Return Merchandise Authorization

A few months ago, I bought an expensive (for what it was) piece of equipment from a certain nameless computer store on Grandview Highway near Renfrew street in Vancouver, BC. When I discovered a day or two later that I didn't actually need it, I took the merchandise back, in its box, for refund.

15 per cent re-stocking fee.

Fine. Caveat emptor. My bad. I can handle that. What I found infuriating, however, was that when my refund was calculated, it was done so from the total after taxes. I don't need an accounting ticket to know that's wrong.

Here is what I got:

Purchase Subtotal: $98.77
GST, PST: $6.91 * 2 = 13.82
Purchase Total: $112.59
Restocking Fee: $112.59 * -0.15 = -$16.89
Refund: $95.70

Rather than this:

Purchase Subtotal: $98.77
Restocking Fee: $98.77 * -0.15 = -$14.82
GST, PST: -$6.91 * 2 = -$13.82
Refund: $97.77

When I buy merchandise, the vendor collects tax on the government's behalf. If I return it, they no longer have to pay that tax. If they take their agreed-upon cut off the top, they are telling me that I don't get all of that taxed money back.

Now, $2.07 is hardly worth squabbling over endlessly, but they undeniably pocketed that difference. I'd wager that $2.07 that their accounting software has been behaving this way since it was installed, and judging the age of the machine they were doing it from, I'd say that's at least a decade. $2.07 isn't much, but when we take into account every return that has ever occurred since that software has been installed, that turns into a fair chunk of change.

Their excuse? "Sorry, that's how our system works.".

The Death Knell of Service

I'm not a very old person, but I'm old enough to remember when my bank paid me interest to lend them my money. I remember when they instituted service fees to cover the costs of ATM machines and on-line services. Decades later, some institutions charge not only those fees, but a surcharge to speak to a human being.

I suggest that software and automation is eroding our sense of what constitutes good service. I offer that it does this both directly by increasingly becoming our first (or only) point of contact with service providers, and indirectly by being the only point of contact for the few remaining human beings in their employ.

The maxim "The customer is always right" appears only to remain valid for exceptional cases. Perhaps "The computer is always right", or rather, "Our computer is always right", would be more fitting.

When a customer complains, it's becoming exponentially easier for representatives of an organization to shrug their shoulders and say "I'm sorry, but the system won't let me do that". One could argue that never before has technology given us such power to abdicate our responsibilities.

Although the true mission and sole responsibility of any corporation is profit for its shareholders, it would make good business sense to retain a modicum of respect for those ultimately generating that profit.

Everything from banks to telecom to utilities are affected by impudent, inflexible software. Even restaurants can't seem to escape an infuriating user experience with their Squirrel consoles. Offices lose man-years of productivity with frustrating word processors and e-mail applications. I posit that individuals have become complacent, and corporations have no incentive to change.

As an active member of the information technology industry, it is ultimately up to myself and those like me to design how software systems behave. It is thus the responsibility of the service providers to listen to us and that of the consumers to resist abuse through economic pressure.

One of the most insightful pieces of contemporary wisdom I've heard in a while is "Don't accept 'No' as an answer from someone who doesn't have the authority to say 'Yes'.". In an automated system, who, in fact, has authority?