Consumer Returns in the Retail Industry

Transcription

1 2011 Consumer Returns in the Retail Industry

2 Introduction The Retail Equation (TRE) is pleased to incorporate the results of the National Retail Federation (NRF) 2011 Return Fraud Survey into the 2011 Consumer Returns in the Retail Industry report. This executive summary document provides return-related information that retailers may use to help compare and improve their business processes. Report objectives included: 7 Identify retail industry return metrics total return amounts, receipted/ non-receipted percentages, and various forms of fraudulent and abusive returns, as identified by retail respondents. 7 Uncover other shortfalls caused by return fraud, for example lost retail jobs and sales taxes. 7 Understand current practices in the retail industry for processing merchandise returns. 7 Compare the relative importance of return fraud issues. 7 Generate industry discussion regarding best practices for accepting customer returns and controlling return fraud and abuse that help to maximize profits and minimize losses. Participating Company Demographics The NRF Return Fraud Survey was conducted by the National Retail Federation during October 2011 by polling loss prevention executives at 103 retail companies. Executives from discount stores, department stores, drug stores, supermarkets and specialty stores completed the survey. The Retail Equation would like to thank all of the retailers who participated in this year s NRF Return Fraud Survey. You will notice that no retailer names are mentioned, per the NRF and the sponsoring company s commitment to maintain confidentiality of each organization s data. Return fraud and abuse is estimated between $14.3 and $18.4 billion CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

3 Annual Merchandise Returns and Return Fraud METRIC NRF retail industry sales (1) $2,391 $2,307 $2,389 $2,433 (3) Returns as a percent of total sales 8.70% 8.04% 8.12% 8.92% Amount of merchandise returned $207.9 $185.5 $194.0 $217.0 Percent of returns without a receipt 16.4% 15.7% 19.7% Return fraud as a percent of total returns 5.4% 5.2% 7.2% 6.6% Estimated amount of fraudulent returns $11.2 $9.6 $13.9 $14.3 Return fraud/abuse as a percent of total returns (2) 8.2% 8.0% 9.1% 8.5% Estimated amount of return fraud and abuse $15.5 $14.8 $17.7 $18.4 (1) NRF retail industry sales figures exclude autos, restaurants, and gas stations. Sales and returns are reported in billions of dollars. (2) Return fraud and abuse estimates come from trends established in previous issues of the Consumer Returns in the Retail Industry report. (3) 2011 retail sales estimated by NRF. Key Findings 7 NRF estimates that total return dollars are up significantly (12%), while return fraud dollars are up only 3%. Therefore, return fraud is increasing over 2010, but at a slower rate. 7 Return rate percentage is up 10% over last year, displaying a significantly increased level of merchandise returns and more than $217 billion in lost sales for retailers. 7 The concepts of return abuse (sometimes called friendly fraud) and fraud in exchange transactions further extends the predicament of retail returns. Analyzed in several independent studies conducted between 2003 to 2008 (by KingRogers International and the Loss Prevention Research Council), retail return fraud and abuse figures are always higher than return fraud alone. From these prior results, we estimate this year s return fraud and abuse at 8.5% of all return dollars, meaning that the amount of fraudulent/abusive return dollars may be as high as $18.4 billion. $20 Return Fraud and Abuse Impact (Billions of Dollars) $17.7 $18.4 $15.5 $14.8 $11.2 $10 $9.6 $13.9 $14.3 $ Return Fraud Return Fraud + Abuse 2011 CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY 3

