Point taken. However, as the author works in FINtech, I’m feeling compelled to add that the revenue reversal figure itself is neither “cost” nor “loss” and should not be included in the $229.

> lost sale, reversed by the chargeback $129.00

> ... cost of the shoes, gone $70.00

Uhh, this logic is wrong. You lost the shoes either way. The chargeback didn't cost you the shoes.

From an opportunity cost perspective, the chargeback itself cost you $129. Since that's the refund you sent back to the buyer. But you still no longer possess the shoes, and still paid the associated fees, regardless of whether that refund had happened or not.

From a real net worth perspective, the entire process of shipping out shoes that get charged back costs you $70 plus payment and shipping fees. Since before the ordeal, you had shoes worth $70, and afterwards you no longer possessed them and have also paid fees.

By double counting the loss of the item and the lost revenue you can really make a title seem worth a click.

The article is AI slop but impressively the author has managed to convince the AI to make a ridiculous double counting error which functions as excellent rage bait. I expect a dozen similar comments to have appeared while I type this.

For a few years now, I have a small potato business selling used electronic instruments online.

One important lesson is I have to charge more than the cost of postage to pay for shipping.

It kinda rubbed me the wrong way that he considered both the lost sale and the value of the goods as part of the cost. That's double counting.

its an ai written article it seems. probably written for engagement bait.

Welcome to modern economics where nothing makes sense with prices