Wardrobing

[Dirk Diggler]

Thread inspired by this article

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/shortcuts/2019/sep/18/is-wardrobing-ever-acceptable-shoppers?

Is this a predominantly female thing? Do any of you do it? I would definitely understand if a retailer took steps to avoid being exposed to this. It's one of those situations that's down to personal opinion of what's acceptable, and for me it's a pretty scummy thing to do.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

It's a bit off putting to think that clothes you order online could potentially be second hand, with someone having worn the items to a wedding or whatever. Ugh.

Article has 3 guys and 3 women as examples.

GD : IS THIS A PREDOMINATELY FEMALE THING?

I did notice that none of the people interviewed admitted to doing it themselves, only that they know someone who does it. Probably says it all, who would admit to it? Although if the statistic of 1 in 5 shoppers is anywhere near accurate then it doesn't bode well for retailers; it must be a costly process for them.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I bought a Xmas jumper for Xmas jumper day at work. After using it I decided that I wasn't keen on it and wouldn't wear it again so I returned it.

I've no regrets. It wasn't expensive anyway, Primark, but it'd have just taken up unnecessary space in the drawer. To be fair, Primark's returns policy says returns must be 'in a saleable condition', which it was, and I didn't set out planning to 'rent' it, so maybe it doesn't really count.

Buying something crap and expensive you never wanted in the first place because nowhere hired it is hardly the same as intentionally buying and returning a wedding dress.

These two examples are quite interesting. To most people (in my opinion), this is barely better than theft, with the only difference being that the items get returned after use. The self justification offered is very thin indeed. The items were inexpensive and crap? I mean, really.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

There's no loss, certainly in my case, so difficult to see where there's any 'moral' problem.

There is loss, and no one should really have to point the specifics out. Like I said, it's interesting how those who do it manage to convince themselves otherwise.

But perhaps there's also a 'moral' issue with buying clothes for a one-off use: wasteful.

Yes, I was thinking that myself. I think there's definitely a problem to solve there and some money to be made for someone clever enough to corner the market.

I don't do this, but is this any different to someone trying clothes on in the stores changing rooms?

I would say so; I've never left the changing rooms to attend a function and then return a week later to inform the sales assistant, "It a perfect fit", then hang it back on the rack.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

There isn't a loss - it went back to the store are good as new. I only wore it for a day in the office, over a work shirt. They'll have sold it the same as any other

Come on, you know there's loss.

Postage, handling, returns process, checking before restock, paperwork, quality control...

 

[Dirk Diggler]

It was instore, so no postage.

But, as above, all of those apply to ordinary returns - are those also morally wrong?

I haven't claimed that it's morally wrong. I'm not interested in moralising, I'm interested in the thought process of those who do it.

As I said on the OP:

It's one of those situations that's down to personal opinion of what's acceptable

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Seems a bit of a lie. Is lying morally wrong....?

I'm not interested in morals, that's not for me to dictate. You have quoted my opinion, and I stand by it 100%. An action like that is between a person and their conscience. Personally, I would not be prepared to abuse the system in that way.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Seen as you couldn't rent filters, I bought one for £30 from Amazon, took it on holiday and then returned it afterwards. Please go easy on me, but to be perfectly honest I think Amazon are over it

It's an interesting little pitch, really. What you did was deliberate, and probably against their Ts&C's. Your quote above is not the first example of, for want of better words, "justification" based partly on the fact that it's a low value item and that the big company in question can absorb the loss.

It was dishonest, but where does it sit on the scale? People do dishonest things, that's life. There's probably a factor in the price to cover the cost, so it's spread across all customers.

Maybe people who refuse to entertain this, like myself, are being naïve?

The idea that it requires a reconciliation of conscience at all is, inherently, a suggestion that it is a moral issue

Indeed, but I refuse to make a moral judgement. Not yet, anyway.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

@Scam I agree with all of of that, FWIW.

Especially the last point you make, it's still a financial cost but when it's clothes it's personal. Unhygienic. That's what I was getting at with my "scummy" line earlier. I think that's where the line could be for a lot of people. It's not just the fact I wouldn't do it, it's also down to how I would feel if I was the person wearing the garment "second hand" having paid full price to get covered in someone else's sweat, hairs, skin... Ugh.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

This is a much better idea than blacklisting customers based on return levels. As you said, sizing is so inconsistent across brands that ordering a set of sizes to try is almost a necessity and a vital component sometimes to whether I actually order or just not bother.

Yes, it's a good shout as it keeps everyone happy (except the freeloaders ).