Want to try on clothes at the retail stores? Well, it is NOT going to be FREE anymore

[Kiwi Man]

That is the case if you are in Australia!

We've heard about Ryanair threatening to charge to use its in-flight toilets. Now fashion retailers are talking about charging shoppers for use of their changing rooms.
According to an article published today, stores in Australia are demanding shoppers pay as much as $50 to try on garments - a fee which is refundable if they decide to purchase the item.

The move is said to prevent people from trying designer items in-store, then buying them online at a discounted price.


The Australian revealed that the highest fees were being charged at ski stores, where trying on and fitting boots is a cumbersome and time-consuming process for both staff and customers.
Among the stores pioneering the trend is Sydney skiwear shop InSki, which requires customers to buy a $50 'boot-fitting voucher', which is refundable on purchase.
InSki Store manager Dominik Drexel explained: 'We are a very small business trying to survive.

'I would never hold it against someone if they got something online for cheaper, but we can't really work for free.'


Snowsports Industry of Australia chief executive Eric Henry added: 'Their time is valuable. People will wander into a shop and spend an hour or two with the boot fitter, then go out and buy them off the internet.
'The owner of the store wants to ensure that if he doesn't get the sale, at least he pays for their time.'

Delotitte's Katherine Milesi admitted that stores have to work harded to compete with growing online trade.

''E-commerce is growing at an exponential rate,' she told the Sydney Morning Herald.
'Our advice is to create a multi-channel offering where the store, internet and social networking go hand in hand.
'Retailers could encourage customers to go online to browse and then insist they pick up in-store. Or provide an online kiosk inside the store where shoppers can view extended ranges that they can only order online.'
Fashion boutique owners told how they were going above and beyond to boost in-stor footfall.
Robby Ingham, whose designer boutique has been a Sydney fashion destination for the past 28 years said he has changed his approach to marketing.
'We haven't changed our philosophy, we don't sell online, but we have changed the way we market to clients,' he said. 'We have a blog, we email and now we text [customers] the same day new stock arrives.
'We also have designer meet-and-greets and give our VIPs early notice when a new collection arrives and offer pre-selling.'
He added that the in-store experience was unique when it comes to customer service.
'Service has always been at the heart of our business. Going in-store allows you to feel the garment, see the proper colour and fit and bring it back if something goes wrong. We can also do alterations and offer advice on how to maintain pieces.
'The internet is not going away and as long as international sites are not taxed like an Australian business, they will always have a 20 per cent advantage.'

Credit: Dailymail from the UK.

I wonder what is going to happen if they decide to do this in the US.

 

[Nicola]

Australia has a Snowsports industry?

What's the date on this?

 

[HORNS]

This seems suicidal.

 

[zippyh]

I heard this story on the radio last week.

 

[Ich_Dien]

I can understand it for shoes, yet it does seem a bit of a slap in the face if you are a genuine customer. There's so many stories here of people going into shops to try on shoes then buying online, it's terrible.

 

[otc]

A boot fitting makes sense if you have someone there guiding you around, making suggestions based on skiing style and body dimensions...they can use laser measurement devices and insert all sorts of shims and stuff.

Trying on a pair of pants by yourself in the dressing room is not really the same...at most you need someone to fetch you a new size and/or refold the items you don't want (which they would be doing anyways if you were just holding them up off the shelf)

 

[Knowledge is King]

I can easily see where they're coming from, especially with equipment like ski and snowboard boots that require a lot of time and knowledge to get a truly proper fit. However what if none of the ski/snowboard boots you try on fit (a very high likelihood btw)? Will they still take the $50 from you? Or rather, what if you tried on 4 pairs of pants and none of them fit? Nobody in their right mind would accept those terms.

 

[Kiwi Man]

Originally Posted by Ich_Dien

I can understand it for shoes, yet it does seem a bit of a slap in the face if you are a genuine customer.

Can you clarify a meaning of a genuine customer?

If you refer a genuine customer as customer who go to the store and has an intention to buy something, those people will get their money back according to the article.

 

[lovelux2010]

reminds me of that recent holt renfrew thread. if holts continue to charge 20-40% higher retail prices than the US - they may have to introduce these charges...

 

[Knowledge is King]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Man

Can you clarify a meaning of a genuine customer?

If you refer a genuine customer as customer who go to the store and has an intention to buy something, those people will get their money back according to the article.

Genuine customers don't always have to buy something. A high percentage of items that get tried on aren't purchased but that doesn't mean the person wouldn't have bought something if they found the right thing.

 

[Dakota rube]

I didn't see any examples in the article of this happening except for the ski boot fitting, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[Frank the sheep]

Originally Posted by Knowledge is King

Genuine customers don't always have to buy something. A high percentage of items that get tried on aren't purchased but that doesn't mean the person wouldn't have bought something if they found the right thing.

And when they find the right thing the money will be refunded. I don´t think that a store makes you pay 50$ for trying a pair of pants and not refund the money if you buy a jacket instead.

I can see why this is happening...

 

[Xenon]

This seems a very reasonable approach and specifically for shoes. If you purchases anything you get refunded and there should be a very long time limit (at least a year) to get the refund. But if you never intended to purchases at the store and buy online anyways $50 to try on is not that bad for high end shoes.

This could actually be a business model: a service where all you do is try on stuff. G&G, Lobb, Vass, Corthay could have this. Basically you have one person that has sample shoes for all sizes of a last (length & width) but in only one style (no need for other styles). That keeps inventory very low and client pays for trial and then proceeds to order online with maker. I would certainly pay $50 for this service.

 

[kankles]

Simmer down, this is from the Daily Mail.

I'd take anything from that rag with a fistful of salt.

 

[Axel Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Xenon

This seems a very reasonable approach and specifically for shoes. If you purchases anything you get refunded and there should be a very long time limit (at least a year) to get the refund. But if you never intended to purchases at the store and buy online anyways $50 to try on is not that bad for high end shoes.

This could actually be a business model: a service where all you do is try on stuff. G&G, Lobb, Vass, Corthay could have this. Basically you have one person that has sample shoes for all sizes of a last (length & width) but in only one style (no need for other styles). That keeps inventory very low and client pays for trial and then proceeds to order online with maker. I would certainly pay $50 for this service.

Yes I would pay for that service, but if I have no intention of buying it on-line and I just can't find anything to my liking/fitting I don't want to pay. I don't go into stores intending to spend whatever I may find.

I know some people can't enter a store with money in their pocket without ending up buying anything, but that's not the same for everyone.