upvote
>You will observe official Amazon Resale listings for many items, which is precisely Amazon restocking the returned items.

To clarify, I'm already aware Amazon re-sells returns. I often buy "Used Like New" electronics from Amazon Resale which are obviously customer returns that Amazon re-boxed. However, the category of clothes is different where it customer returns are often thrown out.

>What Amazon sends to landfills is when items (mostly third-party seller items) aren't selling and the seller doesn't want to keep paying for warehousing or to have them shipped elsewhere so Amazon sends them to landfills.

No, that's not the full story. What's also happening is that a seller has different options for Amazon's reverse logistics and they have different costs.

E.g. pay $1.50 for Amazon to inspect and resell or pay a lower $0.52 to throw it away. A lot of sellers just pay 1/3rd less and let Amazon throw it out.

That possibility of me inadvertently adding to landfills is enough to stop me from buying 3 sizes and returning 2. Maybe in some circumstances the other 2 returned items won't be thrown out -- but I can't know for sure so I won't do it. I'll continue to buy clothes from Amazon but only do so when I'm 100% sure I'm going to keep it no matter what.

Deep link to a video comment about online returned clothes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66qOop6J8Q8&t=2m56s

reply
If you're talking about some $4 item then sure. But most clothing on Amazon isn't $4. If you're buying $30 or $60 items then they are most definitely having them inspected.

Because it's not about $1.50 for inspection vs $0.52 to throw it out.

It's about -$1.50 + $8 profit = $6.50 gain for inspection vs. -$0.52 + $0 profit = $0.52 loss for throwing it out.

You're missing the entire resale price on the return. Companies aren't leaving money on the table. They are looking to maximize profit and minimize losses. In most places, sending resellable stock to the landfill isn't doing that.

reply
On the surface of it, it would appear not to make sense. Why would Amazon take on the cost of handling a return item that they will have to dispose? They could just indicate to the user to keep the item --- and that in fact does happen! I had a return like that just this past week.

However, there is an obvious incentive to minimize these no-return refunds and require users to print labels and go through the motion of returning items that won't be restocked.

It discourages fraud: people abusing the no-return refund as a way of getting free stuff!

The no-return refund has to be a kind of perk for the customer who rarely returns anything or whatever.

I would say that it would be astonishing if Amazon pretending to accept returns and then throwing away is a thing that absolutely does not happen, and honestly cannot blame them for it. We are a throw-away-stuff society, and Amazon is not outside of that society.

reply
> We are a throw-away-stuff society, and Amazon is not outside of that society.

What Amazon does with returns doesn't have anything to do with what kind of "society" you think we are.

What it does with returns is determined by the profit motive.

And in most cases, the more profitable thing to do is to resell returned merchandise. Yes, return inspections cost money, but usually less money than what is gained by reselling the item.

Returned merchandise has value, and businesses don't make profit by throwing value away when they can make money with it or reduce losses with it instead.

I genuinely don't understand all the people who think it's more cost-effective for Amazon to send a $50 shirt to the dumpster rather than resell it. That's not how anything works.

reply
What individuals do is also motivated by profit or profit-adjacent motives. Saving money is a profit motive; so is saving time and convenience.

> It's more cost-effective for Amazon to send a $50 shirt to the dumpster rather than resell it.

It's not a $50 shirt. It's like a $5 shirt to them, which some sucker is willing to pay $50 for. Used, it becomes a $10 shirt.

A dumpster can be found right in the neck of the woods of where the returning customer lives, whereas it may have to travel far and pass through more processing if it goes to another customer elsewhere.

It needs to be inspected, repacked.

There is a risk in every returned item. Sometimes people return a perfectly good item. But sometimes it's because there is something wrong with the item, such that the next buyer is also likely to return it, even if they get it cheaper.

Basically returned items are entirely outside of the profit-optimized delivery path. They incur costs and risks, at a reduced revenue.

I'd never return an item which matches the description and isn't damaged.

If it isn't damaged in any way but does not match the description, that's a problem; if it is sold with the same description, the next customer will also see that it doesn't match. A new listing has to be created for that product. Not gonna happen, or not in the processing time frame of that particular return.

reply
deleted
reply