“They need to stop thinking that dressing flashy equates to having money,” posted a user on the video-sharing website TikTok, aptly representing the topic of the viral conversation that has come from a particular swimsuit priced at $900.
The case: In this case, the influencer, who goes by the name Brittany Bowen, based in Dallas, who has impressed and gained the admiration of over 159,000 fans, posted her experience related to the worst decision she made. The worst decision she made related to her purchasing a one-piece Burberry swimsuit to enable her to go to Puerto Rico in the year 2021. Just before the influencer decided to spend her money to buy the one-piece swimsuit, the customer service employee at the shop she had gone to, to make her final decision, asked her that she could return the one-piece swimsuit after 30 days, provided that she had not used the one-piece swimwear before and the tag attached to the one-piece swimwear was still attached. Since the one-piece swimwear was not her type, the influencer decided to return the one-piece swimwear, after the tag attached to the one-piece swimwear was still attached, when she was going out to run her errands, wearing her sweatpants after her gym exercise routine.
It is here, according to Bowen, that the conversation shifted, and it became condescending. The customer called for the manager, who, “Yeah, you can’t return this. You obviously already wore it,” said, according to her. The customer argued against this assertion, trying to make the point that it had price tags on it, and, in fact, she had not. While she felt that when it came to things such as the treatment and speak of the product and herself, it said a world, it seemed, however, that she had been challenged for herself, “financial profiling.”
Her video on TikTok, currently viewed over 529,000 times, received an applauding report. There are individuals who liked her response to criticism by saying, You are right. Like high-end department stores instantly based on clothing and body language. Exactly like how their consumers are treated. Still, individuals have disparaged her oral habits. One commenter wrote, “You do seem rude unfortunately,” to which she immediately reacted by saying, “[Because] I stand up for myself? Heaven forbid lol.” Another commenter chided, “Belittling other people for how much money they make is gross behavior regardless of the situation you were in.”
In this particular case, it seems that some problems may exist regarding a general discussion that may concern perceptions of customers in upmarket establishments. In this respect, it is appropriate to consider research that refers to retail psychology and suggests that assumptions regarding appearance could affect perceptions of service from the first entrance into an establishment. As far as research that refers to establishment displays and customer comfort is concerned, a possible first message that could be derived either from establishment displays or from customer clothing may refer to status or purchasing power and compatibility from the first entrance into an establishment.
Luxury brands, on the other hand, function in an even more watched-over setting. Notorious cases of economic crimes and laundering of money carried out by luxury brands labeled as so have increased the standards of even tougher compliance, including much more extensive consumer screening as a basic element of this approach. Despite the fact that policies on the undertaking of a hopefully positive identification of any malpractice on the side of the brands being carried out, obstacles can also emanate from the personal opinions of the personnel in relation to this approach.
Cases against the so-called luxury brands, like the case against Louis Vuitton on a charge of “invidious race-based discrimination” of its long-held VIP clientele, illustrate the harm caused not only to the aggrieved party but also to the luxury brands in terms of reputation. Based on the charge against the aforementioned lawsuit, these individuals were refused entry into the stores and qualified as criminals where, in reality, their other white pals were treated warmly. Cases like this simply highlight the importance of transparency in luxury stores. As a consumer, it is vital that they present a firm stance on their rights in this environment as well.
As such, consumers must always remain collected and together as a corporate entity as well. It would be best if they held on to their sales receipt and established the terms of return officially as well. Failure on the side of the consumer in not offering a refund against the refund terms would likely require the consumer to demand a rationale in writing which would then be pursued by the entities protecting the rights of consumers.
Bowen was only able to don the swimsuit once before the swimsuit was sold on Poshmark website for the price of $500, a cut of $400 because of the loss incurred by the sale of the swimsuit. She has never returned to Burberry stores since then as a consumer. She can well be considered the same as the other ordinary cases of consumer dissatisfaction as well. However, her significance becomes relevant because it captures an entirely larger and much more complicated reality as well. The lesson and the wisdom she acquired from this experience can well be synthesized using the following verse: Money can wear Armani on the outside, and dignity is not dependent on that.
