Buying and Returning Basses

[Buster Brown]

I am having a tough time understanding with the whole my bass is crap yet you are recording a album thing.

Yeah, this one kinda puzzled me, too........

 

[hdracer]

Yeah, this one kinda puzzled me, too........

See post #54

 

[Stewie26]

Hell has frozen over. The majority of posts are defending GC!

Regardless, Right is right and wrong is wrong. And like always, the consumer will pay for it in the end.

 

[mcnach]

This is weird.

I asked advice here and elsewhere on what to do about hiring gear when my band did a brief overseas tour in the US. The most common advice here was to buy a bass from GC, use it, and it return in good condition for my money back. Had some people telling stories about large production companies doing this with tens of thousands of dollars worth of PA gear. No one mentioned it being morally dark or anything like that...

But you know what the alternative at GC is? Pay 100% in collateral plus 10% per day to hire a piece of gear. It's basically the same as their returns policy; you damage it and you don't get your collateral back, but if it's in good nick you get your cash returned. The only difference is that you lose 10% of the total price a day for every day you have the instrument, and you don't get an instrument at the end. For ten days of use I could have bought the bass anyway, or two of them if you include the collateral upfront.

It's a total rip off, and I went to another large US music retailer and they actually offered us the option of buying a piece of gear and returning it in perfect condition for our money back. No one loses: I'd we don't return it, it doesn't matter because we own it and have paid for it. The onus is on us to return it in good condition if we do want our cash back.

Well, if renting is a ripoff... then buy it. But don't buy with the premeditated idea to return it in the end. Then you are doing the ripping off. Why should anybody, be it a company or an individual, pay for you to save money?
Ridiculous that you try to justify it.
Wrong is wrong, and you know it.

As for the thread you mention... all I know is I have seen this situation coming up before, and although some people felt it was ok to take advantage of a buy&return deal, the vast majority ALWAYS said what they are saying here.
But it's irrelevant.
If the majority here tells you it is ok to kill a guy to steal their bass, it's still wrong. And... you know it.

 

[mcnach]

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, however I don't think that this is about making excuses for something inherently inexcusable. There are genuinely a multiplicity of factors involved and there's no point painting it black and white.

But here's and if and a but to think about:

I walk into GC and they explain their renting policy to me. I say, "You're a business person, so you'd understand that it'd be more prudent for me to buy whatever instrument I want and return it later, yes?" And just imagine they say to me, "Yes, we know that, and I suppose there's nothing in the store policy prohibiting you from doing that." So that's what I do. They know it's happening and expect the bass back undamaged in two weeks, or I have to keep the bass and I don't get my money back. If I decide to keep the bass, fine, it's a win-win situation.

Is is still unethical for the simple fact that I bought a bass without intending to keep it? It's certainly not dishonest. Both parties are happy with the arrangement, and it's perfectly legal.

I'm not trying to antagonise anyone here, just playing a thought game. I certainly don't see the above scenario as unethical - there's nothing inherently immoral about purchasing something with the intention of returning it. It's the consequences that matter to me. It might be repugnant if you're dishonest about it or continually abuse the trust of shopowners, but the act in itself doesn't raise any moral issues that I can see.

Unless, of course, your morality is derived from religion or some other deontological system of ethics, and your particular belief system views the purchasing of things with the intention of never keeping them as an inherently bad action. I can't remember Christianity mentioning this, but maybe the Bro Code or the All-Mighty Book Of "It's Just The Done Thing" have something to say about it.

This is one of the most amusing justifications ever. :lol:

Again, just because you can get away with something doesn't make it right.

If you cannot see that, you have bigger problems than sourcing a bass. But, back on topic... why do you insist on GC's rental conditions?
Ok, those you don't like. Why not rent elsewhere? Or, God forbid, ship your own bass? Not that expensive!
Or even buy one locally on arrival, sell it when you leave. Do research first, go used... I guess it depends on how much time you have... I'd probably just bring a bass myself. Even dismantled in my luggage if it were a problem to send it in its case.

Anyway, you know what is right and what is wrong. Choose whatever you wish, but don't try to dress the truth to make it more palatable to you.

 

[mp40smg]

If I decide to keep the bass, fine, it's a win-win situation.

Is is still unethical for the simple fact that I bought a bass without intending to keep it?

It's certainly not dishonest. Both parties are happy with the arrangement, and it's perfectly legal.

It might be repugnant if you're dishonest about it or continually abuse the trust of shopowners, but the act in itself doesn't raise any moral issues that I can see.

WOW!
Just wow.

 

[One Drop]

First off, I think you and I agree on a lot of things. But for the sake of discussion, here goes...



That's right. It's about the consequences of your actions. But, in the spirit of consistency, would you also say that the cumulative effect of countless people coming and playing basses off the wall should also lead us to deem their collective action as being immoral? Some of those basses would have the heck played out of them in store, so an off-the-wall instrument could be in the same 'less than new' condition as one that's been returned.

Essentially, while an effect on the condition of the instrument is a genuine consequence to be concerned about, it needs to be weighed with the overall condition of basses in these stores. If buying and returning is wrong for this reason, is playing a bass in the store wrong too?



This is one of those blurry scenarios I'm talking about. Stores in the US offer a return policy to maintain good customer service and public relations; there is no law requiring any company to have such a policy.

Guitar Centre has a fairly lenient policy. They say: "If you're not satisfied, neither are we. If for any reason you're not completely satisfied with your purchase, simply return it in its original condition within 30 days of purchase (see exceptions below) and we'll give you a full refund. It's that simple."

On the matter of abusing the policy, they say: "Our return policy is in place to ensure our customers never get stuck with a wrong piece of gear. Those who violate the spirit of our return policy by having excessive returns may be subject to limitations or suspension of return privileges."

In my eyes, the whole thing hinges on this line - Those who violate the spirit of our return policy by having excessive returns. They could have left it at 'those who abuse our return policy...', but they qualified it with 'by having excessive returns'. This says to me that their main concern is losing significant income from customers who are either dodgey and just want to get their hands on every bit of sweet gear they can, or those who are making huge and numerous purchases (for, say, an event or something) and trying to sidestep the part where you pay for it. Again, just talking points, but I they do outline their concerns clearly.

In real life, the returns policy is there as a show of good faith between the company and its customers. Most of the time, people who do this sort of thing are probably going to be dishonest about it, and it's the act of abusing the trust a company has extended to you that makes it wrong. If I were to do it as an alternative to renting, I would be up front about it.

Nothing blurry, I really feel these are rationalizations. If you can't go to the shop to try, or need to try a bass on a gig to hear how it sounds, you are abiding by their conditions. If you play it for a few days and find things you don't like, same scenario. If you are buying and returning to avoid renting and you know the bass will be returned, you are not.

Their policy is crystal clear and it really does take some mental gymnastics to spin it otherwise, at least the way I read it. The bit about excessive returns has nothing to do with the spirit or letter of their policy, it is simply a way for them to put a stop to people who abuse it excessively, as they know they cannot stop the occasional abuse.

I've done some less than morally stellar things in my life, and it's amazing how many arguments I could come up with to justify them and make myself feel better in hindsight. But for my own personal good I think it's better to simply own up and admit I did it because I was selfish and put my own convenience ahead of someone else's potential to be harmed.

 

[punkjazzben]

This is one of the most amusing justifications ever. :lol:

I wasn't justifying anything.

The point I am repeatedly making here is that it's the consequences that make an act unethical, not the act itself, by itself.

It's really not that difficult to separate the act and it's consequences.

Extreme example: putting a knife in someone's heart per se is not unethical; it's the fact that someone dies as a consequence that makes it unethical. If all it did was tickle and make you laugh a bit and absolutely nothing else, then you'd find it very hard to explain why it's unethical, wouldn't you? It seems counter-intuitive, but if you're intelligent you can get past that.

That in mind, let's try this again: Both me and a store happily agree that I will buy and then return an instrument under their returns policy. I return it in MINT condition as promised, and the store gives my money back as promised. They are happy, I am happy, and there are no negative consequences to anyone, ever.

If there were negative consequences - as I plainly agreed there can be in previous posts - the act would be unethical. But in my hypothetical, there are no negative consequences.

And the final point is this: there is nothing inherently unethical about purchasing a bass and then returning it. It only becomes unethical when there are negative consequences.

So you can't just pronounce an action 'unethical' without regard to it's actual, real life consequences, and you can't just assume that the consequences - if any - will always be negative.

Got it?

Now that that's cleared up, you should all know that I personally do not condone doing this. It would have been easy for me to do when I was in LA, and it was an option offered to me by staff at one store (which is the inspiration for my hypothetical). I knew, however, that a) the policy wasn't there for this kind of thing, and b) I would still be financially better off hiring from elsewhere. Also, I would have had the bass for two weeks, playing frequently and travelling often, increasing the likelihood of this bass not returning in mint condition. So I didn't risk those consequences or the personal guilt associated with abusing the trust of the store. I still disagree that there is a clear-cut, black and white answer on the ethics of this, because situations and circumstances are different every time. In my case, it could have been very unethical for me to do it. In another person's case, there might have been no negative consequences for anyone involved. I still stand by the statement that there is nothing inherently unethical about purchasing a bass and then returning it, and it only becomes unethical when there are negative consequences. And no this is not "getting away with it" - because there's nothing bad to "get away with".

 

[Huge]

Stop muddying the waters with hypotheticals.

This started out as a thread about a specific set of circumstances. While it's great that you can justify the act under a completely different set of circumstances, it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the initial postulation was dishonest.

 

[punkjazzben]

Stop muddying the waters with hypotheticals.

This started out as a thread about a specific set of circumstances. While it's great that you can justify the act under a completely different set of circumstances, it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the initial postulation was dishonest.

Which is why it's more correct to say this particular guy's proposal was unethical, rather than that buying and returning is always unethical. My intent was to make that much clear, not muddy the waters. Also, it wasn't a hypothetical: it was an actual option given to me. It's not my fault the world isn't black and white.

On that note, I'm stopping now. This is what happens when I'm bored.

 

[Peepaleep]

I wasn't justifying anything.

The point I am repeatedly making here is that it's the consequences that make an act unethical, not the act itself, by itself.

So if you cheat on your wife and no one finds out, that's not unethical?

 

[punkjazzben]

So if you cheat on your wife and no one finds out, that's not unethical?

It's the fact that you have a wife that makes intercourse (or whatever counts as cheating) in this scenario unethical.

...and consequences are still consequences whether or not somebody finds out. You're always cheating and being unethical whether or not your wife knows.

Is it really that hard to grasp? Try this: the physical action of my fist propelling through the air and contacting somebody's face is not inherently unethical - it's the fact that I'm hurting someone that makes this particular physical movement unethical.

 

[Huge]

Which is why it's more correct to say this particular guy's proposal was unethical, rather than that buying and returning is always unethical. My intent was to make that much clear, not muddy the waters. Also, it wasn't a hypothetical: it was an actual option given to me. It's not my fault the world isn't black and white.

On that note, I'm stopping now. This is what happens when I'm bored.

Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct. I hereby promote you to grade 37.

 

[PazzoBasso]

I don't like it.... I don't like it one bit!

 

[punkjazzben]

Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct. I hereby promote you to grade 37.

Thank you.

Now, I must away - somewhere, somehow, somebody else is wrong on the Internet.

*flys away like superman*

 

[packhowitzer]

Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct. I hereby promote you to grade 37.

I am Bender. Please insert girder.

 

[nostatic]

Guitar Centre has a fairly lenient policy. They say: "If you're not satisfied, neither are we. If for any reason you're not completely satisfied with your purchase, simply return it in its original condition within 30 days of purchase (see exceptions below) and we'll give you a full refund. It's that simple."

On the matter of abusing the policy, they say: "Our return policy is in place to ensure our customers never get stuck with a wrong piece of gear. Those who violate the spirit of our return policy by having excessive returns may be subject to limitations or suspension of return privileges."

I would consider that even a single purchase/return could qualify as "excessive" if the purchase was made with the sole intent of using the instrument for a session then returning it. That has nothing to do with not being satisfied with the purchase (which is the reason for allowing a return). It is a premeditated act to essentially defraud the store. It is different from "I didn't like it" or "I changed my mind" or "I can't live with this color" or "crap I lost my job and can't afford it." Instead there was never an intent to make an actual purchase. You can rationalize that all you want - it still is lame imho.

Then again, everyone has their own moral compass. I find it interesting to see what people think is north...

 

[SolarMan]

Let's say some dope did "rent" a bass this way and returned it.

They (GC) put it back up for sale - is it still for sale as new? Or used?

If they sell it now as used your "friend" could buy it back for less. If they sell it again as new, then isn't that a lie?

 

[bolophonic]

I'm not trying to antagonise anyone here, just playing a thought game. I certainly don't see the above scenario as unethical - there's nothing inherently immoral about purchasing something with the intention of returning it. It's the consequences that matter to me. It might be repugnant if you're dishonest about it or continually abuse the trust of shopowners, but the act in itself doesn't raise any moral issues that I can see.

If your only measure of ethical behavior is "consequence," then I am glad that we live on opposite sides of the globe.

 

[mcnach]

I wasn't justifying anything.

The point I am repeatedly making here is that it's the consequences that make an act unethical, not the act itself, by itself.

It's really not that difficult to separate the act and it's consequences.

Extreme example: putting a knife in someone's heart per se is not unethical; it's the fact that someone dies as a consequence that makes it unethical. If all it did was tickle and make you laugh a bit and absolutely nothing else, then you'd find it very hard to explain why it's unethical, wouldn't you? It seems counter-intuitive, but if you're intelligent you can get past that.

That in mind, let's try this again: Both me and a store happily agree that I will buy and then return an instrument under their returns policy. I return it in MINT condition as promised, and the store gives my money back as promised. They are happy, I am happy, and there are no negative consequences to anyone, ever.

If there were negative consequences - as I plainly agreed there can be in previous posts - the act would be unethical. But in my hypothetical, there are no negative consequences.

And the final point is this: there is nothing inherently unethical about purchasing a bass and then returning it. It only becomes unethical when there are negative consequences.

So you can't just pronounce an action 'unethical' without regard to it's actual, real life consequences, and you can't just assume that the consequences - if any - will always be negative.

Got it?

Now that that's cleared up, you should all know that I personally do not condone doing this. It would have been easy for me to do when I was in LA, and it was an option offered to me by staff at one store (which is the inspiration for my hypothetical). I knew, however, that a) the policy wasn't there for this kind of thing, and b) I would still be financially better off hiring from elsewhere. Also, I would have had the bass for two weeks, playing frequently and travelling often, increasing the likelihood of this bass not returning in mint condition. So I didn't risk those consequences or the personal guilt associated with abusing the trust of the store. I still disagree that there is a clear-cut, black and white answer on the ethics of this, because situations and circumstances are different every time. In my case, it could have been very unethical for me to do it. In another person's case, there might have been no negative consequences for anyone involved. I still stand by the statement that there is nothing inherently unethical about purchasing a bass and then returning it, and it only becomes unethical when there are negative consequences. And no this is not "getting away with it" - because there's nothing bad to "get away with".

just wow.

so, it's all about the consequences, right?

wow...

you're in for some rude awakening one day, my friend.