Who should pay for return freight in the online retailing? Retailers or consumers
- 12 Downloads
This paper studies the online shopping situation where retailer faces uncertain demand and uncertain consumer valuations. We compare the suitability and effectiveness of two return freight policies, consumer affording return freight (C-Policy) and retailer paying return freight (R-Policy). Moreover, we explore the effect of non-defective returns, and the retailer’s optimal decisions on retail price and order quantity. Our results suggest that return freight policy is related to the actual quantity of returns and the proportion of non-defective returns. In general, R-Policy is reasonable when the actual returns is low, C-Policy is reasonable when the actual returns is high. But when the actual returns is not too low or too high, the return freight policy is closely related to the proportion of non-defective returns. Our study shows C-Policy is better if the proportion of non-defective returns is lower, otherwise R-Policy is better. In addition, we find the optimal retail price and the optimal order quantity decisions are also related to the actual returns and the proportion of non-defective returns. Usually, the higher the actual returns, the lower the optimal retail price and the more optimal order quantity. The higher the proportion of non-defective returns, the higher the optimal retail price and the less the optimal order quantity. At last, we find high returns are harmful to retailers, which erode the profitability of online retailers. However, an interesting observation is that the damage of high returns can be alleviated when most of returns are non-defective returns. That indicates the risk of high returns is not as terrible as we intuitively think.
KeywordsOnline retailing Consumer returns Demand uncertainty Valuation uncertainty Return freight policy
We wish to express our sincerest thanks to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on the earlier versions of the paper. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of grants from Philosophy and Social Sciences Plan General Project of Shanghai (No. 2014BGL005).
- 3.Brill, J. (2015). Rethinking online returns. UPS.Google Scholar
- 4.CNNIC. (2016). Report on China’s online shopping market in 2015. http://www.cnnic.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/dzswbg/201606/P020160721526975632273.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2018
- 8.Geng, S. D., & Li, W. L. (2017). Complimentary return-freight insurance serves as quality signal or noise? In: Australasian conference on information systems.Google Scholar
- 26.UPS and comScore. (2014). Pulse of the online shopper: A customer experience study. September 15.Google Scholar
- 27.UPS and comScore. (2015). Pulse of the online shopper: Empowered shoppers propel retail change. October 27.Google Scholar
- 30.Yang, S. (2012). Customers’ cognition value and analysis of return freight insurance. Journal of Insurance Professional College, 26(3), 21–23.Google Scholar