Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

L.L. Bean's Still Happy Returns

2/23/2018

23 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

There were three certain things in life: death, taxes, and L.L. Bean’s return policy.  We’re now back to two.  The iconic outdoor retailer’s decision to rescind its legendary product guarantee has ignited a social media firestorm, but who’s really responsible for the return policy retraction?
 
Leon Leonwood Bean founded L.L. Bean in Freeport, ME in 1912 to provide a single product:  a duck boot called the Maine Hunting Shoe.  Over the next 100+ years, the company expanded considerably, both in scale and scope.  Despite the great growth, the firm maintained an unwavering focus on quality, backed by a virtually unequaled product return policy.
 
For more than a century, L.L Bean made a practice of “accepting any return, at any time, in any condition, regardless of the origin of the item.”  However, that very liberal largesse came to an end just a few weeks ago when the company announced it would rein in its return policy.  L.L. Bean now guarantees its products as follows:
 
“We stand behind all our products and are confident that they will perform as designed. If you are not 100% satisfied with one of our products, you may return it within one year of purchase for a refund. After one year, we will consider any items for return that are defective due to materials or craftsmanship.”
 
The company adds that it requires proof of purchase for any refund or exchange, but if customers provide their information at checkout, L.L. Bean will usually have record of the purchase.  If not, a physical receipt is needed.  In the case of gifts or other returns without receipts, the firm will offer merchandise credit in the amount of the last known selling price, provided that the product is “unused and unworn with the original packaging.”
 
So, why the change of heart after so many years?  According to Forbes, abuse of L.L. Bean’s very generous return policy has been happening for decades; however, the exploitation reached a tipping point in recent years thanks to some particularly obnoxious behavior.

Some people, for instance, found that they could pick-up well-used L.L. Bean items at yard sales and second-hand stores and return them to the retailer for a full-price refund.  With the expansion of ecommerce, such unscrupulous behavior has only increased as returns now can be made from anywhere without having to “look a company representative in the eye” when making an appeal. 
 
It’s likely that L.L. Bean’s decision also has something to do with the pressure that so many retailers are now under, especially from Amazon, which has led to many Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings and the promise of even more store closings.  Regardless of the specific reasons, L.L. Bean finally decided enough was enough.
 
Not surprising, many consumers have had a hard time swallowing L.L. Bean’s policy change and no problem voicing their displeasure.  For example, one disgruntled customer complained, “Your return policy was the only reason I shopped at #LLBean! I shared your amazing service with friends, colleagues, and more. Now, I'll be sure to suggest they avoid like the plague!”
 
Others are even more adamant in their claim of personal harm, so much so that they’ve decided to pursue legal action.  Victor Bondi recently filed a complaint in Chicago federal court seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against L.L. Bean.  The suit alleges that the company is now depriving customers of benefits they had been promised by virtue of the long-standing and heavily-promoted warranty, which had ‘no conditions’ and ‘no end date.’
 
L.L. Bean likely anticipated that revising its return policy would not be popular, but did it anticipate this kind of backlash?  Perhaps it should have, and maybe it could have taken a different tact and/or timeline in communicating and implementing the change.  However, was the change itself wrong?  As with every Mindful Marketing analysis, there are two filters for answering that question: economics and ethics.
 
According to Bloomberg, L.L. Bean has seen its rate of “abusive” returns double in the past five so that they now account for a full 15% of all returns.  Over that timeframe, those abusive returns cost the company about $250 million.
 
Against annual revenue of around $1.6 billion, $250 million may not seem like much, but successful companies don’t concede hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily, especially when their sales have been “flat for a second straight year” and the retail landscape is increasingly competitive.  Furthermore, L.L. Bean had to do something to stem the rapid increase of illegitimate returns, lest even more dishonest consumers try to defraud the company. 
 
But doesn’t the new policy penalize honest customers who bought products with a certain understanding, only to have those terms of purchase changed without their consent or compensation?  That’s a fair concern; however, two key factors diminish the argument:
 
First, L.L. Bean’s original guarantee was not a promise of lifetime replenishment.  In other words, there was no reasonable way to interpret that the policy meant customers could buy a product, use it for years and years, then ask for a new one.
 
Every product wears out eventually.  No clothing retailer is responsible for keeping its customers outfitted in pants, hiking shoes, or whatever, just because they once bought a pair from them.  If people are looking for an “All you can . . .” option, they should go to a buffet.  Interestingly, even such restaurants have restrictions, e.g., you can’t stay in the building indefinitely, and you can’t take food with you when you leave.
 
Secondly, even with the change, L.L. Bean’s policy is still far better than industry standards.  Most retailers allow a couple of weeks or maybe a month to make a return.  A few graciously give three months.  I can’t think of another retailer that allows a full refund for a full year for no more reason than “I’m not completely satisfied.”
 
Furthermore, even after a year, L.L. Bean will still allow returns of products that “are defective due to materials or craftsmanship.”  So, the company continues to have its customers’ back.  Of course, this caveat means that consumers also must show good faith and make a compelling case for the return, not just “I wore it out over 15 years, now I want a new one.”
 
