Repeat Returns Offenders
To penalise or not to penalise?
At Commerce Thinking, we’ve helped some of the biggest brands create returns strategies that work, and we understand this problem better than anyone. Serial returners—those customers who repeatedly buy and return items—pose a growing challenge for many retailers. While returns are an accepted part of retail, particularly in fashion, dealing with habitual returners can hurt a brand’s bottom line. So, should brands penalise serial offenders, or is there a better approach?
One of the most common scenarios is customers ordering multiple sizes of clothing to find the right fit—especially when sizing guides can be inconsistent. This is understandable, but it still contributes to a higher rate of returns.
The challenge for brands is compounded when every item, even within the same brand, fits differently. We’ve seen this firsthand when working with fast-growth fashion brands, where customer frustration over sizing can lead to negative feedback if they feel forced to order multiple sizes and then pay for returns.
The Bigger Offenders: Whole Basket Returns
Then there’s the issue of “whole basket offenders,” where customers order dozens of items at once, only to return everything. In some cases, we've seen customers use products for a short time—perhaps for a photoshoot—and then return them all. This kind of behaviour, particularly prevalent among influencers, is especially damaging for luxury brands.
According to a survey commissioned by the credit card company Barclaycard, nearly one in 10 UK shoppers (9%) admit to buying clothing only to take a photo on social media!
In one instance, a fast-growing fashion brand we worked with noticed repeat offenders using this tactic. To combat it, they updated their returns policy to block customers who were clearly abusing the system. However, blocking serial returners isn’t always a straightforward solution.
The Challenge of Blocking Offenders
While blocking these return offenders seems like a logical step, it’s not always foolproof. Customers can easily create new email addresses and continue their habits. Blocking postal addresses can be more effective but carries the risk of also blocking legitimate, high-value customers.
Some brands have started experimenting with a tiered charging structure, where frequent returners are charged a fee. However, this approach can backfire if good customers feel penalised. As a brand, it’s essential to find a balanced solution that doesn’t alienate loyal shoppers.
Using Data to Fight Back
The key to solving the serial returns issue lies in using data effectively. Modern systems, such as those we’ve implemented with some of our clients, allow retailers to track customer behaviour and tag high returners. With these insights, brands can implement tailored returns policies, like blocking free returns for high-frequency offenders or requiring them to go through a manual process for their returns.
Integrating returns data into customer lifetime value (CLV) metrics is critical. Each customer should have a lifetime sales value, returns value, and net value, which can help determine whether a customer is profitable or a serial offender draining resources. These insights can also help brands understand whether certain marketing channels, like social media influencers, are attracting customers who are more likely to return items.
Getting the data right will help you understand how serial returners affect other metrics such as dead stock, likelihood of mark-down etc.
Read more about using data in your returns strategies here.
The Social Media Dilemma
Brands are understandably wary of the potential backlash that can arise from penalising returners, especially in an era where one negative social media post can go viral. Some customers know that if they make enough noise online, they’ll get what they want. We’ve seen brands go above and beyond to resolve customer complaints, even if it means bending their returns policy to avoid reputational damage.
In one instance, a customer took to social media after claiming their order had ruined a significant life event. The brand, fearing a PR disaster, offered free items and other incentives to smooth things over. However, the risk is that such gestures can set a precedent, where brands feel forced to accommodate unreasonable requests to protect their reputation.
Experimenting with Returns Policies
We’ve seen brands experiment with different returns policies to find the right balance. Some have introduced returns fees for serial offenders, while others have focused on gathering better data to make informed decisions. With modern systems that offer real-time insights into returns behaviour, retailers can protect their bottom line without sacrificing their reputation.
We’ve written an entire series on how to get your paid return strategy right. Check it out here.
It’s crucial to have the right data and metrics to guide these decisions. For instance, if a customer has purchased thousands of pounds worth of goods over the year but returned all of them, brands need to make a call on whether that behaviour warrants action. These decisions become even more straightforward when you have detailed reporting from systems that track returns and provide a clear view of customer activity.
Conclusion: A Balanced Approach
Serial returning isn’t going away, but brands can take proactive steps to address the issue. Whether through data-driven insights, tailored returns policies, or a more manual approach for frequent offenders, the goal is to create a fair system that discourages abuse without pushing away genuine shoppers.
With the right approach, brands can protect their bottom line while maintaining a positive reputation in the marketplace.
Is your brand struggling with serial returners? At Commerce Thinking, we specialise in designing custom returns strategies that strike the right balance between protecting your profits and keeping customers happy. Get in touch with us today to see how we can help optimise your returns process and tackle serial wardrobing effectively.