var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
April 29, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Sounds reasonable enough to me. Kudos to you guys for posting the other side of the story.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Underscore_Lysdexia
April 30, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@alexcassidy: I still think she could have rephrased \"What have you been doing on your knees\" and \"How could you not realize they were black?\"

It's not their damn business to know what she's been doing with the jeans

She could have easily said something like: \"The knees on the jeans have been worn and because of this we cannot return them\"

While the customer could have been in the wrong, I don't think the best course of action is to inadvertanly call her an idiot, that just builds a bad reputation no matter how many times you explain yourself

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
May 1, 2009 5:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Underscore_Lysdexia:


I agree with everything you said. \"What have you been doing on your knees?\" could have been rephrased to something less offensive.


And \"How could you not realise they were black?\" could definitely have been phrased better. Personally, I'm a fan of \"How stupid do you have to be to think that BLACKwash jeans would not be BLACK? I assume you can see, since you filled out the order form. You DO know we put pictures of the products up for a reason, right?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Superawesomerad
April 30, 2009 12:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@alexcassidy: But the \"other side of the story\" is exactly the same. The only area in which the two parties disagree is whether the jeans were unacceptably worn or not. And without images of the jeans, there's no way to know who's in the right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
April 30, 2009 5:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Superawesomerad:

No, the other side of the story is nothing the same. It provides a whole lot of context and as you can see from the comments, that context has changed many people's perception of the events. We also apparently have a picture of that design below and it's _clearly_ black. That makes the original statements by the girl highly suspect. If she's willing to lie about that, what else is she wrong about?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Superawesomerad: Exactly. So really, we're still where we were the other day when the story broke.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 29, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@alexcassidy: It's amazing how often readers blindly turn to hating a given company because of the one-sided stories posted here (such as \"owner of hello! Skinny Jeans was inundated by emails from angry readers about how this situation was handled\"). It also goes to show you that, yes, folks lie just to make their Consumerist story submission seem more favorable toward them.

Whatever happened to being informed before drawing rational conclusions? It's definitely good to see a response like this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
metaled
April 30, 2009 4:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:rational conclusions? The business owner should be used to irrational customers, I mean it's $178.00 Pair of Jeans!!!! Not 9-10 pairs of jeans for $178, only one pair! the business owner is nuts for selling such marked up products, The customer is insane for buying the jeans!
The business owner could afford a few refunds for publicity! She chose to get bad publicity! No one will remember the customer, but everyone will remember the jeans (not to buy!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
headcase
May 7, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metaled: \"The business owner could afford a few refunds for publicity!\". Yeah, but then they'd be known as the store you can order jeans from and then return for a full refund once you're done with them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OprahBabb
April 30, 2009 12:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metaled: I don't understand your logic of the company choosing to receive bad publicity. Businesses, just like the consumer, have to protect themselves from someone who is trying to \"pull one over\" on them. I think the Company did the right thing in this case. She WORE the jeans and tried to give a bullshit reason to return them.
Bottom line, eh?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cjones27
April 30, 2009 5:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metaled: So they should refund every customer who complains? They have rules for a reason. It's still not totally clear who is in the right, as both of these stories are pretty biased.

The business owner is clearly an extremely entrepreneurial one. If they can sell marked-up jeans and people will buy them, it's the customers who are nuts, not the business owner. She obviously wouldn't be in business if people weren't willing to fork over $178 for jeans.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bairdwallace
April 30, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cjones27: At such a high markup, I think maybe they'd be willing to eat the cost of replacing the jeans for *any* reason. I'm guessing they'd still be turning a profit. REI and LL Bean will let you make a return for ANY reason at any time, and they don't have such high markup. Its worth it in terms of fostering customer goodwill.

On the other hand, if they are worn, the company isn't in the wrong to refuse them either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
April 29, 2009 11:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:

I still think it's bullshit the consumerist doesn't make any effort at all to fact check. I understand that they might not be equipped for some sort of full blown investigative report, but couldn't they find some intern monkey who can send an email query or something? It's just sad that they will post up any sort of slanderous statement without any sense of responsibility to the truth. If the company doesn't respond, then that's one thing but in this case it seems clear that the other side of the story wasn't even solicited. At least now we have both sides and can have a more informed opinion about what should or should not have happened.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
donnie5
April 30, 2009 11:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metaled:
What if they are already out of free refunds for the day? At what point to you draw the line as a company?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Eye
April 30, 2009 12:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@donnie5: You have a point however considering I can go buy a pair of XYZ brand jeans for under $100 then this company is obviously either mismanaged to heck or making a killer profit on jeans.

If they were worn they did the right thing, but keep in mind making $76 or more profit per pair of jeans and I dont feel a lot of sympathy for the poor jeans company. Nor the sheep who buy them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
April 30, 2009 2:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red_Eye: for all you know these jeans are handstitched and of higher quality denim and last 3 times as long as a $100 pair. to judge whether any product based solely on price is ignorant. personally i won't spend more than 30 bucks on jeans.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
April 29, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Some pictures of the worn jeans may be helpful, and what they are supposed to look like. I think I'm going to side with the company here.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
stevejust
April 29, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: The company said they sent the jeans back. If the OP wants vindication, she can post pics of the jeans. Whatever shiny parts the jean knees might have had probably won't show up in photos, so she can feel vindicated.


I'm sure Louis Vuitton won't be on here anytime with photos of the hair from the LV purse. But who knows.


And I'm sure Apple or Best Buy won't be on here anytime soon with a photo of the missing brick from the garden of the \"I received a brick in my mac book box from Best Buy\" OP.


But maybe if Consumerist starts getting enough of these, faux \"I've-been-scammed\" scams, maybe the burden of proof to call \"scam\" will go up in the future.


Or maybe all of these \"I've-been-scamed\" scams aren't scams at all and these companies suck as bad as we think.


Either way, it's not going to stop everyone from posting hundreds of comments coming down on one side or the other with no legitimate basis derived from the scant the empirical evidence. I much prefer the $62,000 phone bills, because no matter what the evidence is, a $62,000 phone bill is b.s.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 30, 2009 12:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@stevejust: I'm finding it hard to side with the company, especially with the snark. I've seen jeans that have been worn down at the knees by default. I don't believe the knees weren't white before they were mailed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xip
April 30, 2009 2:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt:

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that the company is familiar enough with their own product to know if the jeans are worn on the knees by default.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
April 30, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: I'm having a hard time siding with the company, too. There's a real snarky and unprofessional attitude here. Both stories have a twinge of \"I am gilding this story so it looks like I am in the right\" and neither of them seem to paint the full picture.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
stacy75
April 30, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@korybing: @HeartBurnKid uses Linux: the taint of OS's: @Cyberxion101:
The pic on the website clearly shows black jeans. No white patches. I don't know what they looked like upon return, but they didn't come with white patches.
[www.skinnyjeans.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JoshRogan
April 30, 2009 2:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Rose: If, as a business owner, you feel threatened by \"consumer power\" then you probably shouldn't be in business anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: Same here. I've seen 'em sold like that. White knees, white ass cheeks, the works. It's apparently a \"style\" thing, but it just seems like they're selling used jeans to me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HeartBurnKid uses Linux: the taint of OS's
April 29, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Without pics of the jeans, this one's really hard to judge.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
April 30, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HeartBurnKid uses Linux: the taint of OS's: \"Without pics of the jeans, this one's really hard to judge.\"


I agree. Pictures of the girl both in and out of her jeans would be greatly appreciated.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Andrew Eller
April 29, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HeartBurnKid uses Linux: the taint of OS's:

[skinnyjeans.com]

They look black to me... I'm siding with the company on this one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 30, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Greg []: good point I could see it has having blue in there with that second shot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
April 30, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Eller:
Those look pretty solid black all the way down. If the knees were shiny, I would definitely think they had been worn. That's a very weird thing to find on a brand new pair of jeans.

