The concept of opening parcels before making cash-on-delivery (COD) payments has garnered overwhelming support among consumers, according to a recent survey conducted by the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida Poll). The poll, carried out from July 9-11 through telephone interviews, involved 1,310 respondents aged over 18, from diverse educational backgrounds, occupations, and income levels.
Opinions were sought regarding the newly introduced “Dee-Delivery” rule by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board, aimed at safeguarding COD consumers. The survey revealed that a notable 70.45% of respondents were in full agreement with the rule, while 24.46% somewhat agreed. On the other side, 4.00% somewhat disagreed, 0.87% were firmly against it, and 0.22% were either unsure or indifferent.
When delving into the online shopping habits of those surveyed, 70.53% acknowledged having experience with online purchases, leaving 29.47% who had never ventured into the realm of e-commerce.
Among the 924 respondents who were seasoned online shoppers, a series of inquiries revealed their diverse perspectives on the Dee-Delivery measure. Their responses illuminated several facets of the discussion:
- 84.20% believed that the policy was crucial for safeguarding shoppers when the product received did not align with the advertised description.
- 76.19% saw it as a bulwark against fraudulent sellers.
- 60.28% appreciated the measure as a way to secure refunds more effectively.
- 48.70% felt it would mitigate disputes among buyers, riders, and sellers.
- 34.20% thought it was beneficial for delivery riders, as they wouldn’t be held accountable for the opened merchandise.
- 20.02% opined that the rule might cause delivery delays due to inspection times.
- 17.21% were concerned it could drive up delivery fees.
- 16.77% suggested it might hike the prices of COD goods.
- 11.36% thought it unfair to sellers, who could face payment rejections.
- 10.39% noted that delivery firms would face delays, needing five days to close an order.
- 10.06% expressed that sellers would endure delays in receiving payments.
- 8.98% speculated that the rule could discourage COD purchases.
- 6.60% highlighted the absence of penalties for contract breaches by either buyers or sellers.
- 0.22% disagreed with the Dee-Delivery rule altogether.
- Another 0.22% were either unsure or apathetic about the matter.
As online shopping continues to weave itself into the fabric of modern consumer behavior, the Dee-Delivery rule represents an earnest attempt to bolster trust and transparency in COD transactions. While the measure has faced a spectrum of reactions, the majority support underscores its perceived importance in enhancing consumer protection. The numerous viewpoints highlight both the potential benefits and the challenges that lie ahead, striking a balance between safeguarding consumer rights and maintaining the efficiencies cherished in the fast-paced world of e-commerce.
I think this Dee-Delivery rule is brilliant. It’s about time consumers get some protection from those shady online sellers.
Totally agree! I’ve been scammed before and this rule might actually prevent that.
But what about the small sellers? This kind of rule could hurt them. They’ll face delays in payments!
True, but in the end, consumer protection should come first. Sellers who are honest shouldn’t be worried.
This might make the delivery process longer though. Isn’t that going to be a hassle for everyone?
I can’t believe only 0.22% disagree with the rule. Seems like more people would be annoyed with the delays it could cause.
The slight delay is a small price to pay for ensuring you get what you ordered!
Maybe, but some of us value speed over verification. Not all deliveries are prone to fraud.
Exactly, Anat. Sometimes a delay can be more problematic than receiving a wrong item.
Delivery riders will face a lot of pressure with this rule. Imagine having to stand there while people open their parcels.
They already have a tough job. Adding this on top might make it worse for them.
But isn’t it better for riders as well? They’re not liable for the contents of the package then.
Maybe, but the time wasted during each delivery could negatively affect their earnings.
The intentions are good but the implementation sucks. Online shopping should be quick and hassle-free, not tedious.
Well, can’t have your cake and eat it too. Security comes at a cost.
The rule might increase the overall cost of online shopping. Willing to pay more for safety?
Yes, I would. Peace of mind is worth paying a bit extra.
Nah, if it gets too pricey, people might just stop using COD altogether.
I’m just worried about the no-penalty clause. What if sellers or buyers misuse this rule?
I think new penalties will eventually be introduced. It’s just the beginning.
I’m on board with this rule. We need more checks and balances in the e-commerce world.
But this could scare away customers who love the convenience of COD. They might shift to other platforms.
As long as the platform is secure, I think most people will adapt. Quality over convenience.
International platforms don’t have such strict rules, and they thrive. Too much regulation might stifle local businesses.
More rules usually mean more hoops to jump through. Not sure if I’m all for it.
I believe this rule will bring more confidence to people who are new to online shopping. It’s a great step to broaden the e-commerce base.
At least it’s just in Thailand for now. Other countries should wait and see how it plays out here before jumping on the bandwagon.
I run a small business and I really think a lot about these changes. I’m divided: more safety for shoppers is good, but it’s also more paperwork for me.
What about data privacy? Gathering all this information about buyer habits could lead to other security issues.
This rule will root out the bad actors, but it might also dissuade some genuine sellers. Tough to balance!
Imagine opening a parcel in front of the delivery person and watching the package tear; it’s going to be a mess.
This is such a nanny-state move. Adults should be responsible for their own purchases without needing policies like this.
I wonder if this rule could be tailored for certain types of products. Electronics vs. clothing, for example.
There’s no way this will speed up the refund process. Bureaucracy will slow everything down as usual.
I trust my regular sellers and don’t see the need for such a rule. Maybe it should be optional.
I think we’ll just have to wait and see how it affects the market. No rule is perfect from inception.