Victoria's Secret Destroys Returned, Unworn Merchandise

Victoria's Secret is once again the talk of the style town -- no, it's not because of their exceptional Photoshop skills or any super-skinny model accusations.

The lingerie brand cut up a pair of sweatpants right in front of a customer after she returned them to a Florida store.

The Tampa Tribune reports that shopper Marie Wolf brought back a pair of Pink sweatpants, the clerk refunded her and promptly took a pair of scissors to the item:

"I was shocked, because, mind you, these were $70 sweatpants, and there's nothing wrong with them," Wolf said. "The clerk just said, 'I know, but it's our policy.' "

Outraged, Wolf confronted a store manager, then called the parent company and found, indeed, Victoria's Secret does cut up some returned items so they can't be resold -- even if they're in fine condition.

Apparently, the clerk's only mistake, Wolf said, was to cut up the clothes in front of customers, and not in a back room out of sight.

Whoopsies! We've heard of stores destroying unsold merchandise -- H&M and Walmart to name a fine few -- but we're unclear on why VS would shred a pair of pants. It's not like there's serious health issues involved, as there would be with bras or underwear.

Actually, funny we should mention that, since just last year Victoria's Secret was caught reselling returned, and stained undies. Watch that report here. Perhaps the chain's new, drastic take-backs technique stemmed from that scandal. Regardless, remind us to break out the hazmat suits the next time we ever step foot in one of their stores.

Comments

[Shufufu Chen]

01:42 PM on 05/01/2011

And guess what, an India girl had to forgo her sleep hours to sew these pants. One pairs of pants is her whole month's wage. Wake up people.

[Kasia Ostrowska]

07:44 PM on 04/29/2011

Most retail stores, from Wal-Mart to Louis Vuitton, shred their merchandise if it left unsold. Yes, even LUXURY brands destroy THOUSANDS of dollars worth of merchandise. This is not for hygienic purposes whatsoever, it's simply a well known trade-secret. Yes the clerk's mistake was to do it in front of the customer rather than the back room, but this is not news for anyone in retail.

[Overbluff]

02:59 PM on 04/29/2011

Between bedbugs and std's , I am very happy that VS destroys used clothing. The customer "says" that it was unused, but how do we know? If she doesn't like the stores policy, go somewhere else.

[LJB064]

01:04 PM on 04/29/2011

I guess I don't understand what this piece is trying to say. Yes, in general, it's wasteful to destroy clean clothing rather than making it available to the needy. VS could have a corporate policy of washing all returns and donating them to charity.

But if I were a shopper at VS, I'd vastly prefer that they err on the side of destroying clean returns than take the risk of re-selling intimate apparel that had been worn. Given the extreme stories we've all heard about people buying things with the intention of using them and then returning them, I don't blame the store for having a policy that assumes all returns have been worn.

If VS is erring on the side of making sure that worn items don't get re-sold, I'm not sure where the author's haz-mat crack comes from. Also, she notes that this new policy (if that's what it is) may heve been implemented to correct past mistakes, and still takes pot-shots at the company. She needs to make up her mind.

[JadedNY]

10:37 PM on 04/28/2011

This is news? I thought by law, stores must throw away any type of underwear - it can't be put back on the shelves. And since VC is probably classified as an underwear store,t hey probably have to destroy everything. It's no secret that they throw out all underwear returns, which is a lot of waste. What a wasteful country we are. People are living with barely a scrap of clothing in some parts of the world, and here VC throws it all away. H&M also cuts up its unsold merchandise - brand new. I imagine most stores do.

[GirlyGirl420]

08:57 PM on 04/28/2011

V.S. probably doesn't want to donate it to homeless people or people who are less fortunate because it'll lower the status of the brand (meaning people who cant afford V.S. are wearing V.S)... SMH corporate greed!

[Liv512B]

04:51 PM on 04/29/2011

I used to work for a department store that "damaged out" (cut up and destroyed) unsold merchandise) and the reasoning you suggest is exactly what i was told when i questioned the practice.

[peekaboo123]

01:33 AM on 06/16/2011

I doubt this is the case considering VS sends bulks of merchandise to local homeless shelters from every single store several times a year for Mother's Day, Christmas, etc.

