Security vs. Value

Refunds, guarantees, warranty insurance and money back. Our culture, and our location in history, offers a sudden wealth of ways in which consumers can pay for something with money, and then get the money back again. This transaction in trade is so accepted and common now that many people try to deliberately flaunt these options on a daily basis with the aim of getting something for nothing.

But does the result of never paying for something diminish its value? I think that at least in our minds it does. If you buy something and are promised a refund if you aren’t happy with it, then you are less likely to care if it works because if it doesn’t you know you will take your refund and have lost nothing. But if you buy something and are told it is non-returnable, if you are told that you have bought it and therefore have to live with it, you will probably try to take better care. You will be more wary how you use it, and by comparison to the disposable item that you returned, your increased attention could be seen as a type of increased value.

So is it good that in the modern world we can buy things without worrying too much? In some ways, I think the answer is no. If someone buys a computer and it lasts them five or six years before needing repair, I know that some would demand that the supplier provide a replacement or refund. They would probably be going on the “it’s not fair” line of argument.

Some people, while they purchase, expect a lifetime’s value from customer service and a year’s value from the product. They do not believe that they have paid for the raw cost, intelligence and labour required to create the product. Instead they think that they have paid for the right to own one of these items for the rest of their lives. They are looking for security of their possessions more than value from them.

There is a place for warranties and trading standards, but I predict that I would become quite miserable if I maintained my surprise each time an object breaks. Do I complain that I paid for one, therefore I should always own one? No. If a product has lasted me for a year or two, or longer, I often consider that I probably got my money’s worth out of the product, and if I still want to own it, should go and pay for the ownership of a new one.

When something you own breaks, what is your first reaction? Is it that you deserve a new one because you paid for the first one? Or are you happy to let wear and tear occur, mending and fixing where necessary? Have you ever, after something has broken, decided that you don’t need to replace it?

Read another post about Money...

Image source: http://www.airtimecharters.co.uk/site/freight-transport.html