hit by an A-z for restocking fees in one particular year I documented were 0.7% – and we won all four of those cases, so no hit to our metrics:
What you call “omniscience” I would also call “omniscience”. From actual experience.
>This “in beta” metric will become hard and fast (i.e. out of beta) once this program is off the ground, meaning that restock fees will have to go away if you want to sell on the platform.
I suppose one can predict almost anything, really . . .
>Amazon will eventually decide that the protest channel is too expensive – no matter which country they outsource it to – and even if they don’t cancel the option to argue your case eventually, you can expect them to frequently side with the buyer even when the buyer is wrong (or lying).
I suppose one can predict almost anything, really . . . and the experience of sellers who have been in the pilot program disagrees with you(r lack thereof).
>When buyers don’t like the SAFE-T outcome, expect other negatives (e.g. return dissatisfaction) to spike.
What makes you think buyers get charged if the SAFE-T decision is decided in favor of the seller? From what I have read, Amazon reimburses the seller. I’m willing to believe that money comes out of the buyer’s pocket, but so far no one has said that it does. In addition, as long as we’re predicting, I’ll predict complaints about return label costs in feedback will be removable. But then I suppose one can predict almost anything, really.
>I expect changing buyer expectations (e.g. why go to the store when someone will ship you something for free to try on/sit on/sleep on at home ?) to become the bigger issue than fraud (although Amazon doesn’t deal well with fraud, at least not when 3PSs foot the bill).
This assumes that the cost to sellers for returns will be notably different from what it is now. That conjecture flies in the face of the experience of sellers who have been in the pilot program (unlike you).
>you can tell me why I’m an idiot who didn’t read the policy
I’ll settle for telling you that you’re an idiot who didn’t read either the policy or any of the voluminous discussion on the topic from people who have actual experience with the pilot program, charging restocking fees, etc. But then for a week or more now this topic has been a source of non-stop entertainment as far as reading the untutored opinions of those who don’t understand how the policy is going to work but feel the need to comment on it anyway.