The customer needs a pair of black headphones to go with them. ;)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kamrom
April 30, 2009 11:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: I have to note, the company took quite the while to respond to this. More than enough time to simply swap out a picture, we cant just forget that. Does anyone have an archive of the site from when the original post went up? It would be a lot easier to confirm the company's position if we did.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 30, 2009 1:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kamrom: true - would add quite a twist if someone could find proof that the picture had been replaced.

Who knew skinny jeans could result in drama of soap opera proportions?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AbsoluteIrrelevance
April 29, 2009 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Eller: Thanks for posting the pic. I first thought, \"BlackWash jeans don't have to be black and the photos on the website can misrepresent the color.\" But the black jeans are in fact black. There's not getting around that part.

To all commenters that are saying, \"Well, the company has attitude, so I'm not surprised or insulted if the customers service has attitude,\" I can not get aboard that logic train. Companies that want me to buy their expensive clothing don't talk shit. Period.

And I also don't care what context the owner said, \"What have you been doing on your knees?\" Um, can anyone think of a context where this suddenly becomes ok? That's is rude and ridiculous for one person to say that it someone else they don't know and totally unacceptable for a business owner to say that to a customer.

All that said, I think the OP probably did wear the jeans for a couple days instead of just trying them on, but the owner isn't absolved of being an asshole.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AbsoluteIrrelevance
April 30, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cheviot: She wasn't lying about the \"on your knees\" comment because the company obviously confirmed saying it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 30, 2009 1:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AbsoluteIrrelevance: Wow you nailed everything I feel about this story.

Only thing I would add - what does this say about the quality of the jeans if they get shiny - and don't look good - after a little wear?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cheviot
April 29, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AbsoluteIrrelevance:

If the customer lied about their reason for returning the jeans and lied about not having worn them, why would they tell the truth about how they were treated by the company?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
April 29, 2009 10:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Still don't understand the unprofessional attitude of the company to begin with.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Drew5764
April 30, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: If you're unhappy with the way the company handled the situation, do what a good Consumerist reader does. Don't purchase from that company. If I was in the market for expensive women's jeans (which I am not), I'd probably give this company a look.

Without pictures of the jeans, it's hard to say who's in the right here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
April 29, 2009 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: Take the word \"Dude\", and recall the myriad ways it can be said, and mean completely different things. The OOP may have heard those words, and portrayed them here in a completely different tone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
April 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid:

Well yeah, they could have been more polite, but then, the company sells $200 jeans under then name \"Hello! SkinnyJeans\". I imagine there is some attitude that goes with that.

Moreover, the company did respond to criticism in a graceful manner after the incident.

It is also worth noting that the owner might just have been having a bad day and a customer returning worn jeans and making veiled threats really does send one over the edge. (My Personal Rule: If I ever excuse my behavior because I was too tired/hungry/annoyed/tripping, I make the same exceptions of others.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blinky987
April 29, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lucifer_Cat: In the original story, I basically wanted to suggest that the buyer was probably a raging bitch and got what she deserved, but that would've been hating on the OP and bannable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dougp26364
April 29, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid:


How do you know the companies responce was unproffesional? If the buyer of the jeans had worn them and then was using threats to get her money back, could that person be adding made up stuff to her report?


The problem is, we can't see the jeans to tell if they've been worn. What we have is one persons word against the other without proof from either side.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
April 29, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dougp26364: I have no issue with the company asserting that the jeans are worn, I take issue with the fact that they asked the OP \"what she was doing on her knees.\" And they admit it! That can be taken a lot of ways, and most of them aren't nice. Everything else, I side with the company on, but a snarky remark like that has no place in a business transaction.

But that's really just a politeness issue...I'd still like to see a picture of the jeans, but I'm siding with the company, most likely.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mmmsoap
April 29, 2009 11:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: That's exactly what I was thinking. Even if a customer gets mildly threatening, as they say, the correct response is \"I'm sorry, ma'am, I can't help you.\" No other judgments or comments about the customer are warranted.

This fact alone, combined with the fact that they admitted saying it makes me not want to do business with that company.

Even if in all other regards, they were spot on about the customer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Rose
April 29, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mmmsoap: @ tc4b:

you're clearly in Hello! Skinny Jeans' target demographic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scatter
April 29, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:

Hello, the knees are the part of the jeans that were worn. It was well within her right to bring them up and ask.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Rose
April 29, 2009 10:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: If as a business owner you're threatened with \"consumer power\", best practices go out the window. Thinly veiled threats of libel, slander, or abusive CGM incredible undermine the point of objective sites like the consumerist, trip adviser, yelp, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
April 29, 2009 10:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: Define \"professional,\" since the word doesn't actually mean anything.

Also, I'm a big fan of companies that stand up for themselves in this way. When customers are rude or try to take advantage of our return policy, I have no problem telling them to get the hell out of my store. When they throw a tantrum, I will respond with \"where are your parents?\"

Really... you don't need to have \"Dear Sir, we apologize whole-heartedly for blah blah\" for a company to provide good customer service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
T Axel Jones
April 30, 2009 12:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire: \"so naturally I asked her what she had been doing on her knees.\" <--- Is not professional customer service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
April 30, 2009 1:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@T Axel Jones: I agree. Without photos of the jeans in question I can't really make a decision on which side was right, but the condescending attitude Hello!Skinnyjeans copped to deal with the customer comes off really unprofessional to me.

Having a hostile attitude does nothing but breed more hostility, rather than diffusing any sort of contempt. The company should have taken the high road here and not gotten snippy, no matter how snippy the customer was to them. They're a business, and this just sounds like two people playing the \"my story is the true one\" game. Neither have a ring of total truth, and when you put the stories together there's still facts missing. The customer never mentioned that she put a note with her return saying that she didn't realize the jeans were going to be black, for example. So who is telling the truth?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, this really makes the owner look like a swell person, not a total beatch. If the jeans were obviously worn in, then to refuse a refund is totally warranted - acting like a total brat is not. Perhaps some pics would help with the public vote.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
satindevil
April 30, 2009 3:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SaritaBabe: Had some free time on my hands and was browsing/commenting tonight and decided to express my opinion to Mr. May via his email address:

Dear Mr. May,

I am writing in response to your company's response to the recent story on consumerist.com regarding the controversy over returned merchandise.

