Returns are a product-data problem wearing a logistics costume

You cannot fix a number you have never broken down

Ask a shop owner about returns and you get one number: the rate. Ask them which products cause it and the room goes quiet. That single number is useless for doing anything about the problem, because it averages a catalogue in which most articles come back almost never and a handful come back constantly. The average tells you the building is on fire. It does not tell you which room.

So break it down by SKU and sort. In almost every catalogue we have looked at, the distribution is brutally uneven — a small number of articles produce a wildly disproportionate share of the returns, and the rest of the catalogue is fine. That list of ten or twenty offenders is the whole project. Everything else is a rounding error, and every generic 'reduce returns' initiative that does not start with that list is spending effort where there is nothing to win.

The return reason is the only field that matters, and yours is broken

Return reason per SKU is where the diagnosis lives. Too small is a sizing chart problem. Not as pictured is a photography problem. Not as described is a copy problem. Damaged is a packaging or carrier problem. Changed my mind is often a pricing or a competing-tab problem. Each one points at a different department and a different fix, and knowing the split for a specific article turns an argument into a work order.

Which is why it is depressing how bad the data usually is. The reason field is free text, so it contains 4,000 unique values including 'siehe Mail' and 'k.A.'. Or it is a dropdown with one option everybody picks. Or the warehouse staff select whatever is first in the list because they are paid to move parcels, not to fill in forms. Fix that before you buy any tooling: six to eight reasons, mutually exclusive, mandatory, chosen by the customer in the return portal rather than guessed by a picker three days later.

• Return rate per SKU, not per shop — the average hides everything actionable.
• Six to eight mutually exclusive reasons, mandatory, picked by the customer.
• Cost per return in euro — labour, shipping, inspection, write-off, refund fee.
• Return rate by variant, not just by parent — one size is usually the culprit.
• Rate by customer, so you can see the small group ordering three sizes to keep one.

The fix is almost always on the product page

A return is a customer telling you that what arrived did not match what they expected. Expectations are set entirely by your product page. That means the fix lives in the photo, the description, the dimensions table and the size chart — not in the warehouse, where the only thing left to decide is how efficiently to absorb a mistake that was already made three days earlier.

The interventions are unglamorous and they work. A photo with a hand or a common object in it for scale. Actual measurements instead of S, M and L. A note that says this style runs small, because it does and your reviews already say so. A second photo of the colour under daylight, because your studio lighting is lying about the beige. A material description honest enough to lose the order to someone who would have returned it anyway — that is a good trade, and it is the trade most people are unwilling to make.

Free returns is a pricing decision, not a service decision

Nothing is free. If you pay the return label, that cost is inside your price, spread across every customer including the ones who never send anything back. That is a legitimate choice — it is exactly how flat-rate insurance works, and in fashion it is close to unavoidable because your competitors made the decision for you. But make it as a pricing decision, with the arithmetic written down, instead of drifting into it because a consultant said it lifts conversion.

Do the sum for one article. If a product leaves 25 euro of margin and a return costs 15 euro all-in — label, handling, inspection, repackaging, the payment fee you do not get back — then a return rate of forty percent on that article means you are earning roughly nine euro per order sold, not 25. That is the number that decides whether it stays in the catalogue, gets a better photo, or gets a higher price. Not the conversion rate.

In B2B returns are rarer and far more expensive

B2B shop owners often wave the topic away: our rate is two percent, it is not a problem. The rate is not the point, the ticket is. A wrong pump in a consumer shop is a parcel and twelve euro. A wrong pump on a B2B order is a machine standing still, an engineer on site with nothing to fit, a customer-specific configuration nobody else will ever buy, and a phone call in which the words framework agreement appear. There is no right of withdrawal to hide behind, so every return is a negotiation.

The good news is that the B2B fix is even more clearly a data fix. Your buyer is not returning a jacket because the colour disappointed them; they are returning a part because the thread was wrong, the voltage was wrong, or the datasheet on your page was three revisions behind the manufacturer's. Complete, correct, current technical attributes — with the drawing and the datasheet attached — remove most B2B returns at source. That is a PIM project, and it is far cheaper than the returns it prevents.

Frequently asked questions