When L.L.Bean introduced a one-year limit on most returns in 2018, its executive chairman wrote to customers explaining why. Some shoppers, the company said, were seeking refunds for heavily worn products or items bought at yard sales. It would continue to consider defective products beyond the first year.[1]
The change concerned more than what happened at the returns counter. A customer buying a coat or a pair of boots was buying it on different terms. Whoever approved those terms needed to account for their value to the customer as well as their cost to the company.
That is what it means to treat policy as part of the product.
For a customer uncertain about durability, a generous return policy provides reassurance before the sale. Restricting it addresses one business problem while raising another question: how much did that reassurance contribute to the decision to buy?
In its report on fiscal 2018, L.L.Bean said the policy change reduced fraudulent and abusive returns.[2] Tackling that abuse was justified. But I would not judge the change on lower returns alone. The guarantee’s value to honest customers belongs in the same business case as the savings.
Another detail matters. Purchases made before February 9, 2018 were not subject to the new one-year limit.[3] That distinction recognizes something important: changing the offer for the next purchase is different from imposing a new deadline on someone who has already paid.
For any business reviewing a similar policy, this is where the discussion should begin. What did customers reasonably understand they were buying? What problem now requires a change? How will the business protect existing commitments while addressing it?
Those questions belong with the person approving the rule. They should not arrive at customer service for the first time as a complaint.
Take a return policy generating repeated disputes. Its owner should review the losses it prevents alongside the work it creates. Fewer refunds might be a worthwhile saving. But repeated calls, manager approvals and customers who stop buying also belong in the calculation. None of those effects should be assumed simply because they support the preferred answer.
The review needs to distinguish abuse from ordinary dissatisfaction, too. A rule designed around the worst customer risks making every customer prove they are not that person. Before adding another requirement, test whether it addresses the behavior causing the loss or merely makes all returns harder.
Once a change is made, keep its owner involved. Review disputes and repeat contacts alongside the original financial objective. Give employees a defined route for cases the rule handles badly. A better script will not resolve a disagreement about what the company promised.
L.L.Bean’s executive chairman put his name to the explanation of its change.[1] That is the level of ownership a material customer promise deserves. The responsibility should continue after the announcement, when the consequences become visible.
You approved the rule. Own the consequences.