Reply
Contributor
Posts: 27
Registered: ‎04-17-2013

Excuse me, but you obviously did not read my post carefully....I said same price.

Contributor
Posts: 27
Registered: ‎04-17-2013

Ma'am perhaps my post was not well written, or more likely not read carefully. I said different item (altogether) for the same amount as my original purchase price. Hope this clears things up.

Contributor
Posts: 27
Registered: ‎04-17-2013

Logistics, really. My original post is that $59 spent on a blouse (for example) is $59 spent on a pair of pants (for example).

Contributor
Posts: 27
Registered: ‎04-17-2013

Why wouldn't Q want to be first out the gate to offer this option. Might increase their sales.

Contributor
Posts: 27
Registered: ‎04-17-2013

You get it!

Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,121
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@wannabee1 wrote:

Excuse me, but you obviously did not read my post carefully....I said same price.


 

We read it, we got it.  Perhaps you intended to say you want to exchange one item for another item with both being the same price. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,121
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@wannabee1 wrote:

Why wouldn't Q want to be first out the gate to offer this option. Might increase their sales.


 

Whether or not it increases sales, maintains profits, offers options to customers, etc, I think it would be like asking a toddler to go to work in place of a parent.  It's too complex for Q systems and processes to handle.

 

Q wants you to order the new item and pay that shipping. Shipping is about the only category in their financial reports that shows a profit.