To use an analogy, many consumers have acted like horrible house guests who have taken advantage of their host’s generosity.  L.L. Bean gave some special privileges to those guests, but in return they ransacked the refrigerator, beat up the furniture, and long overstayed their welcome.  That bad behavior has forced L.L. Bean to enact some more restrictive but still very reasonable boundaries.
 
Individuals often react negatively to change, especially when it doesn’t seem to be in their favor.  Rationale people, however, can understand why L.L. Bean’s policy change was warranted and how it’s still far better than industry standards.  As a result, there should be very little loss in long-term business for the retailer.
 
In this instance, those guilty of single-mindedness are consumers.  L.L. Bean’s new approach to returns checks out as “Mindful Marketing.” 


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
23 Comments

Mindless to Mindful:  Super Bowl LII Ads

2/9/2018

14 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

The latest NFL championship was one for the ages.  The football was exciting, and the ads were pretty good too.  How did the spots stack up in terms of Mindfulness?  There was at least one commercial for every category of the Mindful Matrix.

Given the weighty issues facing our nation and our world, it’s not surprising that a variety of spots took on important social concerns like diversity, overcoming physical limitations, and the role of families.  These ads gave us a warm hug and put a smile on our face.

However, a few days later, do we even remember the companies that paid $5 million for a 30-second spot.  For instance, which firm showcased a variety of people serving others while an audio clip of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the background?  The answer--Dodge Ram.

Dodge did attempt to make a reasonable connection between its trucks and the ad’s theme (“Built to Serve”), but most of the video footage had nothing to do with pickups (e.g., a pregnant woman having an ultrasound).  Meanwhile a few very short clips of Dodge trucks were overshadowed by all of the ad’s other visual and audio activity.  I doubt I would have remembered that the spot was for Dodge had I not been keeping track of every ad.
 
It was kind for Dodge to spend millions of dollars to extol service, but will one 60-second spot make people any more inclined to serve, and will they associate Dodge with that call to action?  Two likely “No’s” make this ad and most of the game’s other social cause spots “Simple-Minded Marketing.”



Speaking of ambiguous advertising, there was also an ad that featured actor Keanu Reeves motorcycle surfing.  Even as I wrote this paragraph, I remembered the ad, but couldn’t recall to whom it belonged until I checked my list and saw it was for the online website creation software Squarespace.

However, the fact that the commercial had no discernable connection to web design was not the ad's only problem.  One can imagine that the stunt, which Reeves preformed himself, was extremely dangerous for him and other drivers, like the one in the pickup truck that flashes through the scene going the opposite direction about seven seconds into the ad.

The Los Angeles Times reports that 103.4 million people watched the latest Super Bowl, which represents every age demographic from toddlers to senior citizens and unfortunately includes any number of daredevils who need little encouragement to attempt Reeve’s stunt.  The Tide Pod Challenge, which has killed at least eight people, is a tragic reminder of the power media has to spur irrational imitation.  It’s irresponsible for Squarespace to glamorize another dangerous act, which makes its Super Bowl ad “Mindless Marketing.”



Thankfully there were also commercials for which it was very easy to identify the advertiser.  Diet Coke’s Twisted Mango spot was one of those ads.  The commercial is pretty simple in terms of its creative execution.  A girl with short bangs and long legs mentions the name of the beverage and starts dancing.  Could anything be wrong with that ad?  Well . . . yes.

The dance gets a little “sexier” near the end, but that’s not the main concern.  The potential issue is that the actress in the ad is extremely thin.  Skinny people deserve to feel good about their bodies like everyone else, but this young woman looks emaciated, skeletal.  In other product/ad contexts, such a body image might not be as problematic, but this commercial is for Diet Coke.

When people talk about dieting, it almost always means they’re trying to lose weight.  About 30 million people in the U.S., or a little less than 10% of the population, suffer from eating disorders, which “have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.”  It’s reckless for the Coca-Cola Company to use an actress whose body type can easily become a dangerous aspiration for people already thinking about dieting.  Diet Coke’s ad will likely help sell soda, but it’s “Single-Minded Marketing.”



There were many ads from the latest Super Bowl that both created stakeholder value and upheld societal values.  One of the best of the lot was for Pringles snack chips.  The Kellogg Company’s iconic chips-in-a-can have been around for over 50 years, during which time there have been some new flavors, but little else has changed.  How, then, could the company get enough bang for the buck from a Super Bowl spot?

Kellogg’s rose to the occasion by using its ad to suggest a very simple yet intriguing concept: stacking different types of Pringles to create unique flavor combinations, for instance, jalapeño-barbeque-pizza.  Such palette-pleasing options are probably especially appealing to Gen Z and Millennials, who likely are the biggest consumers of these types of snacks.
 
Two other things going for the ad were its use of comedian/actor Bill Hader, well known for his work on Saturday Night Live and recognizable to many young people.  Also, TV viewers consume a significant number of snacks, especially while watching the Super Bowl.  That relevant context makes remembering snack food ads easier, and all of the above make Pringle’s commercial “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
14 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly