Or, The Unintentional Consequences of Impersonal Social Media Systems
tl;dr – I was accused of being a book pirate for returning a book. (Picture of email below.)
Throughout the past semester — the first in my five-year PhD program — I’ve been trying to build out my personal Internet-and-digital-media-centric book library (inspired in part by the dozens of books my mentor, danah boyd has in her massive collection at Microsoft Research). Like most academics, I prefer physical copies of what I read, for the purpose of taking notes. The process of searching-and-buying has boiled down to me coming across interesting, new titles or texts I know I need to own but don’t and then going to Amazon.com to purchase a used copy (or new, if it’s below fifteen dollars).
I’m trying to be as frugal as possible, since I’ll probably end up buying dozens and dozens of books over the next couple of years; at the same time, I prefer clean physical copies, so if the new book is too expensive, I’ll scour the Used section for “Very Good” markers, making sure to note if the text has any folds or notes or highlights.
About a month ago, I remembered that I did not own a copy of Paul du Gay’s seminal media text, Doing cultural studies: the story of the Sony Walkman. While searching around, I also happened upon another book by du Gay, entitled Production of culture/cultures of production. This jumped out at me, because I’m doing a project on “open-source culture” and the production of digital creative works (see 1 and 2), and I figured this text might be relevant.
Without any further research, I (ignorantly) purchased the book: a “Used – Like New” copy for $6.79 with $3.99 shipping from tomweberfilms (5-star, 100% rating).
Eventually Poc/cop arrived; I flipped through the pristine copy. But I realized: it’s an undergraduate textbook. Fail.
Not that these types of books are necessarily bad: they’re actually really helpful for the citations at the end of each chapter. But a textbook with the sole purpose of occupying a place on an undergraduate syllabus isn’t the kind of material I’m willing to keep on my bookshelf.
So I waited a few weeks to return the book, since I had a handful of other items to return as well (in addition to the honest fact that I was busy at the end of the semester, plus being a bit lazy going about it, since the Amazon return policy is 30 days). Usually returning items on Amazon is fairly simple: you fill out a very short form stating the reason for returning the item and then print out a shipping label. Done. For example, if you return a piece of clothing that you buy via Amazon (or an Amazon affiliate), the options are:
- Too small
- Too large
- Style not as expected
- Ordered wrong style/size/color
- Different from website description
- Damaged during shipping
- Different from what was ordered
- Defective/Does not work properly
- Arrived in addition to what was ordered
- Better price available
- Missed estimate delivery date
- Accidental order
- No longer needed/wanted
However, when you return an item to vendors that use Amazon to list and sell their items (but are not necessarily Amazon affiliates), you have to send them a message noting the reason for the return (literally “Submit for approval”) before they can endorse the transaction. When you select the reasons for a book, you get:
- Accidental order
- Better price available
- Damanged due to inappropriate packaging
- Missed estimated delivery date
- Missing parts of accessories
- Damaged during shipping
- Different from what was ordered
- Defective/Does not work properly
- Arrived in addition to what was ordered
- No longer needed/wanted
- Unauthorized purchase
- Different from website description
But none of these selections really fit the nuance of my situation: I simply realized after the purchase that I shouldn’t have ordered the book. Ultimately, I went with “No longer needed/wanted” and sent off the request for approval.
A day or two later, I received the following response:
Screenshot taken at 4:31pm PST, 18 December 2011
I got a refund… but if you didn’t catch it, let me cut out the important part:
Notes: You purchased this book three weeks ago and now you decide that you do not want/need the item. I believe you are taking advantage of the system. You had ample time to photocopy or scan the book at my expense. You may dispose of the book as you see fit.
… what? Was I just accused of being a book pirate? I was hilariously surprised, in response to this unexpected development (additionally unexpected because I still got the refund, including shipping), but also from a critical standpoint, with regard to the assumptions embedded in the response.
“I believe you are taking advantage of the system… at my expense.
Assumption: Users who purchase physical media on Amazon and return them (especially those who choose the “No longer needed/wanted” option) are clearly copying the object(s).
Assumption: The selection items in the return request accurately depict a motivation or intention of the consumer.
Assumption: The selection items over-empower the consumers and exploit the vendors.
Assumption: It takes three weeks to scan a 356-page book.
Perhaps the second point is the more interesting one to muse on: as a consumer, I don’t really think much about the option I choose as a reason for the return. But apparently, for the vendor, the reason provides a level of measurement regarding motivations and other unseen processes that elude Amazon’s merchant analytics dashboard.
The issue was resolved with a quick response email:
Me: Sorry about the lag in the return time. I understand the situation you described that the delay might imply. (Do you actually have a lot of experience with book piracy through Amazon? I wouldn’t have necessarily expected that, but I guess it makes sense…) I’d still like to return the book, if that’s an option.
Vendor: You sound like a good person and I’m sure you just didn’t get around to it. Sorry for the accusing tone of my e-mail, but I’m sure it happens that people buy books, scan them or make notes from them, and then return them. If you want to ship the book back to me, that would be appreciated. Whatever the lowest cost option is.
The piracy invocation still provoked a number of questions with regard to how unintended consequences can emerge from interactions in social media:
- Does the vendor have a personal bias against media piracy?
- Does the vendor have experience with book piracy through Amazon? If not, what is the motivation behind the accusation?
- Has the vendor made these accusations to other customers in the past?
- How does is the accusation situated in relation to the 5-star, 100% Amazon rating and (lack of negative) comments?
- What does the vendor mean by “You may dispose of the book as you see fit?”
The situation, at least, provides a unique thought experiment about the role of social media — particularly socially-mediated systems, like Amazon, or more vaguely like ratings systems and response forms.
It seems like the current context of rapid and easy content circulation and the impersonal business-to-consumer relationships masquerading as social media consumer “engagement” has led to a conflux of hyperaware metrics (consumer tracking) with the uncertainty of social ingenuity (what some might call lifehacking). This is a situation that perhaps The Cluetrain Manifesto could not have predicted.
And it’s not like consumers are the only ones with the agency and power to exploit these systems. You’ve probably heard about Amazons’ $23,698,655.93 book about flies. More recently, on an episode of the GeekNights podcast, the hosts suggested that some vendors on Amazon are listing items that they don’t actually own (under the premise that they’ll buy the item for cheaper elsewhere in time to resell when the item is purchased).
Plainly, this incident is awkward, but at least it gave me a chance to sit down and think more about the role that social systems play in the coordination of communication, particularly in impersonal situations. I wonder if there have been other instances of assumptions embedded in or emergent from the use of neutral (more like “vague”) tagging systems to mediate transactions with the purpose of categorization, management, and metrics but from which materialize other unintended consequences. A cool study to do might be investigating the responses that vendors have to the types of form responses they receive — for example, do most vendors tend to have negative opinions of return requests they receive marked “no longer need/want”? How would reactions vary between the various possible drop-down responses.
It’s also interesting to weigh reactions like this against the cultural value of the ratings system. For instance, when I’m looking for a used book on Amazon, I’m mainly paying attention to the quality of the book. A difference of 100% and 90% in the stars-ratings of the store itself doesn’t necessarily faze me. Though I assume for the vendor, one negative review completely offsets their reputation within the marketplace (and I know that many eBay vendors have been particularly meticulous, even petulant, about grooming their ratings).
Oh, and of course an answer: no, I didn’t copy the book. (Though I have to admit, it’d be a pretty ingenious scheme, even if I’d probably use the library instead of Amazon.)
Edited 19 December 2011 for clarity.
Alex Leavitt is a PhD student in the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California, where he studies the internet. While he has actually never copied an entire book (and though he frequently scans chapters from dozens), he does ideologically support projects like http://www.diybookscanner.org/ that help disseminate values of free culture. For more frequent updates, you can find him on Twitter at @alexleavitt.
I think the merchant did the right thing. They probably get scammed all the time. In the end you as you admitted were lazy and took 3 weeks to return the book. The merchant should not have refunded you, just as Apple only has 2 week return policy. Rather than being appreciatory that they refunded you anyway and let you keep they book, you are still whining because your feelings got hurt and had the audacity to question a complete stranger’s ethics. You don’t get both. Either accept the refund, or don’t accept the refund and then complain about it.
As you said you returned other books and I ‘assume’ you have several times in the past and with your PhD are well aware that with the low cost of these purchases it’s not financial feasible to have you send the book back, so you know will end up with a free book and the merchant will be out the full cost, not because of anything they did wrong but because you were once again lazy and did not completely review your purchase before ordering it.
I’d personally respect a man more who made his complaint to the merchant rather than being passive aggressive and whining to the world. But you are not complaining to the merchant because it would sound as ridiculous as it does to all of us reading your post.
Not your best post.
Lol to first comment. Not sure why Amazon provides the offer if they’re going to accuse people.
“You are still whining because your feelings got hurt and had the audacity to question a complete stranger’s ethics. ”
Do you read the article? Quoted again “had the audacity to question a complete stranger’s ethics”. — You mean Amazon / reseller? Did they not just do that to him?
Not your best post.
Correct I’m saying rather than being appreciatory for the refund and keeping the book, he is whining because the merchant dare had the audacity to question this customers ethics.
If the consumer has an issue about the drop down menu option, he should write a letter to Amazon saying Amazon should not allow an option for “no longer need/wanted”. That way no consumer will ever get a refund for be lazy/ignorant, but at least they wont have their fragile ethics ever threatened again.
You may consider it whining.
I, however, consider it reviewing self action. It’s good to consider how one feels and behaves in situations – as a matter of fact, there is whole field that studies as such: Psychology
Additionally, he does not have a PhD. He is a student getting a PhD. Not that it matters. Or to you, does it?
@CB: give me a break. If anyone is whining it’s this merchant, who now will get a negative rating for their own assumptions about customer ethic, and likely reduced sales as others see this feedback.
Alex, I’d recommend taking the high road and giving either neutral or negative feedback saying your experience was otherwise fine until the merchant impugned your motives for returning the book.
No Joe, you do not deserve a break. Just like he does not deserve a refund after 3 weeks because he said himself he was lazy and did not properly look into what he was purchasing.
The only person who deserves something is the merchant. They deserve money for a product they provided as described.
I do blame the merchant for having a lax return policy. But if they did not refund this user then he would have been whining about that.
Though since they already gave you all your money, and a free book without any hassle, why not go for the gold, and make them apologize as well and have them say, “We are very sorry for hurting your feelings. It will never happen again, we pinky swear. Whether you keep a book for 3 weeks or three years will will add a note in your file that you are a good person and would never wrong us.”
Amazon’s policy (and therefore the vendor’s) is 30 day return, like most stores (I see that Apple apparently is an exception).
I’m honestly more interested in the situation rather than getting a return on the book. Given your reaction in the first comment, I might actually follow up with the vendor to see if I can get my list of research questions answered.
I never wanted the free book; I was completely ready to print out a shipping label to send it back (as I believe I wrote in the article, this is the first time I’ve had to go through the “request for approval” process; if I didn’t write it in, well, there you go).
A more interesting issue for me right now is a debate over this “No longer need/want” option. Should that even be an option? Chris, based on your response, it seems that by purchasing an item, you assert the consumer absolutely wants the item and makes a critical decision in purchasing it, thereby making a “no longer need/want” option moot, correct? I obviously disagree, as I explain in the post (namely, I didn’t really know what the book was — again, ignorant on my part for ordering it), so I could then see a need for that option, though obviously I know now the weird tensions that underlie that option.
You ordered a book randomly without researching, kept it for 3 weeks, and then expected a full refund. You’re also targeting a small vender and not a large corporation. How can you expect any sympathy?
Although half the motivation for this post was a complaint about a weird accusation, I’m not looking for sympathy about the refund. I’m way more interested in the “piracy” issue and how a simple drop-down option mediated this situation is a very strange and unintended way. Unfortunately it seems like readers aren’t as intrigued by those as I am.
@moe
I would expect my money back since the return was within the 30 days. And not a snarky email. That email probably just costed them a customer. And believe it or not, people make misktakes! Hence the return policy! I know, call me crazy.