Since a photo of the jeans in question has not been posted, I cannot side with either the consumer or your company on the issue of whether or not the jeans were returnable. However, I think the way the consumer was treated is inexcusable. Both the original note sent back to the consumer (\"you ordered black jeans, how could you not realize they would be black?\") to the comment referring to the consumer \"being on her knees\" were snarky and in bad taste. Had I been treated by this company in such a manner, I would certainly note how I was treated - rudely and sarcastically - and then never give the company my business again.

For all we know, the customer has a lousy computer monitor and couldn't tell precisely what the jeans looked like. Additionally, this wouldn't be the first time that someone ordered an item online that turned out to not be exactly what was featured on the webpage.

I feel like in this case, regardless of whether or not the jeans were worn, the consumer should be refunded her money simply because she was treated so poorly by your representative. At the very least, I feel the representative should be better trained on the proper way to treat a customer - if you want that customer to become a repeat customer.

As of today, I do not find myself inclined to ever make a purchase from Hello! SkinnyJeans simply because of the remarks that were made by your representative.

Thank you,
Jessica

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
April 29, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think if the jeans did match the picture, and there was visable wear in the knees, then they have a right to not accept the return. I also believe that when she asked \"what have you been doing on your knees\" she meant it just as everyone (well I assume everyone..but it could just be my mind in the getter) took it. Its like me saying \"wow...your smart\" in a sarcastic tone, then saying I really was complimenting a person.


I also have no doubt the consumer tried to threaten to have this posted anywhere that would take the story.


So basically.


Was the company Rude? Probabaly.
Do they have to take the return? nope, their policy says no returns onw orn murchandise.
Should they take the return? its up to them.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
TEW
April 29, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46:
One thing that I was taught was never say anything that could be taken out of context when someone is mad at you. It will be taken the worst way possible and bite you in the A$$ later. The owner's explanation seems reasonable and I am willing to chalk it up to miscommunication.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balls187
April 29, 2009 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46: ironically you spelled \"your smart [sic]\" incorrectly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
godlyfrog
April 29, 2009 10:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46: \"I also believe that when she asked \"what have you been doing on your knees\" she meant it just as everyone (well I assume everyone..but it could just be my mind in the getter) took it.\"

You're taking it out of context, I think, which is why it sounds so bad. The customer said she only wore it for an hour inside her apartment, but with the knees being as worn as they were, the company asked what she was doing on her knees to have worn them down so much.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frank64
April 30, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@godlyfrog: I agree with you. I think the customer probably translated the knees comment in the worst possible light.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 30, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: nope, can't find a single way to say it without it implying what we all know it implies. You have to do some major mental gymnastics to do otherwise.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
headcase
May 7, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tmoney02: \"How did the knees get worn\" could still get taken out of context, but you'd have to stretch it a lot more than \"what have you been doing on your knees\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
April 29, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@godlyfrog: maybe, but I can think of more than a few times where I have made comments that I knew would upset a person, but if quoted back would sound innocent enough.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
donjumpsuit
April 29, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say we get front and rear pictures of the reader with the jeans on and with them off. As this is the only way to tell, if she really had been wearing the jeans...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 29, 2009 10:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Kudos to her for replying and telling her side of the story. Some companies don't want to enter the fray and defend their business decisions, and instead just cave, do what the customer wants and ultimately pass on the cost to the rest of us. I think it's nice to see an owner with some real backbone that doesn't back down when she knows she is right, just so that the customer is pleased.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 29, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Yes, but most readers here apparently don't care whether the company is actually right. Whatever is in the one-sided customer story is always right...even when it's wrong (like here).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 29, 2009 10:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal:
Nail on the head. Regardless of the facts, corporation always wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 2:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Given the nature of the site, can you folks really say you're all that surprised? When you consider [i]why[/i] the site exists, it makes it all the more easy to understand that mindset. It may not be right, but it makes sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 30, 2009 2:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101:
I agree that it makes sense, but that doesn't excuse some people's lemming-like pro-consumer stance. There are people on here who believe that there is no possible way the consumer is ever wrong. The companies job is to make them happy, regardless of the expense. I hate those who blindly follow without actually thinking. There is a decent balance here (some days at least), but those who just close there eyes and scream \"Evil Corporation\" can be rather frustrating when it becomes clear that the consumer was the one in the wrong.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Shane Elliott
April 29, 2009 10:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

their alleged attitude in the response to the customer may have been somewhat in error, but barring a pic of the jeans it would seem that the actual return refusal was justified.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
April 29, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm going to agree with the company on this one. They sound like they have a pretty good return policy and the customer didn't deny wearing the jeans. I don't think she asked her what she was doing on her knees to be rude, but to inquire about how the patches got there. For a smaller company like this one complaint on the Consumerist can do some damage, so it was nice to see you guys post the other side of the story.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
April 30, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kylo4iskyle4: Agreed. I also think they've done all they need to do in this situation. They shouldn't have to take photos and plead their case online every time some temperamental customer doesn't get their way and they run to Consumerist to slam them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
stephenwdaries
April 29, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Pics or it didnt happen.
Also dated reciepts and return / packing slips that are timed and dated would be of better use. I know you can really run down a pair of jeans in a few days if you try but if this is the \"oh i tried them on, im color blind, i mailed them back for a different wash\" kind of story then I just dont understand why things couldnt be exchanged.

Someone is lying.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JaideepG2002
April 29, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If this company is selling such expensive Jeans couldn't they just resell them at a lower price and make the customer happy by giving her a new pair. It's not like she's wanting a refund exactly, there must be a reason she wants to exchange the jeans...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 29, 2009 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JaideepG2002: \\
Why should they go out of their way and take a hit on their profit just to make a customer happy? They are in business to make a profit, not to take pity on someone who wore the jeans and now wants to return them because she didn't know black jeans were actually black.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bostonmike
April 29, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Why make a customer happy? Because that's how you keep them as a customer. You can't make a profit without customers.

That doesn't mean rolling over for every customer who tries to scam your company. But it does sometimes mean letting go of a few dollars now in order to make a lot more dollars later.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 29, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bostonmike: I would call the type of customer who is obviously out to scam a company the kind of person that one wouldn't want to do business with anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Sure, but assuming that every person with a legitimate complaint is out to scam you is going to ensure that you don't keep too many customers in the long run...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
May 1, 2009 5:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101:


You don't assume ANYONE with a *legitimate* complaint is out to scam you.


Not all complaints are legitimate, obviously.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
IfThenElvis
April 29, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps Consumerist columnists should pretend to be JOURNALISTS and attempt to get both sides of a story before going to press.