4 Holiday Returns and Return Fraud METRIC Amount of holiday merchandise returned (1) $43.6 $42.6 $43.8 $46.3 Returns as a percent of holiday sales 10.01% 9.75% 9.80% 9.94% Amount of fraudulent holiday returns $3.27 $2.74 $3.68 $3.48 Return fraud as a percent of holiday returns 7.5% 6.4% 8.4% 7.5% (1) NRF holiday sales are defined as retail industry sales in the full months of November and December. Sales and returns reported in billions of dollars. Key Findings 7 NRF estimates return fraud during the holidays to be 14% above full year rates (7.5% vs. 6.6%). This is due in large part to 1) elevated return rates up 11% during holidays, 2) seasonal hiring practices focused on part-time, less experienced labor, and 3) an overall increase in return fraud. 7 Total holiday merchandise return fraud dollars in 2011 dropped slightly; a sign that fewer retailers are expecting return fraud rates to grow this holiday season, thanks in part to enhanced return policies and requiring identification when receipts are not present during the return process. 7 According to a 2011 NRF survey of gift recipients, one-third (35.5%) will return at least one gift item. Holiday Return Policies DOES YOUR RETURN POLICY BECOME MORE LENIENT DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON TO ACCOMMODATE HOLIDAY RETURNS? YES 52% YES 28% YES 33% YES 37% NO 48% NO 72% NO 67% NO 63% 20 0 Key Findings 7 Compared to last holiday season, the majority of retailers (82.5%) expect to keep their return policy the same as last year, but slightly more (12.6% vs. 10.9% in 2010) will tighten their policies to combat the typical excess return fraud they see each year during the holiday season. 7 According to an NRF survey, 90.1% of Americans feel retailers return policies are fair. 7 Return policies should be more lenient during the holiday season as a tactic to attract new shoppers and convert gift recipients. There are ways to protect and manage risk without compromising service at the return counter CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

5 Financial Summary of Return Fraud and Abuse CATEGORY PERCENTAGE RATE RETAIL INDUSTRY EXAMPLE COMPANY ($1 BILLION REVENUE) Sales 100% $2,432,745,000,000 $1,000,000,000 Returns 8.92% $217,000,854,000 $89,200,000 Receipted 80.3% $174,186,585,506 $71,600,840 Non-Receipted 19.7% $42,814,268,494 $17,599,160 Return Fraud (low-end estimate) Return Fraud and Abuse (high-end estimate) 6.6% $14,365,456,535 $5,905, % $18,445,072,590 $7,582,000 7 Non-receipted returns rose steeply over 2010, and now account for almost 20% of all returns, opening the door for many risk scenarios. 7 Preventing fraud is only one of the challenges being contemplated at the return desk; improving the shopping experience is a new and rapidly growing trend. As seen above, many people think return policies are fair; the implication is also that the policies are uniform and no different from one retailer to the next. Therefore, differentiating the consumer experience during the return process such as a return to hassle free returns is often under consideration as a potential revenue driver. The ability to offer more flexible and lenient returns, while still mitigating the risk of fraud and abuse is critical. Lost Jobs Impact of Return Fraud and Abuse AVERAGE NATIONWIDE RETAIL SALARY (1) RETAIL JOBS LOST DUE TO RETURN FRAUD RETAIL JOBS LOST DUE TO RETURN FRAUD AND ABUSE $27, , ,361 (1) Calculated from retail direct jobs and income figures on source: National Retail Federation 7 Retailers must offset the negative business impact of return fraud and abuse by increasing prices to consumers and by reducing costs which too often means a loss of jobs. At an average retail salary of just over $27,000 per year, return fraud and abuse is costing retailers and workers between 524,000 and 673,000 jobs. 7 The table on the following page details lost retail jobs on a state-by-state level CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY 5

