%20%20-%20Menu.svg){kind=small}
.png?width=879&height=549&name=Page%2074%20(1).png)
TL/DR summary
Returns cluster in fashion and footwear, while electronics and furniture incur outsized handling costs when returned. Policies that over‑promise on free returns can inflate return rates, but smarter content, packaging, and exchange‑first flows reduce friction and protect annual sales.
Key pointers
-
Fashion dominates most returned online purchases: clothing (25%), shoes (17%), and accessories (12%).
-
The average return online is approximately one in five; generous policies without controls raise the return rate.
-
Damage prevention in consumer electronics and furniture significantly reduces returns.
-
Make exchanges the default; store drop‑off cuts handling cost and boosts in‑store purchases.
-
Invest in sizing tools, 360° assets, AR, and firmer packaging to reduce returns.
Winning brands make returning feel easy while nudging shoppers toward exchanges. They quantify the real cost factor, constrain abuse, and use returns data to refine content and supply decisions. It helps turn returned orders into durable loyalty and a cleaner P&L.
Ranked list - Most returned online purchases & operational implications
According to the recent the most returned online purchases, by segment, are as follows.
| Category |
Share of consumers returning |
Primary driver | Operator response |
| Clothing | 25% | Fit/colour variance | Size guidance, AR try‑on, exchange‑first |
| Shoes | 17% | Comfort/size | Half‑size filters, in‑box fit guide |
| Accessories | 12% | Scale/finish expectations | Macro photos, dimensions, materials |
| Food & Beverage | 12% | Freshness/date misses | Lead‑time control, insulated packs |
| Consumer electronics | 10% | Damage/spec mismatch | Drop‑tests, accessory checklists |
| Cosmetics & Body Care | 9% | Shade/sensitivity | Shade finders, sample kits |
| Books/Media/Games | 9% | ¶Ů˛ąłľ˛ą˛µ±đ/łľľ±˛ő‑słóľ±±č | Better carton + QC |
| Furniture & Household | 8% | Damage/space fit | White‑glove, protective packaging |
Note: Half of the respondents reported no returned orders in the previous year; some respondents simply had not bought online during the window.
Introduction
Returns are no longer a rounding error; they decide margin, CX, and working‑capital health. As ecommerce volume scales, the most returned products online also concentrate costs. For online retailers, these costs range from repacking to resale markdowns and carbon impact. Understanding the return mix, common failure points, and channel differences helps operators tighten fit/quality signals, calibrate promises, and improve contribution margin per order.
Below, we unpack category‑level data, benchmark return rates, and convert them into practical actions for merchandising, product content, and reverse logistics design.
The state of returns: Benchmarks that matter
A useful baseline for leaders:
-
U.S. retailers’ average return rate across all channels sits in the high teens, with online orders averaging one in five returns. That delta versus stores is structural: no try‑before‑buy, colour calibration, and fit uncertainty.
-
NRF estimates the industry absorbed hundreds of billions in returned value in 2024. The real cost factor includes two‑way freight, processing labour, damage, repackaging, and markdown risk. It is a double-digit share of the item's original value in many workflows.
-
Channel split still matters: a single online purchase is more likely to be re‑boxed than a store sale; omnichannel drop‑off options lower friction but can raise volume if policies are too generous.
Finance teams must model contribution margin net of returns; operators must treat “cost‑to‑resell” as a core KPI alongside on‑time delivery.
What are the most returned products online? (Category ranking)
Respondents in recent U.S. panels highlight a consistent pattern of returned items by category:
-
Clothing (25%): It is the most frequently returned goods online. Sizing schemes vary across different retailers; fabric drape and colour deviations increase returned units. Returned clothing adds to a significant challenge for retailers.
-
Shoes (17%): Shoes typically experience high fit churn; many shoppers order multiple sizes, then return the rest.
-
Accessories (12%): Jewellery, sunglasses, and belts suffer expectation gaps on scale/finish. The imagery and dimensional specs reduce the number of returning products here.
