Metapack UAG – October 2018
October 2018 – Returns
Location: London and Birmingham
Date: 29th and 30th October 2018
Chair: Robyn Todd, Senior Product Manager
Agenda
- 08:30 – 09:30 – Coffee and Reception
- 09:30 – 09:45 – Opening Remarks
- 09:45 – 10:30 – Hot Topics Discussion
- 11:00 – 11:15 – Coffee Break
- 11:15 – 12:00 – Outcomes
- 12:00 – 12:45 – Value Mapping
- 12:45 – 13:00 – Close
- 13:00 – 14:00 – Lunch
Meeting Notes
Opening Remarks
- A brief overview of Metapack’s roadmap and progress was presented
- A brief overview of the acquisition of Stamps.com was presented
Hot Topics
Volume of Online Returns
- 50% of attendees specialise in groceries and motoring goods and have 1-5% online returns. The rest are in-store.
- Remaining 50% specialise in fashion and have 100% online returns
Policies
- 100% see warranties as the catch-all for items after the return cut-off date
- 50% often see no-fault items being returned just before warranty runs out
- 50% have a 2-year guarantee on clothing
- 25% have life-time guarantees
- 50% have individual returns policies with their vendors, but don’t have signed agreements
- 50% have standard 28-day return policies. The other 50% are trying to shorten to 14 days due to seasonality and margin shrinking
- 25% have seen an average of 60% returns in Germany due to German policy and a Fintech company (Klarna)
- German customers must only pay after 30 days
- Klarna offers Try-Before-You-Buy based on your credit rating
Return Labels
- 50% don’t include a label
- 50 % only provide free return shipping if the product is faulty
- 25% include one label and it can be returned either via carrier or store
- 25% incl. two carrier labels in every delivery (in 5 countries). They also offer additional labels online
- 25% offer QR codes
- 25% never investigate store return items – everything is done on trust
Lockers
100% mistrust lockers due to concerns around:
- Lack of trust in time slots
- Responsibility and accountability
- Cost and logistics questions:
- Do colleagues take items to the post office from the store?
- Do items have to wait in store until it gets picked up?
Data
- 50% cannot do analysis to combat fraud and have noticed people with Trade discounts reselling online
- 50% cannot link returns to return visits
- 25% are experiencing data complications due to refurbs causing duplicate product data for the same product
- 25% combat fraud by tracking customers through store cards by reviewing past behaviour
- 25% use in-store email collection as a method is to link inbound/outbound deliveries (where 60-70% provide and email)
- 25% have no/partial carrier tracking – returns are a surprise when they reach the DC 25% don’t communicate returns progress to their customers – results in around 20% of customer service calls
Online Portals
- 100% of attendees agree a third party returns portal needs to be branded
- 25% are building their own portals rather than relying on a carrier, to ensure a consistent experience
- 25% have concerns regarding handling CS calls with 3rd party branding on portals
Refurb and Resell
- 75% don’t de-brand
- 50% state they want to avoid landfill waste at all costs to reduce their impact on the environment
- 25% are de-branding delivery vehicles to avoid CO2 image concerns and so they don’t have to differentiate between brands
- 25% advised they refurb and resell with exceptions (e.g. some vendors don’t want second-hand product distorting their pricing)
- 25% state 100% of returns go to jobbers (even brand new unopened items)
- 25% don’t re-box
Consolidation
- 50% consolidate and grade all returns in one warehouse
- 25% find it cheaper to consolidate all returns in one warehouse and then send back to head office to grade
- 25% don’ consolidate at all and just send to jobbers
Refunds
- 75% have lower NPS scores due to a slow process for refunds
- 50% refund in most cases
- 25% have an NPS score is below their overall average
- 25% experience slow refunds due to RMA’s from vendors being required before refunds
- 25% experience delays are due to carriers and 3rd party returns portals
Outcomes and Value Mapping
- 100% agree consistent portal branding helps avoid customer confusion
- 100% agree policy should kick in from delivery, not order creation from website
- 100% agree primary concern is customer experience
- 100% agree customers need to be able to collect from a specified location at a specified time
- 75% agree auto replacement is a better customer experience
- 75% believe the key to a smooth returns process is system integration
- 50% agree free returns can be used and incentive for store credits
- 50% agree instant in-store refunds should be offered
- 50% agree vendor policies should be aligned with theirs, as misaligned return windows result in non-refunds and a poor customer experience
- 50% agreed to automate refunds (depends on whether inbound/outbound are linked) and label generation should be done by the carrier
- 50% agreed scrapping everything under £50 would be more cost effective than sending back to vendors
- 50% agreed that a QR code which contains both order and returns data should be used (with the caveat that challenges around which carriers to preselect needs to be addressed)
- 25% agree addressing warehouse capacity issues would improve the process