Jamie123
Veteran
In a recent thread in this forum section a member mentioned that he had handled a certain camera at at a couple of stores and then went on to order from an online store as the other shops didn't have sealed boxes.
What followed was a few people accusing him of wasting the shopkeepers time and putting him out of business.
I have seen this issue come up and while I get the point to certain degree I still think it is founded in a somewhat skewed notion of how commerce works. It assumes that the customer is morally obligated to give a seller his money if said seller has given the customer his time.
Now call me old fashioned but I was always under the impression that when I go into a store it is the sellers job to convince me to spend my money and if I don't it's ultimately his failure and not my lack of loyalty. Afterall loyalty has to be earned, an cannot be demanded.
Now, of course, no small shop owner can compete with the low prices of some of the online stores. He has to charge a premium but the question is how much this is and what additional value he can bring to the table that the online store cannot. Sometimes it's expertise, sometimes it's a better warranty and sometimes it's just being treated exceptionally well.
In any case, if you leave a store and still think "I'm going to order this from B&H" then the clerk has missed an opportunity. Even if you were set on buying online from the beginning he still had the chance to change your mind.
Also, I think it's perfectly acceptable to handle a display item even if you don't buy it. That's why it's called a display item.
Obviously, there is also the point of common courtesy. I don't think it's right to intentionally lead a seller on and make him go out on a limb if you're not at least considering making a purchase. Also, if you're just in a store to play around with displayed gear (which is ok, IMO) it's polite not to keep the clerk from attending to other customers. Basically, I don't think one should push the good will and professionalism of a store clerk up to a point where it really exceeds the treatment a regular customer could expect.
What followed was a few people accusing him of wasting the shopkeepers time and putting him out of business.
I have seen this issue come up and while I get the point to certain degree I still think it is founded in a somewhat skewed notion of how commerce works. It assumes that the customer is morally obligated to give a seller his money if said seller has given the customer his time.
Now call me old fashioned but I was always under the impression that when I go into a store it is the sellers job to convince me to spend my money and if I don't it's ultimately his failure and not my lack of loyalty. Afterall loyalty has to be earned, an cannot be demanded.
Now, of course, no small shop owner can compete with the low prices of some of the online stores. He has to charge a premium but the question is how much this is and what additional value he can bring to the table that the online store cannot. Sometimes it's expertise, sometimes it's a better warranty and sometimes it's just being treated exceptionally well.
In any case, if you leave a store and still think "I'm going to order this from B&H" then the clerk has missed an opportunity. Even if you were set on buying online from the beginning he still had the chance to change your mind.
Also, I think it's perfectly acceptable to handle a display item even if you don't buy it. That's why it's called a display item.
Obviously, there is also the point of common courtesy. I don't think it's right to intentionally lead a seller on and make him go out on a limb if you're not at least considering making a purchase. Also, if you're just in a store to play around with displayed gear (which is ok, IMO) it's polite not to keep the clerk from attending to other customers. Basically, I don't think one should push the good will and professionalism of a store clerk up to a point where it really exceeds the treatment a regular customer could expect.