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
MeOhMy
April 30, 2009 1:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IfThenElvis: Always been one of my [few] criticisms of Consumerist (and \"bloggers\" in general).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SonaliHamlegs
April 30, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JaideepG2002: @IfThenElvis: I agree that there should be some level of information confirmation here. Bloggers don't need to fact check every single shred of information, but not even googling the name of the company to get it right is pretty terrible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 30, 2009 12:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IfThenElvis: But the OP didn't even send in the correct name of the company. She said their name was \"HOT Skinny Jeans\" not \"Hello! SkinnyJeans\".

Frankly, I'm surprised people were able to figure out who to send hate mail to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IfThenElvis
April 30, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Exactly. This means anyone can make up a fake story with a fake business name and Consumerist will blindly fall for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrisdag
April 29, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IfThenElvis: Nice idea, let us know when you launch your site. Oh, wait you are just complaining about something you get to read for free of your own violition. I get it now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
April 30, 2009 2:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrisdag: I agree. Consumerist now wields enough power to damage a company. The Domino's post alone got over 330,000 hits, was covered on the news and had an apology issued from the VP. They are joined by a reputable magazine. Small companies like this need the business, they can't afford to take big damages. Consumerist should be held responsible for what they publish and since a lot of bloggers want to be taken seriously as \"journalists\" and on a site like this both sides of the story should be gotten.

On Kotaku, they're constantly asking game developers for comments on rumors, and that's a game site! Some posts are more clear cut then others but they should have the resources to check for a comment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
April 30, 2009 1:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrisdag: Consumerist is now part of a corporation. The same standards should be applied to it as to every corporation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
April 29, 2009 11:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IfThenElvis:


Wow, what a concept, journalism standards being applied to the internet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blinky987
April 29, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@unobservant: Well, does the Bloggger have no burden of proof?

I guess this is all conjecture until we would know the process in which that Consumerist undertakes in publishing a story, but the website is very honest in that it's pretty easy to see that it's a consumer advocacy website. The stories are always going to be slanted in that way. They make no qualms about being fair.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
April 29, 2009 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blinky987: I'll keep that in mind when I'm blogging about how ghey my friend was acting yesterday. Seriously. GHEY.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
eightfifteen
April 29, 2009 10:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds pretty rational here. Quick question: Does Consumerist give companies the opportunity to respond before posting stories that could unload the fury of it's readers?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
April 29, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IfThenElvis: Better yet, they can post stories on behalf of consumers, then when the companies send responses, post those as well. Makes everything nice and public. This would probably be a great idea if Consumerist would start doing it!

Oh wait...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire: As most have said, the whole point of the news industry is to post the truth and legitimately warn people. Not throw up red flags because one person wrote in with an unfounded sob story. This is far from the first time consumerist has done this as well. It's almost as if they don't care how they get the site hits, as long as they get them.

Oh wait.....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
April 30, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DavinaGabulous: News industry? Lemme guess - \"The Daily Show\" is too heavy for you, so you come on here for your news?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
April 30, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire:

Exactly. It'd be the same if some paper accused you of being a pederast in a front page story one day. I'm sure you'd be fine with it if 3 weeks down the line they did post a retraction. I'm sure no one would be lobbing bricks through your windows in the meantime.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
seattleperson
April 29, 2009 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire: um, the point being made was that Consumerist should solicit the side of the company at the same time. Waiting for bad buzz to spread and for the company to catch wind versus allowing them to tell their side of the story in a prompt manner? The latter seems fairer to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
eelmonger
April 29, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire: Yeah, but it's the complaint that's going to be out first, generating more hits and bad publicity. So even if it turns out the complaint was fabricated or unfounded, the company still takes a major publicity hit.

The truly fair thing to do would be to contact the company when a complaint is received and give them X days to respond, running both sides of the story if they do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JPropaganda
April 29, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire: HAHAHA! Exactly. Good job, consumerist.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Mobius
April 29, 2009 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would have left out the questions about the person's buying choices or hobbies and just said that you can't accept merchandise unable to be resold as new. Keep the snide comments internal.... except when you're uninvolved. Skinny jeans look dumb!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If she's going to take the jeans back, she has every right to question how they got worn down so fast - product research. If she's not taking them back though, her statements are nothing more than an unprofessional insult. Sure, it's up to the company to make the return policy. Just like it's ok for the consumer to tell the media how they were treated. If business is lost because of that, so be it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tinyrobot
April 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

File under: Bad Consumer.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
gfonner
April 29, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think asking \"what were you doing on your knees\" is a justifiable question. If she had merely stated that the knees on the jeans are obviously worn out, that would have been enough. I don't see how that question \"naturally\" flows from the situation. It is inappropriate and irrelevant.


Even though they may have rightfully refused to accept her return according to their return policy, that statement was out of line.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
balls187
April 29, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please give us the customers email address so we can now send her angry emails telling her that she's a dumb bitch.

It's only fair.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I knew a gal with a few pairs of these jeans and it was clear even in her sub 100lb figure that once you try em on they would stretch. Even if she put em on and walked around the apt and especially trying on shoes it would pretty much stretch the jeans to the point of being worn. That is the way designer jeans are seems like. I get the company's point of not wanting to accept returns on these but agree with most that their method of handling it and the little notes inside was in poor taste.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
satindevil
April 30, 2009 2:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BlairCachaa: I agree... before I even read the initial remark about the consumer 'being on her knees', I felt like the original note that was sent back with the jeans - 'how could you not realize black jeans would be black?' was kind of snarky and rude. For all we know, the customer has a crappy computer monitor and couldn't tell precisely what the jeans looked like. Additionally, this wouldn't be the first time that someone ordered an item online that turned out to not be exactly what was featured on the webpage.

Not siding with either party since the data seems kind of unclear, but I do know that if I ever returned a high-priced item and got a response like that, then the company in question would definitely never get my business again.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 29, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another thing: Who has the free time to send angry emails to a company that you have absolutely no dealings with?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 30, 2009 1:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I'm just shocked someone finally found the website, last time I checked the original story no one could track it down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chenry
April 30, 2009 12:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Some people apparently think that the consumerist readers are their own personal army when it comes to dealing with companies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harlock_JDS
April 30, 2009 11:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: people that post here aparently.

I agree the buyer should have her email posted so we can yell at her.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
April 30, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:

Is that irony? Welcome to the interwebs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Suulia
April 29, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now that I've read both sides...because the jeans were obviously worn, I think the company has every right to refuse this return. The customer is in the wrong.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 2:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Suulia: Now see, I find it particularly amusing that there are a few folks who bitch about how one-sided this site's members are, but when we're treated to a vacuous e-mail from the company involved that ultimately leaves us in the same place we were the other day when the story first broke, suddenly people are siding with the retailer.

Seems to me like the bigger issue is that people around these parts just don't seem to pay matters any consideration before they comment on them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Suulia
April 30, 2009 6:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101: I hear ya.