What does it matter small or large company. Is that owner worried that Alex is a student and probably living on a modest budget? And how can you assume the owner is taking that much of a loss? He obvious wasn’t that hard pressed to get the book back.
Alex,
I think in your latest comment you described the situation perfectly in one line, “ignorant on my part for ordering it.”
I completely agree with you. And as you value your personal ethics so highly I’m positive you will be contacting the merchant and letting them know how insulted you are by their remark and that you will not accept their refund. And if you have you will personally mail them a check for what they refunded you. Rather than simply saying you never intended to get a refund. It’s about actions, not intentions.
CB, what on earth is your problem? You sound like a jilted lover on a hate binge. The vendor had no call to basically accuse this man of piracy–doing so was *extremely* rude. There’s nothing wrong with requesting a refund/return of something ordered by mistake, especially when it is in compliance with the vendors normal policies. You should be ashamed of yourself for vilifying this man, and should probably seek professional help with your temper since it looks like you’re about ten times as angry about this as everyone else involved put together.
The author of this post is writing about how is upset with an experience. If is not willing to accept feedback, which can come in both positive and negative, then he shouldn’t post his experience, or he shouldn’t allow comments on his blog posts if he does not foster discussions that may pose views contrary to his own.
I do not know this person, or the vendor well in any degree other than what I have read from his post. So now I am unable to have love or hate for either. The author has a PhD his clearly not a dumb person so he is well aware that if he writes a blog entry it will not be flooded with just people saying I completely agree, pat on the back. As a well developed mind I’m sure he appreciates views other than his own, and understands they reflect his post and not him as a personal, who I have no knowledge about other than what he has written.
There was a post, and I responded with my view point as others have done. When responses were posted directed to me I responded to those as well. This we refer to a discussion, rather than, “anger”, “hatred”, or a “problem”. I hope I answered you question though I imagine they were more rhetorical rather an actually expecting a response. And I can see how some people may only be able to differentiate between more simplistic dichotomies such as right and wrong, good and bad, happy and sad. Rather than understanding the difference between anger, and passionate. As a general rule on the internet look for all caps, excessive exclamation marks and such as cues to unbased temper or anger. Hope this helps.
CB, he wasn’t writing about his emotions. That’s you. If you’re willing to address the substance of the blog post and the concept of book piracy, then by all means: contribute meaningfully. Otherwise, stop whining. You’ve managed to derail the entire comment thread into pin-the-blame-on-the-donkey.
“… what? Was I just accused of being a book pirate? I was shocked,…But also shocked in regard to the assumptions embedded in the response.”
The author is talking about his emotional response to a situation.
Whining means, “To complain or protest in a childish fashion.” I’ve offered sounded logical reasoning to his post in my opinion. I’m sure you have read through the comments and realize that I’m not the only person who feels this way. Look above or directly below. My initial response was to the article each response since has been a response to other people’s reply’s to me. There is no derailing. I’ve posted one post about the entry in which I made my point. If not one has any more responses from me I have no need for further responding. But yes, if people have responses to my reply directed to me then yes I will reply to those such as I’m replying to yours. The discussion or conversation goes where the users take it.
If the author wants to focus solely on book piracy in my opinion his article should be all about book piracy, instead half of the article was about the accustation made about him. The author admitted this himself in a reply above, “Although half the motivation for this post was a complaint about a weird accusation…”
And yet you managed to avoid the central point: “The vendor had no call to basically accuse this man of piracy–doing so was *extremely* rude.”
A few points to ponder:
1. Amazon’s return policy is 30 days, so it seems to me the author of the post requested a refund with a full week to spare.
2. The return would have been just as unprofitable for the seller had the buyer waited only a single day to request it–the 3 week duration has nothing whatsoever to do with the profitability of the transaction. The seller could have accused him of gaming the system (differently) had he asked for a refund the very next day.
3. The seller may have been dismayed at the fact that it’s not in their financial interest to have him return the book, but it hardly calls for wild speculation and name-calling. Rather than writing off the customer, they should have written off the loss. Not only are they out $10.78, they’ve likely lost any goodwill the refund might have bought them and have made quite sure the buyer in question will *never* be profitable for them.