6 Lost Sales Tax Impact of Return Fraud and Abuse MAP OF LOST STATE SALES TAX BY STATE Legend $0 Lost sales tax revenue <$10 Lost sales tax revenue $10 $24 Lost sales tax revenue $25 $49 Lost sales tax revenue $50> Lost sales tax revenue Sales tax revenue in millions, based on high-end estimates from table. 7 Because of the significant retail revenue losses caused by return fraud and abuse, states are losing a total of $870 million to $1.1 billion in sales tax revenues at a time when state budgets need it the most. 7 For simplicity, this table lists only state tax rates; the myriad county and local taxes are not individually calculated. It is estimated that there are another $212.9 million to $273.4 million lost at the local level due to return fraud. STATE % OF NATIONWIDE RETAIL SALES (1) SALES Alabama 1.50% $36,491,175,000 Alaska 0.26% $6,325,137,000 Arizona 2.24% $54,493,488,000 Arkansas 0.91% $22,137,979,500 California 11.90% $289,496,655,000 Colorado 1.70% $41,356,665,000 Connecticut 1.25% $30,409,312,500 Dist. of Columbia 0.15% $3,649,117,500 Delaware 0.37% $9,001,156,500 Florida 7.30% $177,590,385,000 Georgia 3.01% $73,225,624,500 Hawaii 0.50% $12,163,725,000 Idaho 0.51% $12,406,999,500 Illinois 4.05% $98,526,172,500 Indiana 1.99% $48,411,625,500 Iowa 0.92% $22,381,254,000 Kansas 0.79% $19,218,685,500 Kentucky 1.26% $30,652,587,000 Louisiana 1.33% $32,355,508,500 Maine 0.51% $12,406,999,500 Maryland 1.99% $48,411,625,500 Massachusetts 2.34% $56,926,233,000 Michigan 3.10% $75,415,095,000 Minnesota 1.80% $43,789,410,000 Mississippi 0.89% $21,651,430,500 Missouri 1.97% $47,925,076,500 Montana 0.36% $8,757,882,000 Nebraska 0.62% $15,083,019,000 Nevada 1.14% $27,733,293,000 New Hampshire 0.67% $16,299,391,500 New Jersey 3.12% $75,901,644,000 New Mexico 0.62% $15,083,019,000 New York 5.93% $144,261,778,500 North Carolina 2.89% $70,306,330,500 North Dakota 0.25% $6,081,862,500 Ohio 3.39% $82,470,055,500 Oklahoma 1.00% $24,327,450,000 Oregon 1.27% $30,895,861,500 Pennsylvania 4.07% $99,012,721,500 Rhode Island 0.34% $8,271,333,000 South Carolina 1.36% $33,085,332,000 South Dakota 0.32% $7,784,784,000 Tennessee 2.10% $51,087,645,000 Texas 7.49% $182,212,600,500 Utah 0.84% $20,435,058,000 Vermont 0.25% $6,081,862,500 Virginia 2.63% $63,981,193,500 Washington 2.26% $54,980,037,000 West Virginia 0.54% $13,136,823,000 Wisconsin 1.80% $43,789,410,000 Wyoming 0.21% $5,108,764,500 Total (1) Source: National Retail Federation (2) Source: Federation of Tax Administrators CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