People love to be outraged and side blindly with the consumer, as the evil companies try to walk all over them. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's the consumer who is trying to rip off the company.

This company has a more than generous return policy. There's a world apart from \"trying on\" jeans for a few minutes, and \"wearing\" jeans for several hours. It seems that the consumer here didn't know the difference. Maybe she does now.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ShirtNinja
April 29, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So we have her side, and we have the company's side. Now we just need the truth.

Regardless of who is right or wrong here, the company had absolutely no right to say what they did to her. At the very least an apology should be in order, at the very most, a good faith exchange of the jeans along with the apology.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
April 30, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShirtNinja: I'm sure the customer was a ray of sunshine....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
April 29, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShirtNinja:


The business owner did admit they used the comment \"on your knees\". Taken out of context the comment is inflamatory at best, insulting at worst. Why would the comment be made, unless the comment was part of a large converstation.


As part of the actual conversation as described by the owner the comment was appropriate and most likely happened.


Can we guess who is telling the truth?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
warf0x0r
April 29, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So wait... If you buy of pair of jeans online, and they're sent to you and you try them on and they don't fit you have to keep them.

They really need to define \"Worn\". Cause at the moment \"Worn\" to my, by their definition, could mean any number of things.

At this point a pick of the jeans do go with that definition is a good idea, otherwise I wouldn't expect anyone who hears of this to ever shop with them.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
April 30, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@warf0x0r: I'm sure it wouldn't matter if you *only* try them on. But in this case there were \"bright shiny worn patches on the knees\"

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
egosub2
April 29, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps someone's monitor needs the color calibrated?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brian Nguyen
April 29, 2009 10:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I used to work in clothing retail and we had this issue pretty often. We would take returns with the condition that they had to be \"resaleable.\" This usually meant that if they were washed, altered, or worn-in, we could not take them.

Usually, one person's definition of worn-in wouldn't work, but with 2 or more having decided it's been \"worn\" beyond the extent of trying it on for size and fit, the return is denied.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
April 29, 2009 10:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Y'know how people say \"A picture is worth a thousand words?\" Yeah. I'm not going to side with the company until I see some picture proof.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ShariC
April 29, 2009 10:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think there is still missing information. Did the jeans become \"worn\" very quickly or through lots of use? Considering how expensive they were, I'd hope the knees didn't get shiny from wear really quickly.

Also, as has been previously mentioned, some pictures would be helpful - pictures of the new jeans and the worn-looking ones.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 30, 2009 12:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did the jeans become \"worn\" very quickly or through lots of use?

@ShariC: That is an excellent question.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
B
April 29, 2009 10:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think they should be more like Land's End, and accept returns no matter what. But then I only buy from companies that know how to use punctuation, so I'm clearly not in their target demographic.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ophmarketing
April 30, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B: Of course, the funny thing about your comment is that Lands' End (that the way they punctuate it) is actually punctuated incorrectly. It should be, as you typed, Land's End. They realized the error years after the fact and decided to just leave it alone, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
April 29, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B: companies who do this end up taking huge losses becasue many customers are assholes. Unless a product is defective, there is no reason for a company to HAVE to take a return. They can do it as a customer service, but I can clearly see why they dont. I worked for a large electornics retailer, and more than 70 percent of things returned as \"defective\" were in proper working order, and the user either lied, or just didnt know how to use it. Of that, most we could send back to the maker, and get a replacement in brand new condition, but there was still about 20-30% loss if not more. This occured when customers broke the item, didnt return all the packaging,etc and the maker wouldnt take it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Synth3t1c
April 29, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

theyre obviously playing down the knees comment (crude fellatio joke), but still theyre in the right.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Lisa Brewster
April 29, 2009 10:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hello! SkinnyJeans has an unsatisfactory rating with the BBB (mostly due to delivery issues), and numerous posters in blogs and forums are claiming the same kind of customer service \"attitude\" in question here.

I think the PR company did significant work to soften and rationalize the owner's response, and the customer really did get sassed. But as already stated, we need to see a picture of the jeans to judge if the amount of wear is significant enough to deny return.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bluewyvern
April 29, 2009 10:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So they sell expensive, high-end black jeans where the knees get \"bright shiny patches\" after an hour of wear.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
April 29, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bluewyvern: this can easily happen if the jeans were several sizes too small and the person stretched the hell out of the denim. and you are assuming the customer wasnt lying about how long she wore them.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
EClaire
April 29, 2009 10:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

clearly, the customer is racist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have to agree with the others who said the company was unprofessional in their response. A simple, \"we can't accept used merchandise\" would have sufficed. But to ask about what she had been doing on her knees seems beyond the pale to me. I'm glad to hear the other side of the story, and I tend to side with the company on this one, but I wouldn't buy anything from them with that snarky attitude.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Paul D
April 29, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Frankly, I was prepared to hate this company based solely on the absurd fact that they sell jeans for $178. What. The. F*ck!

Regardless, having read their story, I'm siding with them over the customer. You can't return clearly used merchandise and adamantly demand a full refund.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
chese79
April 29, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I completely agree.

I am surprised someone wearing $200 jeans knows about the consumerist. I though everyone here was as cheap as me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
April 30, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chese79: Savvy consumer doesn't mean cheap consumer. Savvy consumers know to buy based on value, and maybe these jeans are extremely well made. Who knows?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ichiro51
April 29, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chese79: On the contrary, not everyone that wears $200 jeans pays anywhere near that amount! Those people are more likely to be found here.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Aasma Husain
April 29, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why is everyone so eager to believe the company's response? There clearly isn't enough information here to figure out whose side of the story is the correct one. And regardless of who is right or wrong the \"What are you doing on your knees\" comment which everyone acknowledges is completely inappropriate. If this company charges this much for jeans they should at the very least be polite to their customers. I've ordered the EXACT pair of Joes jeans in the size, color, style, and wash online that I have and when I received it in the mail it was a different color and fit differently. This is very common with jeans and buying things online in general the \"How could you not know they would be black\" comment is also rude and unprofessional. These people work in fashion. They should know there are several different shades of black. As for threatening to report them for doing something wrong. YOU SHOULD DO THAT. It's one of the few things you can actually do and it puts the company on notice while they have time to rectify their behavior.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
April 30, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aasma Husain: Why not? Everyone believes that a brick was put in a macbook box by Best Buy, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nforcer
April 30, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aasma Husain: If we're so eager to believe an unvalidated story from the OP of the previous story, what's to stop us from being eager to believe a seemingly valid response from the company?

