| Abstract: | Many retailers offer refunds to consumers who, after a trial period, return a product that they find does not fit their needs. Some consumers are willing to use this return option opportunistically for short‐term consumption rather than its intended purpose of resolving fit uncertainty. Such behavior has been termed “wardrobing.” Restocking fees (partial refunds) can be used to combat wardrobing. However, there is a trade‐off involved, since partial refunds will be viewed negatively by consumers who return an item due to a true lack of fit. In this study, we consider how the extent of wardrobing (how many consumers consider such behavior) and the benefit of wardrobing (how much value can be extracted during the trial) impact firm pricing decisions and profits in this retail context. Our results imply that an increase in the extent of wardrobing is most detrimental to profits when the current extent of wardrobing is low. On the contrary, if the extent of wardrobing is already very high, and the benefit of wardrobing to consumers is also high, the retailer can set prices and refunds such that additional wardrobing actually increases firm profits. In a model extension, we show how a retailer can effectively screen wardrobers from ordinary consumers by offering a menu of price/refund pairs, and that such an approach can lead to increased profits if the extent of wardrobing is sufficiently high. Overall, our findings provide new insights into how retailers can set prices and refund policies to effectively manage opportunistic behavior by consumers. |