4. Assuming the buyer had turned around and rejected the refund as you said he should have, what would be an appropriate response from the seller–”Gee thanks, I guess you’re not a thief after all”?
5. “As a general rule on the internet look for all caps, excessive exclamation marks and such as cues to unbased temper or anger. Hope this helps.” Sarcasm and an overtly hostile tone are also pretty good indicators, see previous line or any of the following:
- “you are still whining because your feelings got hurt”
- “with your PhD are well aware that with the low cost of these purchases it’s not financial feasible to have you send the book back” (how else to read the Ph.D. reference when it’s in Communication and Journalism, not Business?)
- “at least they wont have their fragile ethics ever threatened again”
- ” why not go for the gold, and make them apologize as well and have them say, “We are very sorry for hurting your feelings. It will never happen again, we pinky swear. Whether you keep a book for 3 weeks or three years will will add a note in your file that you are a good person and would never wrong us.”
You know, when you sell a book on amazon for $6 you’re lucky to make $1-$2 bucks. So you made this guy go to the trouble of shipping the book to you, packaging it, and all. That probably took around a half hour, total, although he could have been shipping it along with others, that’s not the point. Selling books on amazon is an extremely tight profit margin. You bought a *used book* for $10 dollars, and you *returned* it *3 weeks later*. You’ve got to be kidding man.
Get some class.
Pot, kettle, black? Doing a big HAHAHA is pretty classy.
As a consumer I couldn’t care less about what a vendor profits or has to go through to make the sale. If they can’t make a profit from the Amazon marketplace then they shouldn’t be doing business there. I would have thought this was common sense, but apparently that’s up for debate.
Wow. Just wow. I am totally stunned at the comments being left on this blog entry.
If a vendor has a return policy of 30 days then 3 weeks is not too much time to wait before returning the item. Period. Doesn’t matter if the consumer is lazy, stupid, or in prison for piracy–there should be no issue (and wasn’t). Whats flabbergasting is that the “3 week return” was made an issue of at all. The vendor had no issue with it. Why would the commenters here make an issue of it?
Secondly, buying something on the internet is not the same as making a physical purchase. A consumer can want an item when reading about it or looking at a picture, but once the item arrives it might not be what I wanted after all and the product media simply inadequate.
Even physically buying merchandise is not completely immune to returns based on this. A couple weeks ago I went to Best Buy looking to buy a keyboard. The one I was most interested in was not available as a demo; they only had it in the box and were unwilling to open the box to let me feel the keys. I decided I didn’t want to risk the purchase but then the sales person told me to buy it and if I didn’t like it I could return it for a full refund within 30 days. So I did buy it, took it home and tried it out, and hated it. Brought it back and got the full cash refund (which I then spent on a different keyboard).
Best Buy did not call me any names during this whole process. But then, I’m guessing CB and Moe weren’t in the vicinity. ;)
Hey Dan,
If there is something I’d be happy to discuss it with you directly like adults. I’m not quite sure what you mean by calling people “names.” In my replies I’ve made sure to quote the exact words of the post or people to supplement my view. So when you make passive aggressive sarcasm, please include actual quotes. And if your actual quote demonstrates what you say, thats great.
In addition, the author made no reference of a 4 week return policy. He added that after my comment to this article. Every other post by me has been in response to comments directed or mentioning me. I have posted no new comments that are not a direct reply.
As to your actual comments about the article, definitely understand your point of view and think they are good points. And I agree if someone called me a thief and I wasn’t you can be sure I’d be responding to them by email or a phone call right away. At the same time, I certainly wouldn’t write a blog post mentioning it, because even though I would be upset about the allegations made in the heat of the moment, I would take a step back and realize that when all is said and done, I got a free a book a full refund, and the company ended up losing money as a commenter noted. There are a lot of points of view where one can see fault for both the consumer, the merchant, and Amazon. This blog posts allows us to all discuss that rationally.
Sure is commenty in here.
It’s only a matter of time now till the Viagra ads show up in the comments.