Liquidation Value – Event Planer Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:00:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Liquidation Value – Event Planer 32 32 Commentary: Holiday gift returns are stifling retailers and landfills Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:00:00 +0000

As the heat of the holiday season wanes, Americans are taking a cold look at their Christmas gifts. Many don’t like what they see.

One in 4 Americans expect to return at least one holiday gift by this weekend, according to a UPS report. That’s at least 60 million packages in a single return season for the world’s only package shipper, and a 10% increase over 2020 holiday returns. these returns are increasing, retailers and consumers face an expensive and unsustainable shopping future.

For generations, savvy retailers have embraced lenient return policies as a way to project reliability and build customer loyalty. They were well aware that unscrupulous customers could exploit no-questions-asked or receipt-optional refund policies. But the success of retailers like Nordstrom and Target, both of which have permissive brand awareness to return to Strategies and loyal customers, highlighted the compensating benefits. In one recent survey apparel companies, 86% of respondents agreed that returns are a “necessary evil”.

Online retailers recognized the need early on, adopting lenient return policies and free return shipping to build trust and loyalty among consumers new to e-commerce. Perhaps the most aggressive promoter was Zappos, the online shoe retailer now owned by Amazon. At first the company encouraged customers to order shoes in multiple sizes, then return the ones that don’t fit and pay the shipping costs. As early as 2010, Zappos was happy story journalists that its best customers were those who returned the most products.

It’s an expensive way to gain market share. In 2020, American consumers returned around $428.6 billion in merchandise, 10.6% of total retail sales. Now online retailers, rocked by difficult COVID-era consumers, are facing return rates between 15 percent and 30 percent.

Refunds are just the beginning of a retailer’s costs. According to a recent analysis of companies involved in the returns industry, it costs retailers $33 to process a $50 return item in 2021, a 59% increase from the previous year.

There are several familiar factors behind this rising cost in the age of COVID-19, especially for e-commerce retailers. Rising transport costs have made it more expensive to transport returned goods to specialized processing centers and then to their final destinations. Rising labor costs have prompted retailers to seek employees to open, assess and route returned products.

But the largest costs, by far, are related to write-downs and the liquidation of returns (on average, between $6.50 and $35.25 per $50 product). Few returned products are redirected to a retailer’s inventory. The flood of returns is so heavy (and growing) that it’s simply impossible for retailers to assess whether every pair of jeans, porch furniture combo or Lego set is in resalable condition.

To manage the volume, retailers rely on a byzantine network of brokers, dealers, liquidators and – sometimes – themselves to extract value from returns. For example, Home Depot Inc. hosts online clearance auctions returned products with lot descriptions such as “Full truck (18 pallets) of outdoor motorized equipment, vanities and more.” The winners sort and – hopefully – resell the products. But there’s no guarantee that everything will work (it’s a return, after all), and so the dealer bears the burden of disposal as well.

It can be a heavy burden. In 2020, retail returns generated nearly 6 billion pounds of waste. Part of that is the packaging. But much of it is returned products that cannot be resold. In these cases, resellers and retailers, faced with an uncontrollable flood of returns, have been known to incinerate returned the inventory or throw it in dumps. Retailers who fail to address the issue are not only responsible for waste, but also risk alienating customers.

The financial charges are just as important. Last month, British online fashion retailer boohoo Group PLC reduced its sales forecast in part because of a ruinous 12.5% ​​increase in yields from December 2020.

They are not alone. In recent years, venerable retailers, including Nordström, have tightened their once-liberal return policies in the face of rising costs. So-called “free” returns are reduced and consumers are encouraged to deliver unwanted products to physical stores.

Solutions that avoid alienating consumers accustomed to free returns remain rare. For example, many online clothing retailers have invested in virtual fitting rooms to help online shoppers buy well-fitting clothes. So far, the dressing rooms don’t seem to have had much of an impact on returns.

A better approach might be a retail industry campaign that outlines the environmental and financial costs associated with product returns. At a time when consumers and retailers want to bolster their sustainability credentials, an honest acknowledgment of what happens when consumers buy more than they need (or want) could benefit everyone. .

Use the form below to reset your password. After you submit your account email, we’ll send you an email with a reset code.

” Previous

Escalating US-NATO conflict with Russia leads to war Mon, 17 Jan 2022 07:46:15 +0000

The United States and its European allies, using Ukraine as a pretext, are deliberately and recklessly stepping up their confrontation with Russia. Everything they say and do leads to the conclusion that war, declared or not, is their goal.

A Russian T-72B3 tank fires as troops take part in exercises at the Kadamovskiy firing range in Rostov region, southern Russia, January 12, 2022. (AP Photo)

All the talk of impending war emanates from Washington, European capitals and the filthy pro-imperialist media on both sides of the Atlantic. Claims that Russia is about to invade are complemented by dire warnings, for which absolutely no evidence is presented, that Moscow plans to stage a ‘false flag’ operation, which it will then use to justify an invasion.

Under the current circumstances, it is obvious that this claim is being trumpeted as a cover for such an operation by Ukrainian special forces, trained by US military advisers working inside the country.

As it has done in every war launched by the United States over the past three decades, the media presents unverified allegations and transparent lies as facts. Again, the New York Times and Washington Post carry out the disinformation campaign whose aim is to confuse and pollute public opinion.

As in 2003 when they promoted the lies about Saddam Hussein’s “aluminum tubes” and weapons of mass destruction, Time and the To post cite as “evidence” satellite and video images originally posted on social media TikTok and Twitter by unknown persons in Russia which purport to show the movement of military equipment out of the country’s Far East heading west.

Other “evidence” of an impending Russian invasion are meaningless images of 1) tire tracks allegedly created in the snow by the weight of military vehicles loaded for transport near Lake Baikal; 2) an “Iskander-M launch vehicles covered with a tarpaulin at an unspecified location;” and 3) A train allegedly parked near a station in Primorskiy Krai “fully loaded with what appear to be military vehicles”. All this is worth nothing.

Turning reality upside down, the Washington Post declared in an editorial published yesterday (January 16): “This whole crisis was fabricated by Mr. Putin… It has nothing to do with the enlargement of NATO, whose founding treaty only allows defensive military action.

Even if it were true that Russia is about to invade Ukraine, how can anyone seriously assert that such military action would have “nothing to do with NATO expansion”, which has extended its borders 800 miles to the east since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991? How could Russia not be concerned about NATO’s obvious intention to integrate Ukraine into its military alliance? And, if the Ukraine issue is just a pretext used by Putin to cover up his megalomania, why do the US and NATO insist that they will not rule out future incorporation? from Ukraine?

Regarding the To postAfter the pious assurance that “NATO’s founding treaty allows only defensive military action”, its editorial writers seem to have forgotten that NATO has been at the center of aggressive imperialist operations over the past 30 years. These include participation in the invasion of Iraq in 1990-1991, the intervention in Bosnia in 1992, the bombing of Serbia in 1999, the 2001 war against Afghanistan, the Operation Ocean Shield in Somalia in 2009 and the overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011.

The above list is only a partial account of the bloody violations of the national sovereignty of other countries by the United States and NATO. Nevertheless, the Post hypocritically states: “Russia’s stance toward Ukraine amounts to conduct prohibited under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which specifically prohibits ‘threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any State”.