7 STATE % OF STATE LOW-END ESTIMATE STATE HIGH-END ESTIMATE NATIONWIDE SALES SALES LOST LOST LOST RETAIL TAX RETURN LOST SALES TAX RETAIL JOBS RETURN RETURN LOST SALES LOST RETAIL SALES JOBS RETAIL JOBS RETURN SALES RETURNS (1) SALES RATE (2) FRAUD RETURNS TAX REVENUE RATE (2) IN STATE FRAUD (3) FRAUD/ABUSE TAX REVENUE TAX REVENUE IN STATE (3) IN STATE FRAUD/ABUSE (3) Alabama $3,573,795, % $36,491,175, % $236,585,253 $3,573,795,356 $9,463, % 9,734 $236,585,253 $303,772,605 $9,463,410 $12,150,904 9,734 12,499 $303,772,605 Alaska $619,457, % $6,325,137, % $41,008,110 $619,457, % $0 1,325 $41,008,110 $52,653,918 $0 1,325 $0 1,701 $52,653,918 Arizona $5,336,867, % $54,493,488, % $353,300,644 $5,336,867,731 $23,317, % 12,002 $353,300,644 $453,633,757 $23,317,842 $29,939,828 12,002 15,410 $453,633,757 Arkansas $2,168,102, % $22,137,979, % $143,528,387 $2,168,102,516 $8,611, % 6,064 $143,528,387 $184,288,714 $8,611,703 $11,057,323 6,064 7,786 $184,288,714 California $28,352,109, % $289,496,655, % $1,876,909,670 $28,352,109,822 $117,306, % 58,173 $1,876,909,670 $2,409,929,335 $117,306,854 $150,620,583 58,173 74,694 $2,409,929,335 Colorado $4,050,301, % $41,356,665, % $268,129,953 $4,050,301,403 $7,775, % 9,883 $268,129,953 $344,275,619 $7,775,769 $9,983,993 9,883 12,689 $344,275,619 Connecticut $2,978,162, % $30,409,312, % $197,154,377 $2,978,162,796 $12,519, % 5,989 $197,154,377 $253,143,838 $12,519,303 $16,074,634 5,989 7,690 $253,143,838 Dist. of Columbia $357,379, % $3,649,117, % $23,658,525 $357,379,536 $1,419, % 686 $23,658,525 $30,377,261 $1,419,512 $1,822, $30,377,261 Delaware $881,536, % $9,001,156, % $58,357,696 $881,536, % $0 2,157 $58,357,696 $74,930,576 $0 2,157 $0 2,770 $74,930,576 Florida $17,392,470, % $177,590,385, % $1,151,381,562 $17,392,470,731 $69,082, % 39,919 $1,151,381,562 $1,478,360,012 $69,082,894 $88,701,601 39,919 51,256 $1,478,360,012 Georgia $7,171,416, % $73,225,624, % $474,747,740 $7,171,416,014 $18,989, % 18,018 $474,747,740 $609,570,361 $18,989,910 $24,382,814 18,018 23,135 $609,570,361 Hawaii $1,191,265, % $12,163,725, % $78,861,751 $1,191,265,119 $3,154, % 2,746 $78,861,751 $101,257,535 $3,154,470 $4,050,301 2,746 3,526 $101,257,535 Idaho $1,215,090, % $12,406,999, % $80,438,986 $1,215,090,421 $4,826, % 3,277 $80,438,986 $103,282,686 $4,826,339 $6,196,961 3,277 4,207 $103,282,686 Illinois $9,649,247, % $98,526,172, % $638,780,182 $9,649,247,460 $39,923, % 23,286 $638,780,182 $820,186,034 $39,923,761 $51,261,627 23,286 29,899 $820,186,034 Indiana $4,741,235, % $48,411,625, % $313,869,768 $4,741,235,172 $21,970, % 13,489 $313,869,768 $403,004,990 $21,970,884 $28,210,349 13,489 17,320 $403,004,990 Iowa $2,191,927, % $22,381,254, % $145,105,622 $2,191,927,818 $8,706, % 6,607 $145,105,622 $186,313,865 $8,706,337 $11,178,832 6,607 8,483 $186,313,865 Kansas $1,882,198, % $19,218,685, % $124,601,566 $1,882,198,887 $7,849, % 5,235 $124,601,566 $159,986,905 $7,849,899 $10,079,175 5,235 6,721 $159,986,905 Kentucky $3,001,988, % $30,652,587, % $198,731,612 $3,001,988,099 $11,923, % 8,312 $198,731,612 $255,168,988 $11,923,897 $15,310,139 8,312 10,673 $255,168,988 Louisiana $3,168,765, % $32,355,508, % $209,772,257 $3,168,765,215 $8,390, % 7,988 $209,772,257 $269,345,043 $8,390,890 $10,773,802 7,988 10,257 $269,345,043 Maine $1,215,090, % $12,406,999, % $80,438,986 $1,215,090,421 $4,021, % 3,112 $80,438,986 $103,282,686 $4,021,949 $5,164,134 3,112 3,996 $103,282,686 Maryland $4,741,235, % $48,411,625, % $313,869,768 $4,741,235,172 $18,832, % 10,900 $313,869,768 $403,004,990 $18,832,186 $24,180,299 10,900 13,996 $403,004,990 Massachusetts $5,575,120, % $56,926,233, % $369,072,994 $5,575,120,755 $23,067, % 12,496 $369,072,994 $473,885,264 $23,067,062 $29,617,829 12,496 16,045 $473,885,264 Michigan $7,385,843, % $75,415,095, % $488,942,855 $7,385,843,735 $29,336, % 20,070 $488,942,855 $627,796,717 $29,336,571 $37,667,803 20,070 25,769 $627,796,717 Minnesota $4,288,554, % $43,789,410, % $283,902,303 $4,288,554,427 $19,518, % 11,815 $283,902,303 $364,527,126 $19,518,283 $25,061,240 11,815 15,170 $364,527,126 Mississippi $2,120,451, % $21,651,430, % $140,373,917 $2,120,451,911 $9,826, % 5,865 $140,373,917 $180,238,412 $9,826,174 $12,616,689 5,865 7,530 $180,238,412 Missouri $4,693,584, % $47,925,076, % $310,715,298 $4,693,584,567 $13,127, % 12,280 $310,715,298 $398,954,688 $13,127,721 $16,855,836 12,280 15,768 $398,954,688 Montana $857,710, % $8,757,882, % $56,780,461 $857,710, % $0 2,437 $56,780,461 $72,905,425 $0 2,437 $0 3,129 $72,905,425 Nebraska $1,477,168, % $15,083,019, % $97,788,571 $1,477,168,747 $5,378, % 4,362 $97,788,571 $125,559,343 $5,378,371 $6,905,764 4,362 5,601 $125,559,343 Nevada $2,716,084, % $27,733,293, % $179,804,792 $2,716,084,470 $12,316, % 5,757 $179,804,792 $230,867,180 $12,316,628 $15,814,402 5,757 7,392 $230,867,180 New Hampshire $1,596,295, % $16,299,391, % $105,674,746 $1,596,295, % $0 3,605 $105,674,746 $135,685,097 $0 3,605 $0 4,629 $135,685,097 New Jersey $7,433,494, % $75,901,644, % $492,097,325 $7,433,494,340 $34,446, % 15,131 $492,097,325 $631,847,019 $34,446,813 $44,229,291 15,131 19,427 $631,847,019 New Mexico $1,477,168, % $15,083,019, % $97,788,571 $1,477,168,747 $5,011, % 3,758 $97,788,571 $125,559,343 $5,011,664 $6,434,916 3,758 4,825 $125,559,343 New York $14,128,404, % $144,261,778, % $935,300,365 $14,128,404,306 $37,412, % 29,911 $935,300,365 $1,200,914,366 $37,412,015 $48,036,575 29,911 38,405 $1,200,914,366 North Carolina $6,885,512, % $70,306,330, % $455,820,920 $6,885,512,385 $21,651, % 17,837 $455,820,920 $585,268,553 $21,651,494 $27,800,256 17,837 22,903 $585,268,553 North Dakota $595,632, % $6,081,862, % $39,430,875 $595,632,559 $1,971, % 1,775 $39,430,875 $50,628,768 $1,971,544 $2,531,438 1,775 2,279 $50,628,768 Ohio $8,076,777, % $82,470,055, % $534,682,671 $8,076,777,504 $29,407, % 22,001 $534,682,671 $686,526,088 $29,407,547 $37,758,935 22,001 28,249 $686,526,088 Oklahoma $2,382,530, % $24,327,450, % $157,723,502 $2,382,530,237 $7,097, % 6,310 $157,723,502 $202,515,070 $7,097,558 $9,113,178 6,310 8,102 $202,515,070 Oregon $3,025,813, % $30,895,861, % $200,308,847 $3,025,813, % $0 7,573 $200,308,847 $257,194,139 $0 7,573 $0 9,723 $257,194,139 Pennsylvania $9,696,898, % $99,012,721, % $641,934,652 $9,696,898,065 $38,516, % 25,106 $641,934,652 $824,236,336 $38,516,079 $49,454,180 25,106 32,236 $824,236,336 Rhode Island $810,060, % $8,271,333, % $53,625,991 $810,060,281 $3,753, % 1,958 $53,625,991 $68,855,124 $3,753,819 $4,819,859 1,958 2,513 $68,855,124 South Carolina $3,240,241, % $33,085,332, % $214,503,962 $3,240,241,123 $12,870, % 8,550 $214,503,962 $275,420,495 $12,870,238 $16,525,230 8,550 10,978 $275,420,495 South Dakota $762,409, % $7,784,784, % $50,471,521 $762,409,676 $2,018, % 2,303 $50,471,521 $64,804,822 $2,018,861 $2,592,193 2,303 2,957 $64,804,822 Tennessee $5,003,313, % $51,087,645, % $331,219,354 $5,003,313,498 $23,185, % 12,269 $331,219,354 $425,281,647 $23,185,355 $29,769,715 12,269 15,753 $425,281,647 Texas $17,845,151, % $182,212,600, % $1,181,349,028 $17,845,151,476 $73,834, % 44,728 $1,181,349,028 $1,516,837,875 $73,834,314 $94,802,367 44,728 57,430 $1,516,837,875 Utah $2,001,325, % $20,435,058, % $132,487,741 $2,001,325,399 $6,226, % 5,060 $132,487,741 $170,112,659 $6,226,924 $7,995,295 5,060 6,496 $170,112,659 Vermont $595,632, % $6,081,862, % $39,430,875 $595,632,559 $2,365, % 1,471 $39,430,875 $50,628,768 $2,365,853 $3,037,726 1,471 1,889 $50,628,768 Virginia $6,266,054, % $63,981,193, % $414,812,809 $6,266,054,524 $16,592, % 15,823 $414,812,809 $532,614,635 $16,592,512 $21,304,585 15,823 20,317 $532,614,635 Washington $5,384,518, % $54,980,037, % $356,455,114 $5,384,518,336 $23,169, % 11,824 $356,455,114 $457,684,059 $23,169,582 $29,749,464 11,824 15,182 $457,684,059 West Virginia $1,286,566, % $13,136,823, % $85,170,691 $1,286,566,328 $5,110, % 3,645 $85,170,691 $109,358,138 $5,110,241 $6,561,488 3,645 4,680 $109,358,138 Wisconsin $4,288,554, % $43,789,410, % $283,902,303 $4,288,554,427 $14,195, % 12,509 $283,902,303 $364,527,126 $14,195,115 $18,226,356 12,509 16,061 $364,527,126 Wyoming $500,331, % $5,108,764, % $33,121,935 $500,331,350 $1,324, % 1,336 $33,121,935 $42,528,165 $1,324,877 $1,701,127 1,336 1,715 $42,528,165 Total $870,821,026 $870,821,026 $1,118,123,674 (1) (3) Source: National Retail Federation Calculated from average retail salary figures for each state from retail direct jobs and income figures on (2) Source: Federation of Tax source: Administrators National Retail Federation 2011 CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY 7 T

