Target fighting back against retail arbitrage


#7

Target returns are 90 days, but yes, probably some return earlier.


#8

Yep, I know a place that was selling a lot of the target stuff in Canada, that went bankrupt.

All New items that was on the way to the Stores.


#9

Target is also grappling with a multi billion dollar loss from their ill conceived foray into Canada so I would imagine the new CEO is watching the bottom line like a hawk.


#10

Target Canada was a joke. Their stores were always half empty.

They also had the bad PR about the data breach in the US at the same time they opened. The one thing I purchased from them I paid cash for.

Looking at online posts about the data breach, vendors said they were not surprised due to the age of the database and frequent reported security holes that were not fixed.

I personally would not but from Target even today.


#11

wow, hadnt even thought of that…thanks for the great idea! :slight_smile:


#12

they do and they always have (except in two or three states where it’s not legal to limit)…not sure why this is coming up now or what happened with this clothing line…


#13

depends on the product…90 days is not across the board…


#14

I would guess the action is not a spur-of-the-moment thing, but most likely the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.” I would be willing to bet that retail arbitrage has been on the corporate’s radar for quite awhile.


#15

No big surprise you would glom onto a loathsome unethical practice as a “good” idea.


#16

Expect More. Pay Less.

Guess that will have to be changed Target. How does that work out for you?
Can’t be done? Ask Walmart what their slogan used to be.

See…you can compete with them now. LOL


#17

LOL @ a retailer expecting deal hunters to buy other stuff with their loss leader items

If I’m there to buy something that’s an actual GOOD deal I’m not going to lessen my deal by buying price gouged stuff with it.

As for returns and such I’ve ‘changed payment methods’ to get clearance games/items at a cheaper price from one store to another before. But that’s the furthest I’d go.


#18

You can’t make this stuff up.

“Company does $72 billion in sales - can’t figure out build a website or secure credit cards.”

Edited by: NextGen Gamer on May 21, 2015 11:29 PM

Didn’t realize this was based on b&m sales. The argument still holds, though :slight_smile:


#19

True, but just as much blame goes to the company. They are too cheap to invest in analytics, security, and a webstore that can figure out when people are buying to resell. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out buying 50 pieces of the same item means the order probably isn’t for personal use. Also, they are going to be stuck with a lot more inventory when they figure out how much of their sales are from resellers.

I have the popcorn ready.


#20

Even if they manage to somehow limit people to X amount of a hot item, what’s to stop them from having friends/family members make the same kind of order right to the limit as well? Then rinse and repeat by using different credit cards and/or addresses with a slight variation.

Example:

Order 1 ships to John Doe, 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Dover, Delaware
Order 2 ships to John A. Doe, 1313 Mockingbird Lane Apt. A, Dover, Delaware

And so on and so forth.

When a national retailer had a 90% off blowout price on Call Of Duty Black Ops Prestige Editions($15 versus $150), I made EIGHT or NINE orders with one in each order back to back to back.

At no time did the system say ‘whoa whoa whoa hold on here bub, didn’t you just order?’.

To some retailers an order is an order and product is still being sold. Period.

Don’t get me wrong. I think ‘renting’ TV’s for the Super Bowl and/or ‘renting’ formal clothing for stuff like proms and such is a disgusting practice and should be stopped via blocking returns in any way possible.

But if these clothing items were UNDERpriced and they sold out almost instantly, whose fault is it for underpricing them and letting the resellers make bank on them? Hint: It wasn’t the resellers.


#21

That is so true. I used to work for Target, they encourage their employees to be lazy & show up
late for work! Would never buy anything from Target.


#22

Woo hoo! An actual logical person. It’s always amazed me that anyone would do anything +other+ than this.

I guess the people who don’t grasp this are the same ones who think they’re +really+ saving 90% because some idiot seller entered the manufacturer’s list price as $100 on a $10 item, and then offers theirs for $9.99.

That reminds me. It irks the heck out of me when a supermarket clerk hands me my receipt and is required to say “you saved $xxx dollars today!” I’m always tempted to hold up the line and say Really? It seems to me I spent $30 today, and paid exactly what the food cost. I didn’t “save” $20, because if it had cost $50, I wouldn’t have bought it. Sheesh!!!


#23

no big surprise you would complain about scammer forum links being posted and then provide specific instructions on a practice you find loathesome.


#24

The same can be done on Amazon. I know a few other rsellers on here, and last year, when Amazon got 600 or so of that real hot Disney Princess Elsa doll in stock, 2 of the people I know ended up with 130 of them total between them both by doing just that. There was a limit of 2 so they just keep placing orders one after another, didn’t even need to change the addresss or CC or anything. Amazon shipped them all.

> Don’t get me wrong. I think ‘renting’ TV’s for the Super Bowl and/or ‘renting’ formal clothing for stuff like proms and such is a disgusting practice and should be stopped via blocking returns in any way possible.
>
> But if these clothing items were UNDERpriced and they sold out almost instantly, whose fault is it for underpricing them and letting the resellers make bank on them? Hint: It wasn’t the resellers.

Target should have known from past experience with the exclusive clothing what was going to happen if they didn’t limit quantities. I’m with you on this, Target is to blame, not the resellers.


#25

>No big surprise you would glom onto a loathsome unethical practice as a “good” idea.

I guess I’m missing what’s “unethical” about returning something within the seller’s stated return period.

When someone returns something to you on Amazon, I assume you accept it regardless of the reason if they are within the period. Target’s policy is presumably also a “regardless of the reason” policy. If they want to choke this stuff off they have to do as they say they are doing and limit sales in the first place.

And even then, it probably won’t work. Multiple credit cards, multiple Target stores . . . yes, at the margin it will cut it back somewhat, but the profit motive is a powerful incentive and there are a lot of people out there.

People frequently post about “adapting” to the Amazon environment as it changes. Target needs to “adapt” to a new environment wherein their goods can be purchased en masse and resold by individuals on different venues. Maybe the “loss leader” (as described in a quoted section in the OP) doesn’t work anymore when it ends up causing Target to be used as a wholesaler, and Target should just stop offering them.

bunga bunga!


closed #26