-
Food and Beverage (12%): Sensitive to freshness windows and flavour expectation; late freight converts into returned inventory or write‑off.
-
Consumer electronics (10%): Not the top frequently returned product category, but damage, missing parts, or spec mismatch make each returned unit costly.
-
Cosmetics & Body Care (9%): Skin‑tone and fragrance mismatch; strict resale hygiene rules push liquidation.
-
Books/Movies/Music/Games (9%): Low variability; returns skew to mis‑ship or damage.
-
Furniture & Household Goods (8%): Heavy and breakable; packaging and delivery scheduling are decisive for fewer returned products.
Visual: Category share of consumers who returned (USA) Market
What it means
-
Fashion (apparel + shoes) accounts for the majority of returned online purchases because fit is uncertain and tactile cues are missing. Size‑maps, fit notes, and richer imagery lower the return rate.
-
Consumer electronics demand tougher cartons and drop‑tests; pre‑ship QC and accessories checklists reduce DOA claims.
-
For household goods and furniture, white‑glove appointment windows and corner‑guard packaging materially lower return rates.
Channel & platform signals
-
A survey of online shoppers consistently shows a higher return rate online than in‑store. Many consumers cite size/fit or “not as pictured” as the top reason.
-
Marketplace behaviour: generous policy norms make online purchases easy to return; 3D/AR visuals reduce fashion returns by clarifying fit and colour before purchase.
-
Respondents claimed ease of label‑free drop‑off boosts trust; however, when free returns are unconditional, return rates climb, eroding annual sales yield.
Note: Make returns a “differentiator versus other online shops” with frictionless exchanges, and not automatic refunds. Exchanges protect revenue and customer lifetime value.
Why do customers return? Root‑cause data
-
Incorrect item / wrong size or colour: fulfilment accuracy and content precision.
-
Damaged in transit: packaging spec and carrier handling, such as classic supply chain and process control problems.
-
Late delivery: missed event date triggers returned gifts.
-
Expectation gap: imagery that over‑filters, vague specifications, or missing context.
Levers to reduce returns
-
Size intelligence (body‑data prompts), brand‑specific size charts, “fits small/large” labels.
-
Unambiguous colour/material swatches; 360° photos; video on‑model.
-
Pre‑ship drop‑test standards for fragile goods; corner/edge protection.
-
Delivery promise discipline and proactive exception comms.
The economics of returning products
Processing returned items is labour‑intensive. The cost stack includes inspection, steaming/cleaning, repacking, and relabeling. Many retailers report that the cost can approach a double-digit share of the item's original price, before markdown risk.
High return rates distort inventory accuracy and forecasting. At the same time, re‑sellability windows shrink, especially for seasonal category lines.
In fashion, bags and accessories have a higher resale value than tailored clothing. At the same time, in hardgoods, open‑box consumer electronics often require testing before online sales.
The takeaway:
Route non‑resellable returned products quickly to secondary markets to protect recovery. Use data to determine which products, depending on fi,t should get stricter content and exchange‑first flows.
Policy design: Balancing CX and margin
-
Offer free returns selectively: loyal customers and high‑LTV segments get it; others get paid labels or exchange incentives.
-
Prioritise exchanges over refunds; make size/colour swaps one‑click. This protects annual sales and lowers refund leakage.
-
Use store drop‑off to cut costs and damage; stores convert returns into add‑on purchases.
-
Crystal‑clear windows (30 days is what most people expect); exception handling for gifting seasons.
Conclusion: Returns as a product, not a penalty
A modern returns program is a growth engine in disguise. Treat returned orders as high‑signal feedback: they reveal where content is thin, sizing is inconsistent, and packaging or lead‑times wobble. For operators, the mandate is clear: engineer the returns process to favour exchanges, sharpen pre‑purchase signals so online shoppers choose right the first time, and right‑size policies so many consumers still feel safe to buy while retailers face sustainable costs.
When businesses design returns like a product (measured, iterated, and customer‑aware), they protect margin, delight the end customer, and convert today’s most significant challenges into tomorrow’s competitive edge.
Reference Sources