Honestly, I thought it was a little fishy when the OP made told us of the \"on your knees\" comment. It seemed completely out of nowhere, right? Well, the explanation that was not given by the OP was given by the company. That's one key fact that was validated by the response. As such, I feel the OP has lost all credibility because I don't think she can give a better reason for why that crack was made at her.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 29, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Regardless of who's right in this case, the better question is: WHO THE HELL DROPS $178 ON A PAIR OF JEANS?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 30, 2009 12:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz: No, that's the worst possible question. That's why all of those comments got disemvoweled in the previous post.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tc4b
April 29, 2009 11:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: I'm not judging without pics of the jeans. As far as rudeness goes, they're entitled to be as rude as they wish. Just like I'm entitled to only spend money at establishments that are courteous.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 7:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tc4b: A pair of solid black jeans, suddenly have the knees worn (or dirtied) so much that it's shiny and white.

Wouldn't you be curious about how they got that way (in a non-offensive/non-rude way)? I know the picture from the website is marketing, but even off-black, you have to work//wear your jeans for at least a month before you even normally wear the knees, maybe even a week if you work on your knees a lot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 1:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tc4b: Sure. They're entitled to come to your house and knock the coffee out of your hand as you're leaving for work in the morning too, but it doesn't mean that it'd be a good idea.

Okay, that was over the top. Still, while they're entitled to act like raging assholes, it's not good business sense. And like a few other folks 'round these parts, I wouldn't be likely to do business with them simply because they come off like douche-bags.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Corporate-Shill
April 29, 2009 11:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Product Renting.


Classic.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sprocket79
April 29, 2009 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On their web site, it says you have to \"Do a plie' in your SkinnyJeans to get them on right and tight!\"

Don't you think bending like that just to get them on could cause some wear or \"shiny patches\" or whatever they want to call it on the knees?

The truth is somewhere in the middle. The only thing I'm certain of is that both customer AND company are bitches with attitude.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
April 29, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So it was finally figured out that the customer didn't send the Consumerist the right company name? That's...weird.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 30, 2009 12:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: And yet we still have people screaming about how Consumerist should have gotten the company's side first. How were they supposed to do that when they didn't even get the correct name of the company from the OP?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
April 29, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: On the other hand, as was noted above, this company seems to have a practice of shit-flipping when dealing with an unhappy customer. Here's a woman who paid in August and got told off in October for being frustrated that her jeans hadn't been shipped yet: [nancyrapoport.blogspot.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jessica Allen
May 1, 2009 4:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Wow, floraposte, what a blog entry! Ouch. Even if these accounts are exaggerated to a degree, I still wouldn't want to do business with Hello! Skinnyjeans -- and most of my jeans cost north of a hundred dollars when they were new, so I'm their target audience.

(Granted, I only own a few pairs of jeans, the newest of which is four and a half years old, but that's one reason I buy designer jeans: they can stand up to being worn constantly for years on end. Anyway, when it comes time to buy more overpriced denim, I'm staying away from Hello! Skinnyjeans.)

Thanks for the link!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Tristan Dædalus
April 29, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd definitely side with the customer. That rude comment, in and of itself, shows a lot about this company. Obviously the author of this release is trying to downplay for us readers the attitude she had no problem dishing out to the consumer. Being a customer myself, that's all I need to know.

'So naturally I asked her what she had been doing on her knees.'? Really? Naturally? I'm 21 and I'm self-aware enough to realize that asking a woman 'what have you been doing on your knees' will likely get me slapped.

Fact is, most actual retail establishments have 'liberal return policies'. I used to work at many and we've returned items that were obviously worn and stained. 'As soon as it touches your body it's yours' isn't a liberal return policy. It's crap.

Bottom line: It's a disreputable company with terrible customer service. I hope your readers would avoid them like the plague.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Wendy Sloan
April 29, 2009 11:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think I can take a business that uses the term \"jillions\" seriously.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think its strange neither party posted when the jeans were purchased/shipped and when they were returned. If the girl simply tried them on and then returned them a few days later, I would side with the consumer, but if she had them a month, it's a different story.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
foodporncess
April 29, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can understand not taking back the jeans because they'd been worn, but I cannot understand why the owner of the company would actually ask a customer what she'd been doing on her knees, even if it weren't an insult but just a legitimate question. It's rude and unprofessional and when my fat ass is skinny again, I wouldn't buy from this place. Actually, even if I were skinny, I wouldn't buy from a place called Skinny Jeans.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
April 29, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They won't take jeans that have been 'worn'? Do they mean, ever on the customer's body? So if she tries them on and it turns out they shipped the wrong size, or fit horribly, she can't immediately repack and reship them?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
brettt
April 29, 2009 11:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bitchy is part of their shtick. Also, apparently they tend to not ship stuff for months, then lash out at the customer.

[www.skinnyjeans.com]

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 30, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

if they're going to act like that, they're going to have to keep a record of a picture of the jeans before they mail them, because I still don't believe them.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Petra
April 30, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm glad to see both sides of this story, but the way the company acted was still incredibly unprofessional. While I don't think the consumer should have been able to return the jeans (since they had been worn), the company should have refrained from making immature comments.

Any chance they will post pictures of the jeans?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
diangelo
April 30, 2009 1:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if all the people who emailed and told the company off will now go and say they are sorry for jumping the gun.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
watchout5
April 30, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think people are stupid for paying $178 for jeans, I don't know what you're smoking but I want some.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Jessica Haas
April 30, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I thought the name of this company was \"Hot Skinny Jeans\"?

Anyway, I'm tempted to order a pair and see what happens.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ryan Gard
April 30, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The downside of a consumers blog: Consumers love to use a blog such as this to veil threats against companies to get what they want. They think its' a form of silver bullet against corporations, and in this case, one finally fought back.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
April 30, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ryan Gard: That's true. I think that the site is a good resource for honest, upstanding folks, but there's always someone who has to take something good and bastardize it for their own nefarious purpose.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
crutnacker
April 30, 2009 2:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are polite ways of advising a customer that you will not be accepting a return. If the knees were worn out, then I can see them not taking it back. But I would simply tell the customer that and be done with it.

Sounds like a fail on both sides.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Slottsherre
April 30, 2009 2:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now the consumer is the ass. Go SkinnyJeans!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
puddinhead
April 30, 2009 3:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I still think the company reps acted like jerks. They sell an expensive product, and when people spend that kind of money on jeans I think there is an expectation of a higher level of customer service than Old Navy. Even if the customer was wrong, tried to return worn jeans, Hello! Skinnyjeans didn't need to exacerbate the situation with their snarky attitude. Honestly, I think their PR release did more to hurt their image than the original consumer complaint.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
April 30, 2009 3:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@puddinhead: Yup. It also drew attention to the fact that they've been bizarre and unpleasant to customers with some frequency. So my thought now is that I don't know what the OP did, but I know for sure I don't want to shop with this merchant.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
boxjockey68
April 30, 2009 4:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I took another look....I STILL think they are really really ugly. I can't believe people pay that kind of money for those.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
April 30, 2009 4:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I kinda stopped caring, its the OPs fault for buying expensive clothes online. You get screwed when it doesnt fit. Its the same thing as the \"box of rocks\" story. Once it leaves shipping, theres no proof of who ruined the item.