8 Examples of Return Fraud WHICH EXAMPLES OF RETURN FRAUD HAS YOUR COMPANY EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST YEAR? Return of stolen merchandise (shoplifting) 88.9% 93.1% 93.5% 89.1% Returns using counterfeit receipts 45.7% 43.1% 35.5% 38.6% Return of merchandise purchased with stolen/fraudulent tender 74.1% 75.4% 68.2% 81.2% Wardrobing/renting 64.2% 46.3% 61.7% 61.4% Internal/external collusion 88.8% 89.1% Key Findings 7 Reported occurrences of forged receipts in return fraud rose almost 9% in These actions may render receipt-based return authorization systems more vulnerable to fraud. 7 Returns of merchandise purchased with stolen/fraudulent tender increased dramatically, potentially indicating more sophisticated tender switching and/or money laundering schemes are prevalent. 7 The link between associate fraud and return fraud/abuse presents a significant issue (89%), and implies that after-the-fact, exception reporting systems are not sufficiently preventing this type of fraud. 7 Shoplifting, wardrobing, and collusion are issues related to the individual, not the transaction, and are better addressed with solutions that focus on purchase and return behaviors and patterns. Analysis of Return Fraud by Receipt Return fraud as a percent of total 2.89% Receipted Returns Receipted 80.3% Returns 84.3% Non-Receipted Returns 19.7% Return fraud as a percent of total 14.02% 7 A primary concern for LP teams should be that non-receipted returns rose steeply over 2010 now accounting for almost 20% of all returns with a growing fraud percentage, opening the door for many risk scenarios. 7 A secondary issue is that it appears that the presence of a receipt causes it to be considered a valid return. Be careful, there are many instances where systems and policies are being abused by shoppers with valid receipts CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

