In the premium segment of almost any market sector, a client does not simply choose a product. The decision involves the body, context, image, and expectation of fitting in. The higher the price and significance of the product, the greater the internal stakes of this decision.
When buying at a premium price, the client does not just pay for the product, they enter into a relationship with the brand, expecting proportionality at all stages.
And returns are a continuation of the purchase process, not just a “service”!
In this article, we discuss returns: why it’s neither a marketing, logistics issue, nor a case of “the customer is always right.” It’s a key scene in a brand’s commercial behavior! As a result, there’s low repeatability and a constant need to attract new customers, even though, formally, everything works, and this fact is rarely connected to returns.
Содержание
Category Matters: What to Do When Returns Are Impermissible
The issue with returns is not universal. Its impact on profitability and LTV directly depends on the product category.
In cases where a purchase isn’t related to the body, sensations, and image, a return remains a technical action. It doesn’t affect the relationship with the brand and rarely changes the customer’s subsequent behavior.
In categories where returns are impossible (cosmetics, perfumery, skincare), a brand cannot use the return process as an “operational guarantee.” Consequently, all pressure to alleviate commercial risk shifts to the point of choice, to the pre-purchase phase.
Here, the client makes a decision without the possibility of “redoing” it later. Therefore, in these categories, brands are forced to work particularly precisely on the Error and Expectation Management scenario:
- Task in the Shoe Sector: Design an impeccable, transparent return process.
- Task in the Cosmetics/Skincare Sector: Eliminate selection errors, as there’s no possibility of a redo.
In non-returnable categories, a brand must create an informational and behavioral shield to ensure the client is absolutely confident in the outcome before payment.
There are categories where returns are possible and are part of the norm. Primarily — shoes and clothing. Here, the choice cannot be definitively confirmed without wearing. Fit, feel, and interaction with the body only manifest after purchase. Returns in these categories are not deviations from the norm but anticipated scenarios.
The higher the cost and the more the product is involved in a person’s self-perception, the more sensitive the post-payment scenario becomes. Here, the importance is not on the return itself but on how it is integrated into the overall interaction flow. How clear, predictable, and proportional it is to the brand’s declared level.
Therefore, the issue of returns cannot be universal. It is always tied to the category and type of choice the buyer makes. Until this distinction is fixed, the conversation about returns inevitably falls into simplified solutions that don’t work in the premium segment.
Why Returning Premium Footwear Is Part of the Purchase Process
From a psychology of choice standpoint, footwear is categorized as one of the most conflict-prone:
- The body is directly involved
Fit, pressure, weight, and gait—all these cannot be fully assessed before wearing. - Mistakes are not neutral
Ill-fitting shoes = physical discomfort + the feeling “I made the wrong choice.” - Social context
Premium shoes are bought not just for walking but for the scene: status, image, situation.
Hence:
- high level of post-purchase anxiety,
- increased sensitivity to brand response,
- zero tolerance for being ignored.
Even with a precise choice and confidence in the brand, a factor remains that can’t be fully mitigated in advance: feeling when worn.
This is normal. For both the client and the brand.
The problem arises not in the return itself but in how the brand understands it. In the mass segment, a return is logistics. There, the purchase is easily replaceable, the price lowers expectations, and the choice is rarely linked to image and bodily experience.
In the premium segment, the logic is different. When buying expensive shoes, the client expects transparency in communication along the entire interaction path, not just paying for the product, but agreeing to a high-stakes choice,
A return here is a moment of testing promises: how the brand perceives the customer’s decision, their time, and doubt. Does the relationship remain the same as before payment?
Therefore, returns in premium shoes can’t be viewed as:
- inevitable costs,
- a percentage of defect,
- a negative scenario that should be minimized.
This is one of the key scenes in a brand’s commercial behavior. The scene in which it becomes clear what exactly the brand is actually selling: the product or the relationship.
Main Gap: How Brands Break Their Own Behavioral Logic
Before the purchase, brands communicate with the client in the language of marketing about values, in the language of quality, conscious choice, craftsmanship, history, and attention to detail. This language creates an expectation of a certain level of relationships.
After the purchase, for many brands, the language changes. Communication becomes simplified, depersonalized, reduced to instructions and formal rules:
- “write an email,”
- “wait for a response,”
- “return within X days.”
The brand starts behaving like a platform, not a bearer of the declared role. A break in behavioral logic occurs.
In categories with a high purchase risk, product quality does not compensate for weak operational guarantees. An operational defect arises, nullifying repeat purchases and LTV. Here, the problem is deeper than the process.
Brands sell products as assembled value, but service the purchase as a one-time transaction.
For the client, this is instantly perceived as a change in relationships and a mismatch with perception, and now, even with an excellent product, the sense of value is nullified!
When a brand appeals to heritage and craftsmanship but behaves like a faceless e-commerce, it destroys its own cultural code.
In such a situation, a return is perceived not as a process and not as a technical step. It’s perceived as the brand’s withdrawal from the claimed role. And this, not money and deadlines, becomes the point of final break.
Three Models of Returns in the Premium Segment
Return is a mirror of a brand’s commercial behavior.
Through returns, it becomes visible:
- how the brand distributes risk,
- on whose side uncertainty remains,
- who retains control of the situation when something doesn’t go as planned.
There are only three behavioral models. Each one determines not only loyalty but also the brand’s financial right to a high margin.
1. The “Return as Punishment” Model (Manufacturer’s Syndrome)
This model is often found in brands that have grown from manufacturing. The product is at the center. Everything else is secondary.
Return here is perceived as a hindrance. As an extra load that needs to be minimized.
Characteristic signs:
- complicated or convoluted procedure,
- need to write emails and wait for a response,
- formal, detached formulations,
- absence of a clear scenario for the client.
