The payment service is beneficial: marketplace fees that everyone will gain from.

Recently, the topic of a potential service fee on marketplaces has become one of the most discussed issues among consumers. It’s no secret that a significant portion of buyers only keeps a few items out of many ordered, returning the rest (often even after use), and the costs associated with reverse logistics in such cases fall on the sellers. Some people react negatively to the idea of imposing these costs on unscrupulous customers, viewing it as yet another "tax." However, a deeper look at the situation, along with insights from experts, makes it clear: the service fee is not just a necessary measure but also a step towards a more civilized market that will benefit all participants—from sellers to buyers and even… the environment.

RAISING AWARENESS IN ORDER PLACEMENT

In February, the autonomous nonprofit organization for the protection of e-commerce participants, the "Federal Society of Online Trade" (FOST), proposed tightening return policies and implementing mechanisms such as paid returns or a service fee, citing numerous complaints from pickup point employees and entrepreneurs about the increased instances of returns of quality goods with a holiday theme. The organization points to the successful experience of the tourism industry and the sale of airline and train tickets, where a non-refundable service fee has long been established.

The initiative was supported by the Association of E-commerce Market Participants (AUREC), noting that applying this experience to online trading would help bring order to the industry, discipline buyers, reduce the number of returns to pickup points for disputable reasons, and, consequently, lessen the burden on them, while also boosting sales dynamics for entrepreneurs.

Interestingly, some market players already have "restrictive" measures in place—be it a service fee, a buyer rating system, or a minimum threshold for orders. Their fairness has not been questioned for a long time. For instance, "Yandex Market" introduced a service fee last summer. Moreover, Yandex's service fee operates in both "Lavka" and its taxi service.

“The introduction of the proposed mechanisms has proven effective in the market,” notes Vladimir Baranov, owner of hundreds of pickup points. “Tools aimed at reducing the number of returns and increasing customer awareness during order placement should be welcomed. The rise in overall returns is always a serious challenge for most pickup points. Primarily, it leads to longer queues at marketplace pickup points and can negatively impact the revenue of their owners.”

A FILTER FOR IMPULSIVE PURCHASES

Furthermore, not everyone realizes that the additional costs of reverse logistics, which fall on sellers, lead to an increase in the final price of goods for conscientious buyers—sellers have to factor in that percentage of unpurchased items. Experts believe that even a minimal service fee would encourage marketplace audiences to approach their purchases more responsibly. In the long run, this would lead to reduced expenses for sellers, and thus, lower prices for goods.

There is another aspect, hidden from those unfamiliar with the industry specifics. As noted by State Duma Deputy and Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Economic Policy Artem Kiryakov, mass returns of goods cause significant harm to the environment.

“Just imagine that for every order, if the item is in good condition, it gets repackaged. This means that for you to check out a product at a pickup point that you ordered on a whim and don’t really plan to purchase, at least twice as much packaging material is used. Of course, large companies direct materials for recycling, but part of the packaging cannot be recycled,” adds the parliamentarian. In his opinion, a service fee for each order “will help reduce the number of impulsive and unnecessary orders, thus decreasing environmental harm in our country.”

These are not just pretty words. According to experts from the same FOST, up to 10% of orders are returned. A significant portion of these goods cannot be resold due to damage or loss of marketability. Ultimately, they are either discarded or sold at reduced prices, which also hits sellers' pockets and, subsequently, conscientious buyers.

Thus, the service fee, which may be included in the order price, is seen by experts as a kind of filter for thoughtless purchases. Buyers, knowing that they will have to pay extra for each order, will be more careful in selecting items. This will not only reduce the ecological burden but also help marketplaces optimize their processes, ultimately benefiting prices and service quality.

“It would be the simplest solution if the government took on the regulation of this problem so that it would affect all market participants and thus wouldn’t require them to take any measures in cases where a buyer purchases an item, wears it once, and then returns it,” supports the industry representatives and other experts, General Director of "Infoline-Analytics" Mikhail Burmistrov.

PAYMENT FOR CONVENIENCE OR INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE?

At the same time, the current legislation already allows for resolving the issue within a legal framework.

“In fact, the law already places the costs of returning goods that consumers refuse on them,” pointed out Ekaterina Papchenkova, Director of the Center for Evidential Expertise at the Gaidar Institute, during a broadcast on RBC-TV. “These are the very costs incurred by either the marketplace or the seller for the reverse delivery of the product. And this is currently regulated absolutely legally. The other question is how to construct the offer correctly to compensate exactly for the costs of returning goods.”

Ultimately, we have long been accustomed to the idea that convenience comes at a price—be it food delivery or taxi services. Why should it be any different with marketplaces? “Refusal is indeed a consumer's right. But they should cover the costs of bringing their order to them and taking it back, which is logical. If a buyer understands that they will bear all logistics costs, they certainly won’t order as many products. This deterrent factor will align with the Civil Code and the Consumer Rights Protection Law,” adds Ekaterina Papchenkova.

Therefore, the introduction of a service fee on marketplaces is not only a necessary measure but also appears to be an inevitable one. As seen from the opinions of experts, this is not a whim of business but a genuine necessity dictated by modern realities—a step towards a more sustainable and eco-friendly consumption model that benefits everyone—buyers, sellers, and the environment.

It is possible that initially, the service fee may cause discontent among conservative audiences. However, as experience shows, people quickly adapt to innovations, especially when they bring real benefits. And who knows—perhaps in a couple of years, we will be astonished at how our market managed to function without this.