Hacker News Reader

Comment by notyourwork | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of agreement, shipping and handling are not synonyms.

Sure, I think at some historical point, and by dictionary definition, they are not.

In practical terms in north america, I've never seen them separate, and I buy online A LOT. So if they're not synonyms (and I agree with that pedantry:), they are functionally equivalent for most people's most practical purposes. They're just a phrase that goes together.

Ultimately, if a retailer advertises "FREE SHIPPING", and I find that I need to pay some additional fee beyond item's advertised price, to get the item to arrive to me, I will feel I've been deceived, whether they call that charge shipping, or handling, or gnorf.

Admittedly if they advertised "FREE GNORF" I'd at least be intrigued

They offer free fnords all the time but people never take them up on the offer for some reason.

They include them in the box; it's just no one ever sees them through all the packing material.

“Shipping and handling” is a ubiquitous term in U.S. online stores and I’d challenge you to find any site that separates them out like Fanatics does.

They are literally different things and always have been. Whether it’s common to bundle them isn’t really the point.

They're a doublet, like "cease and desist." Separating the two makes about as much sense as paying someone an extra fee to "handle" the goods from the warehouse to the supermarket shelf.

Hopefully if something is done about this, they'll make the policy Fanatics currently holds both null AND void

It’s 100% the point. It’s such a common and accepted thing here that most sites just have “S & H” during the check out process. To advertise free shipping in the US implies the S&H is free. To suddenly spring a “handling” fee at the last step is deceitful and no different than airlines or hotels advertising a price and then adding a “resort fee” on the last step. And if you think differently, then why do they hide the handling fee until the very last step?

Regardless of semantics, a bait-and-switch is a bait-and-switch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com