I actually really like those jeans though.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jmhart
April 30, 2009 4:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I said it during the original post, and it sounds like I was right....the chick was trying to scam the company and using Consumerist during the process.

I vote for the company.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Spectre1125
April 30, 2009 6:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. All this crap over a tongue-in-cheek insult that wasn't really all that offensive.


Skinny Jeans are pretty slutty by nature. Sorry. It should be philosophically impossible to buy them and then be angered by having someone ask you if you were giving out BJs, even if they ask it in a spiteful manner. This goes double if you are going to scuff the knees all up. It sounds like something you would hear in a joke. I mean at that point you are either broadcasting the \"I get around!\" message as loudly as possible or incredibly self absorbed/naive/absent minded/stupid.


And a refund? For a damaged product? Pfft. If you take a car off the lot for a test drive and crunch the front end into a light pole, what do you think is going to happen when you get back to the dealer? Even if they were the wrong color jeans, trying to return the jeans for cash after messing them up shows a lack of integrity to me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
polyeaster
April 30, 2009 6:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think they are within their rights to decline taking back the jeans, but it sounds like they were and are awfully snarky about the whole thing...sometimes businesses would do better to rise above and state things professionally, even if a customer is trying to get over.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 6:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know what really happened as far as what the jeans look like or who was in the right/wrong. So I'll take both sides with a grain of salt. However, there are some things that really bother me about this company that don't deal with what events actually transpired.

1. The company didn't really deny the comments they made to the consumer about what \"she had been doing on her knees\". In fact, it seems the owner did in fact ask her what she was doing on her knees. Does it really matter? If the company is not going to accept the return, then simply state we cannot accept the return because there is a fair amount of wear, especially in the knee area. Take a picture as proof. But that's just unprofessional and irrelevant at best to ask people what they did to cause such wear. It's like asking someone \"how did you get that stain?\" They shouldn't focus on how the stain got there, but the fact that there is stain.

2. The company has an oxymoronic return policy. I quote directly from the publicity statement: \"We have a very liberal return policy and will take back jeans for any reason\". Note the keywords \"for any reason\". Then the following line says \" and state clearly
on the website that we will NOT accept merchandise that has been worn.\" That doesn't sound like they will take back jeans \"for any reason\". Clearly they didn't take back the consumer's jeans \"for any reason\" either. So skinny jeans, look up oxymoron and then rewrite your return policy.

3. The publicity company they hired to represent them is also not professional. I've seen much better publicity stunts. Read any celebrity statement by their PR people when they do something bad (most recently Chris Brown and his mess). Another reader commented on this--the publicity group uses the words \"jillions\" and \"spiel\". Can they not use proper English and instead of using spiel say something like 'response' or something else more 'professional-sounding'? I feel like I'm reading someone's facebook page rather than a real publicity statement. I personally would never hire snap publicity or Andrew May to do any publicity for me.

Those are the main reasons why this company bugs me, and I don't even know what really happened. A company can have a laidback, \"cool\" environment with a matching website philosophy, but their practices and policies should be professional and come across that way. skinny jeans just doesn't scream \"professional\" to me. I understand that they may be right, but their policies, their choice of publicity, and their questions for their consumers are all very unprofessional.

We are in post-apocalyptic times with the recession and all, where companies are lowering their prices or bending over left and right to stand out. So, skinny jeans, work on your pr and your professionalism skills. Otherwise you just might find a competitor named fatass jeans that might just make you go the way of the dodo bird/circuit city.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
moore850
April 30, 2009 11:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"naturally I asked her what she had been doing on her knees\"?

Do you really think that we are all so stupid as to think you don't understand the insult in that question? You should give her a free pair just for that insinuation alone, that is a horribly unprofessional and offensive thing to say to someone. You could have just said they were too worn out to be returned.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Allie Trevillian
April 30, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Still could have been handled a LOT better from the owner's side - \"What have you been doing on your knees\" is a completely inappropriate comment. Plus regardless of any innuendo behind it, it simply wasn't her business - she could just have just stuck with the original \"The knees were obviously worn in, and we will therefore not accept the return\". You can reject a return without being rude.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
April 30, 2009 12:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Their reason for not taking the return sounds reasonable, the the lady was kinda catty to the customer (\"How could you not realize they were black?\" and the knee comment). She could've just said \"your order clearly shows you ordered black wash jeans\" and \"sorry, the knees are too worn, we can't take the jeans back.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Christy Casper
April 30, 2009 12:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: How exactly do knees of jeans get shiny? I can understand if they look a little worn, or if they're stretched a little, but shiny? Are these jeans made of something that isn't denim?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 12:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The company has done a interesting job attempting to explain their rude comments, however, its clear its nothing but spin after the fact. If the jeans were worn enough to make them un-saleable then the company should not have to issue a refund, however, the response in that case should be something like. \"We have a liberal returns policy, however, its is clear that these jeans have been used several times, to the point that the knee area is worn and shiny rendering the jeans un-saleable, therefore, unfortunately we can not honor your request.\" To the point but courteous. If you run a store you have to realize that you will deal with the public (both the good and the bad)

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Cupajo
April 30, 2009 12:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You were fine up until \"so naturally I asked her what she had been doing on her knees\". After that, you were a twat.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
starzshine
April 30, 2009 12:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I agree that worn clothing items should not be accepted for a return, but I happen to be wearing a brand new pair of not so cheap jeans right now and I dont see any shiny spots on my knees. Not that I have been doing anything crazy on my knees or anything... but was she on a freshly waxed floor or something?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rhayader
April 30, 2009 1:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sounds like the customer was most likely trying to pull a fast one.

Still though, no real reason to make snarky jokes about being on her knees. I also don't like the characterization of the customer's discussion about bringing the story to Consumerist, etc as a \"veiled threat\". I had a moving company characterize me the same way when I told them I was going to write to Consumerist.

That is not a veiled threat, it is a decision to escalate a situation when a customer is being treated poorly. I'm not necessarily saying the customer was right here, but to accuse her of threatening the business owner is disingenuous.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 30, 2009 1:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So even after a reply from the company we STILL don't know how worn the knees of the jeans are. Worse, the company doesn't even try to deny or defend being rude. They didn't say that thought she was trying to scam them or that she was being rude, irate, or unreasonable on the phone. They didn't even say that they became irritated with her after the threat to make this public. They only admitted to saying what she told us they said.

I don't think their press release makes them look much better. They still don't sound like a company you want to order from even if the customer should have known from the photo that the jeans would be black.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
robotrevolution
April 30, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It is never acceptable for a company to refuse to accept a return by claiming the customer wore out the garment by giving too many blow jobs.

