Rip off John Lewis

Pollycat

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think you'll find that I accept that people are telling me I'm wrong.

Does that mean you don't believe that Debenhams charge for c&c under £20?
Or the other companies mentioned don't charge depending on their own T&Cs either?
I think you'll find you are wrong.

Phew!
Glad we've got that cleared up.

Cornucopia

As I said, I'm entirely happy for other people to venture their opinion as to my "wrongness".

However, I consider the observation that there are multiple approaches to C&C by retailers, many of which are free, but some are chargeable to be the more interesting topic.

Obviously it's not hard for Argos or Screwfix to offer a completely tied-down service for free because they have item-by-item, end-to-end stock control. It is fundamentally how their businesses work.

Asda, as another example, does not have such controls over "George" clothing stock. Ordering for C&C requires items to be sent to store (for free) because they do not know whether the item is in stock in the store or not. In other words, they are protecting the C&C customer from a cost to their business that they recognise either may not make sense to many customers or may deter business.

I say, "may not make sense" because when the Retailer charges for C&C, they are effectively saying: come to our store and buy X without an additional charge, but if you want to reserve X, first, then we will charge you for it.

Pollycat

Cornucopia wrote: »

As I said, I'm entirely happy for other people to venture their opinion as to my "wrongness".

It wasn't really 'opinion' about your "wrongness" though.
It was fact that you were incorrect to say 'everyone else' in your post #3 before you amended it.

Cornucopia wrote: »

However, I consider the observation that there are multiple approaches to C&C by retailers, many of which are free, but some are chargeable to be the more interesting topic.

YAY! :j

Cornucopia

Pollycat wrote: »

It wasn't really 'opinion' about your "wrongness" though.
It was fact that you were incorrect to say 'everyone else' in your post #3 before you amended it.

I don't think it's unreasonable on a relatively trivial matter such as this for posters to take it as read that any claims made by anyone else are made with the implied caveat that they are subject to the knowledge and experience of the poster concerned. I would have thought that was obvious.

It's sufficient to correct any misconceptions in a factual and friendly manner.

The alternative is that every post here will be littered with disclaimers that will be tedious to both read and write.