9 Current Return Processes Understanding how the retail industry currently manages return fraud/abuse prevention is an important component of this survey. DOES THE CUSTOMER NEED AN ID TO MAKE A RETURN? Receipted Non-Receipted YES 11% NO 89% YES 62% NO 38% 0 Key Findings 7 There is a dramatic difference between procedures for receipted and non-receipted returns. 7 35% of retailers responded that they never require consumers to show an ID. 7 The limited collection of ID on receipted returns, in conjunction with the perception on the previous page of less fraud on receipted returns, may be a key driver in the increase in return fraud and the consistently high occurrences of wardrobing/renting and internal/external collusion both typically receipt-based transaction types. 7 This receipted issue has the potential to be much worse with the growth of digital receipts, a wonderful customer service tool that can unfortunately be easily copied, altered and transmitted. HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR RETURN POLICIES TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS RETURN FRAUD? Yes 64% No 36% 7 Organized retail crime and internal theft are more sophisticated shoplifting, collusion, fraudulent receipts, and other techniques are making traditional methods of return fraud prevention less effective and leading to evolving return policies CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY 9

10 Impact of Return Fraud and Abuse Beyond reporting metrics, a significant goal of this year s survey was to understand how retailers view and manage return fraud and abuse. How strategic is return fraud compared to something very well known like shrink? HOW IMPORTANT IS THE ISSUE OF SHRINK FOR YOUR COMPANY? HOW IMPORTANT IS THE ISSUE OF RETURN FRAUD FOR YOUR COMPANY? 5 (very important) Shrink Importance Return Fraud Importance (important) (not very important) Key Findings 7 Return fraud has gained in importance for the past 3 years, in which return fraud metrics have also grown dramatically. 7 Shrink will always be a key metric and has been large focus for LP teams. 7 Return fraud and shrink are highly correlated. 7 The growing importance of return fraud issues indicates that there may be a demand for improvement, typically represented by increased spending on systems and programs CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

11 Summary The seventh Consumer Returns in the Retail Industry report represents the fourth year that The Retail Equation sponsored the NRF Annual Return Fraud Survey as a means to present a single source of metrics to the retail market. Specifically, the goal is to understand the extent of return fraud and abuse (estimated between $14.3 and $18.4 billion), thereby raising the awareness of the problem in order to stimulate a dialogue that will lead to best practices and solutions. In the competitive world of retail it is critical to understand how returns and return fraud reduce net sales and contribute to inventory shortage (shrink) clear causes of lost profits. The results within offer the industry s best look into the subject of merchandise return policies and procedures, as well as potential fraud and abuse. This information can be used by loss prevention professionals to compare and contrast their own program results to those reported here, with an eye toward reducing losses from this source. When considering solutions, remember that broad policy-based initiatives impact everyone possibly adversely affecting good customers as well as abusers, and consumer satisfaction may suffer as a result. Technology is also a tricky problem, since a system that is too restrictive risks alienating good customers, and one that is too lax risks encouraging abuse. Seek the counsel of a return expert to mitigate both extremes. Ultimately, implementing the right solution, combined with employee training that encourages diligent attention to the issue at the store level, will help result in reduced return fraud and abuse leading to lower return rates, increased net sales, higher profits, and improved customer satisfaction. For a copy of the 2011 NRF Return Fraud Survey results that generated portions of this executive summary report, please contact the National Retail Federation at CONSUMER RETURNS IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY 11

12 2011 Consumer Returns in the Retail Industry 325 7th Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC USA PO Box Irvine, CA USA November, 2011 The Retail Equation, Inc. All Rights Reserved. TRE3010