[mmgbizgirl]

08:08 PM on 04/28/2011

Years ago I worked for a well known retailer and was shocked to learn about this policy. When I was asked to destroy perfectly good products I refused. I went to the head of the company asking to have items donated to 501c programs (tax-deductible) that would make sure items were given to the most needy. They would have none of it. Most retailers have this needless policy. The waste is astounding and profoundly sad.

[Maezeppa]

04:29 PM on 04/28/2011

If something is not profitable for the corporation, the corporation simply isn’t going to bother with it.  I am not a litigation expert but I’d be inclined to think that there may be some exposure on the part of a corporate giver that wouldn’t be present for a private giver.  Also, I believe charitable donation caps for corporations are different and lower than for individuals.
 
I’m not defending the practice of Victoria Secret, et al, and destroying returned merchandise seems wrong.   I’d hope they would find a better, greener solution.  If there is a public relations benefit, or public pressure, they might be persuaded to change the practice.

[Nybklyny]

11:03 AM on 04/28/2011

Excuse me, do you have a soiled rack?

[Lisa Nicol]

10:44 AM on 04/28/2011

Where is there corporate social responsibility. Destroying perfectly good clothes! SMH.

[Kelly Gitter]

11:06 AM on 04/28/2011

Send the clothes to Haiti where the MUCH less fortunate are not as picky about re-wearing as the executives are about re-selling.

[doglove]

01:51 PM on 04/28/2011

yeah, they are suffering a shortage of garter belts, bustiers, and miracle bras

[Isairon]

06:33 AM on 04/28/2011

Hi.

At 1st when Igot my email update I was: "Whhhaaaaa???t!". But, I understand now. Except why??? That is what you've got to say.

Is it because they are picky? Nope. because as Huffpost clearly stated with the stained underwear they-are-not-picky!!!!


So I guess it's image, the above doesn't look too good for imkage then does it. I guess we shall never be able to guess the functions of 'Victoria's Secret' mindset!

So freaky is who they are! I believe the weirder/freakier, no the more of you instead of a plastic facade is more of you than you can understand.

You need to be who you are, no matter what, or who you are.

What I'm saying isn't really relevant; but, if you think hard...it is. They don't care, they have an image of wacky. It's who they are, who cares what they do. They shouldn't be selling that stained stuff - but, WE shouldn't be buying it.

Izzy.P.

[pinkeyelemonade]

05:20 AM on 04/28/2011

Companies profiting to the tune of millions will, to no surprise, destroy what couldn't be purchased at a top price, even if that means those clothes could be donated to cheaper stores, or even, I daresay, to the poor.

I work at a shopping mall, and I shudder to think what *my* company could be doing behind the scenes.

I'll make a generous estimate that only 1% of any such shop would rise above such a low practice. And I refuse to believe that the other 99% have ANY reason to destroy the products they deem as worthless when they are in decent condition and can be donated to someone who needs them. Put them in a box and drop them off at a thrift store. It's not really that cost-effective.

[doglove]

01:52 PM on 04/28/2011

and would be great P.R.

fanned

[pinkeyelemonade]

05:15 AM on 04/29/2011

It certainly would. Fanned back!

[XIRUS]

04:35 AM on 04/28/2011

after reading the comments, i get the understanding that a lot of the readers do not understand how businesses conduct themselves. regardless of the act being wasteful, shameful or extreme, at the end of the day, Victoria Secret can do ANYTHING with the merchandise that IT owns. the clerk' actions were in poor taste, but were still following company policy. those calling to pull stupid pranks, GROW UP! those with faux outrage, find a REAL cause to get behind! i'm sure that coming to the aid of a pair of pink sweatpants will neither enrich nor enhance your lives.

[starspring]

01:54 AM on 04/28/2011

That's a tad bit extreme, especially since there are many people going without. Shame on them!

[Katie5]

10:34 PM on 04/27/2011

Damned if you do and damned if you don't/ Geez. Make up your minds people.

[NWBrunette]

01:33 AM on 04/28/2011

Not. Google "comprehension" and try reading the article again.