Nothing is stated directly, but the actions convey one message:
you created a problem for us.
From a commercial standpoint, such a model may yield one-time sales. The product might actually be great. But repeatability is not built into this system. Every return severs the relationship. The brand gradually loses the right to a premium price, even if it formally remains in that segment.
Example from practice :
An Italian brand client with a history dating back to the early 20th century. Diagnostic audit revealed:
- Product: Flawless. A 4.9 rating, reviews of “fantastic leather quality” and craftsmanship.
- Behavior: Customers describe the return process as “shameful” and “non-existent”.
Actual process: The client encounters the need to write to a general email, wait for approval, independently organize logistics. The brand responds with silence or delays.
Brand’s signal: “You created a problem for us. Your decision to return the product is a failure, which you’ll pay for with your time.”
Commercial result: Low LTV. The high acquisition cost (CAC) never pays off because a customer who undergoes “punishment” never returns. The brand has an excellent product but a leaky commercial architecture.
**If you recognize your situation in this description, it makes sense to talk further in terms of a comprehensive approach to a brand’s commercial behavior. Start with the Audit – Step 1
2. “Returns as a Formal Obligation” Model
This model is typical for brands that mimic a premium image but maintain a mass-market operational logic.
Rules are followed. Money is returned, but the process lacks transparency and empathy. No notifications, no explanations of timelines, cold, formal communication “by the book.”
The customer perceives the message as: we are obliged, but we don’t consider it important. We are simply executing a transaction.
The commercial effect here is subtle. Formally, there are no complaints. But trust does not form. An emotional vacuum. Trust does not develop because the brand has shown no engagement. There is no internal motivation to return. Repeat purchases do not become a system—they remain random.
3. “Returns as Part of the Product: Integrated Element of Commercial Behavior” (New Culture of Commerce)
This model is rare: the only correct approach for true luxury and the high-end segment. It is precisely the one that aligns with the New Culture of Commerce.
Here, the return process is embedded in the purchase/sales architecture from the very beginning, before payment even occurs.
Signs:
- The return logic is clear in advance.
- Automated and transparent.
- The scenario is explained calmly and without pressure.
- Brand actions are proactive (“We received the package,” “We initiated the return,” etc.).
- The process does not create tension: no need to justify or ask.
The message to the customer in this case reads differently: “We anticipated your doubt. We take the risk because we are confident in the product and respect your choice.”
The commercial effect begins even before the purchase. Reduced anxiety increases initial conversion. But the main point: even in the case of a return, the customer receives positive reinforcement. A return ceases to be a “failure” of the transaction and becomes confirmation of the partner’s reliability. This is precisely where high repeat purchase rates are born.
And this is exactly where the conversation shifts—not about service or processes, but about commercial behavior and its consequences.
Why Marketing and Traffic Cannot Compensate for the Chosen Returns Model
There is a dangerous misconception common among many growing brands: “If we have retention issues, we need more traffic.” Budgets are activated, targeting is set, influencers are brought in.
However, in a situation of behavioral failure, marketing is not the solution. It becomes an accelerator of losses.
The architecture of commerce is relentless: a defective post-purchase experience cannot be compensated by increasing traffic. When you bring new customers into a system where returns function as “punishment” or “concession,” you are not scaling your business. You are scaling disappointment.
Advertising drives people into the funnel, but a flawed operational system throws them back into the market, turning a loyal customer into a critic. This is a “leaky bucket” that cannot be filled, no matter how much you invest in traffic.
These losses are invisible in advertising dashboards. They do not appear in CTR or ROAS metrics. They are hidden in the lost profit of those who might have purchased a second or third time, but did not, because the brand failed the first return test.
Where the Money Is: Architecture of a Systemic Solution
Returns are often perceived one-dimensionally: either we lose money, or we lose the customer. Many brands adopt the “customer is always right” stance and simply record the loss.
This is a strategic mistake. Effective commercial architecture does not require sacrifices. It requires working on balancing interests, where the system protects business margins while simultaneously ensuring customer security.
The solution is not simply to refund the customer as quickly as possible without considering the context of the return!
It is to design commercial behavior that eliminates conflicts of interest before they arise: integrity of the system at three levels:
- Preventive level (reducing risk before payment),
- Operational level (process automation to build trust),
- Cultural level (fulfilling the promise).
The return stops being a point of financial loss for the business and becomes a controlled process.
This is precisely where premium brand profitability is formed: in repeat purchases by loyal customers, which is only possible with full trust in the system. Product quality is the entry ticket. Quality of behavior in a challenging situation is the condition under which the customer remains with you.
**How This System Is Designed
The Architecture of Commercial Behavior is not assembled from universal solutions and cannot be transferred between brands. This is what I work on in my formats—where category, market, and the real business economy can be taken into account.
Formats for working with me
Conclusion
Purchasing a branded product is not just a transaction or fulfillment of desires—it is an acceptance of risk.
At the moment of payment in the premium segment, the customer does more than buy. They assume risk. Risk that the size may not be right. That the sensation will differ. That the expectation formed before purchase will not match reality.
This risk cannot be entirely eliminated in advance—neither by descriptions, photos, nor brand reputation. It is built into the category itself. And in the premium segment, it is not offset by discounts, convenience, or fast delivery. Price does not reduce tension—it increases it.
In this context, the return does not cancel the sale. It continues it. It completes the choice cycle and establishes on whose side the brand stands when the transaction ceases to be comfortable, and what will happen if the choice turns out imperfect. This is precisely where readiness to return or abandon the brand forever is formed.
It is at this point, invisible in marketing reports, that most companies lose their main revenue without even recognizing it as a problem. And this is not a question of service, but of strategy for further development in the New Culture of Commerce.