Ridiculous. They should refund the jeans not because of their return policy, but because they're rude and offensive.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
April 30, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The original post did not not say they asked what she was doing on her knees, it said \"I don't even wanna KNOW what you were doing on your knees.\" Quite different context, making it seem like the company just assumed the worst about what she did on her knees. Also, there are several gradations of black, and \"solid black\" jeans don't have the same look as jeans that are black but still have more of a resemblance to jeans than black pants. Furthermore, the knees got \"shiny\" because they were poorly made, and the elastic material (probably nylon) that allowed for such tightness was showing through.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
April 30, 2009 2:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's interesting how many readers were eager to discredit the original recounting when this was still a pretty clear-cut case of bad customer service. Methinks it has to do with the reasons I was surprised to see explicitly stated in a few comments: she \"paid to much for jeans\", therefore she must be spoiled bitch, and she bought skinny jeans, therefor she must be a slut. Really, consumerist readers?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
GreatWhiteNorth
April 30, 2009 2:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Returns of likely/possibly used product is a hard area for retailers... There is a segment of the population that interpret decent return policies as a lending library. Buy an expensive camera on Friday, go to the wedding on Saturday, take photos, clear the camera and return Monday morning.

Need a dress... Need a big TV for the game... etc.

I am not suggesting that this is what happened in this case. I am saying that this is a real problem that costs us all money.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
April 30, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"We all looked at the jeans and everyone agreed that the jeans had been worn and could not be resold. We have a very liberal return policy and will take back jeans for any reason and state clearly on the website that we will NOT accept merchandise that has been worn.\"


contradiction.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
benn09
April 30, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

with both sides of the story, it definitely seems as though the merchant was right to refuse the return as the merchandise was clearly worn and to refund the money or send another pair of jeans would be taking advantage of their liberal return policy. kudos to them for withstanding the pressure of thousands of angry consumerist readers and sticking to their policy.

i hesitate, though, to completely side with them. i cannot fathom under what circumstances it would be okay for any retailer to ask me what it was i was doing on my knees in order for the jeans to look the way they did. it is quite nice that the company is so small that such personal contact can be achieved between the consumer and the staff, but that takes it to a whole different level.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Durango3000
April 30, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I support the company's side of the story. Having been exposed to many situations where consumers will try to rip off the seller (see the nintendo/rocks story), the customer is NOT always right. Thanks to consumerist for trying to seek the TRUTH. It's not always the big bad company picking on the innocent little consumer... was the company 'rude'? Perhaps, but I'd prefer that to the usual \"we take this very seriously\" corporate bizspeak that is the common response.

As a consumer, skinnyjeans just gained my respect by being reasonable and NOT giving in.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 30, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Durango3000: 100% of stores are ripping off customers. That's called business. They could have sent this woman a replacement in every color and still made a profit, even taking into account \"the lowest possible packing and shipping fee\".

It's an important responsibility to clothe possibly ditsy girls in tight jeans, and this store has violated our trust.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
John Streeter
April 30, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep -- they are probably right that they shouldn't be able to give a refund for used jeans. However, that doesn't give the OWNER the OK to *naturally* ask \"what have you been doing on your knees?\" Highly unprofessional ...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
synergy
April 30, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think the company had merit in returning the jeans and not refunding her.

However.

Their communication skills leave something to be desired. That person didn't need to ask \"what have you been doing on your knees?\" or \"how could you not realize they would be black?\" That's just asking to be taken offensively. All they had to say was that they weren't taking it back due to apparent wear and end of story.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 30, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am surprised anyone actually sided against the company before this response. The girl admitted to wearing them in the original story. Yes the jeans are 178 bucks and cost 5 dollars to make, but the consumer is the one who decided to buy the \"monster cable\" of jeans. As long as people are willing to spend 178 dollars on jeans, companies that offer jeans for that price will exist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sarah of Get Cooking
April 30, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Jeans that expensive shouldn't look worn after months of hard wear, let alone an hour or a few days. That, along with the snarky attitude of the company, and the hefty pricetag, really makes me think that their jeans are probably no better than any other jeans ~$30.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any other publicists on here who are appalled at how poorly the press release is written? A short video statement by the owner (coached heavily by her PR agency) would have done much more for the company's credibility. This release makes not only Hello!Skinny Jeans look bad but also makes the PR firm look completely inept.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
billbobbins
April 30, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sounds as if the retailer was concerned that the jeans could become worn so quickly, especially in the knees. What would make the jeans get shiny so quickly? Heck, the natural question is \"why did the jeans wear so quickly in one spot?\" OR \"what were you doing on your knees?\" Now that I have some context, I don't think the retailer was out of line. The customer was, for wanting to return used clothing..and for wasting the retailers time by not wanting what she asked for in the first place.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Pal_Jamm
April 30, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Who wouldn't try on a pair of jeans at a JCPenny? I would expect any department store to take back a pair of clothing despite the fact the you have worn it or not. That's why they have dressing rooms! With the internet, you don't have that option, and returning items is more difficult for various reasons. That being said, I will not do business with a place where I feel they will not take back returns in good faith. That being said, My opinion is that the owner was out of line with the comments, and honestly deserved the negative publicity she got.

To those who criticize this site for for its \"lemming like\" pro consumer bias - The power resides mostly in the businesses court in today's world. They have the staff, money, & time to devote to make as much money, and prevent you from retaking the money that is rightfully yours. This site is a bastion they can't control. This site functions as a voice of the consumer. If you don't like, you can always post reviews at Amazon - we know their reviews are totally unbiased

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RStui
April 30, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not sure if I have a dirty mind or was in the military too long or what, but if someone asks me what I was \"doing on my knees\" I would be HIGHLY offended.


I'm pretty certain, too, that roughly 95% of the adult population was thinking the same thing as mee, to.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
draketrumpet
April 30, 2009 9:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I were consumerist.com, I would feel used and violated. Shame on bad reader.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ben_Q2
April 30, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The bad problem with this site (sorry Ben) is if its not really good. They will not listen nor seem to care.

I had bought a hockey card online. I was told shipping was one fee. I did buy the card and add more cards to the order. As told to. Then the owner would not give me the one price shipping. I had forward all the emails and this site did not do anything. Yet I see some ones that you have to wonder.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
VouxCroux
April 30, 2009 9:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It does seem reasonable that if they think the jeans were worn (outside of trying them on) that they would refuse to refund the customer...but any personal notes are out of bounds and rude. I still say shame on HSJ for their lack of customer service!!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Tommy Burkart
May 2, 2009 12:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

i think this owner woman sounds like a bitch - even in her retelling of 'her side of the story.' her snarky comment about not knowing the jeans would be black is bullshit - blackwash could mean grey or anything black-ish. avoid this company.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 4, 2009 3:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think we are all missing the point. It does not matter if we like or agree with what the owner of the company is saying. What we should be focussing on is 1) whether the jeans are delivered in a timely fashion 2) do they fit wel l? 3) If not are they returned and refunded quickly. The rest is just an opinion...My experience was that I contacted the company, was mailed the jeans within 10 days, and the fit was flattering and extremely slimming. That is the point...

Reply
","","");