Welcome to the 49th installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions and just a bit of everything else when it comes down to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

In the last edition of The Wal-Mart Weekly, I peered into the customer returns process at the world's largest retailer. This week, Wal-Mart will go on hiatus for a week while I perform the same experiment on its closest competitor, Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT). As such, Target is my special guest on this week's Wal-Mart Weekly.

Although it seemed to me that there was a process breakdown and too much of a liberal take on returning several items to Wal-Mart in last week's column, it was a little different at Target. At least the packages were looked into this week, but there was more to it as well.

Target's turn this time

Last week, I provided a story involving three different Wal-Mart retail locations. After purchasing a first aid kit, a pair of diamond earrings and a desktop PC, I returned each item to a different retail location from which each was purchased. As you may have read, I was quite astounded on the lack of customer process that ensures a retail store doesn't take a hit on customer returns and associated fraud. In other words, I could have returned an emptied out desktop PC box and a pair of fake diamond earrings (as in, cubic zirconium) instead of the real deals -- and have gotten away with it.

So, this week, I will turn my attention to Wal-Mart's largest competitor -- Target. To keep an even playing field, I was interested in purchasing the same types of items at Target as I had bought (and returned) at Wal-Mart. That is, a first aid kit, a pair of earrings (preferably diamond), and a higher-priced electronics item. As the three Target stores I visited did not carry a desktop PC at all, that large-ticket item was changed to a digital camera.

On with the experiment

I applied the same variables as in last week's Wal-Mart experiment: all three items intended for eventual return were purchased and returned at different Target locations. Basically, I wanted to see what kind of customer process variability existed between Target locations when returning products of various prices.

Experimental item #1: I purchased a $12.99 first aid kit from a local Target location and returned it to another location four days after purchase. Just like in the Wal-Mart purchase, the factory shrink wrap was removed and this time I went the additional step of breaking a factory seal and actually opening the package. Although there were over 200 items in the package, someone wanting to inflict fraud or even some sort of contamination could have easily performed it within some of the items within the kit. Why? Well read on later in the column for the answer.

Experimental item #2: Just like in the Wal-Mart experiment, I also purchased a set of diamond earrings from a local Target location and then later returned them to a different Target location. As in the Wal-Mart experiment of the same nature, I chose fairly expensive earrings. That is, for a discount retailer. To the untrained eye, smaller diamonds in earrings can look similar to cheaper cubic zirconium stone. Could someone of devious nature switch $119 diamond earrings for $15 cubic zirconium earrings and then return the $15 item for a $119 refund? Read on.

Experimental item #3: This one was tricky, There are several digital cameras that look very similar, so I chose to buy a $289 Canon model and see what kind of checking procedures would be performed when it was returned a few days later. In many cases, unscrupulous fraudsters will substitute one cheaper thing for a more expensive thing, return the cheaper thing in the more expensive thing box and make out like a bandit. Even returning a $99 digital camera in the box of a $289 digital camera (when the units look very similar) can be a problem that many retailers apparently overlook.

The final results

After returning the first aid kit to a different Target location from which it was purchased, the first difference made upon entering the store was that there was no "greeter" to stamp my return and direct me to customer service. In fact, I had to enter the store and locate customer service on my own in order to start the product return process. An enterprising individual could possibly take a receipt from a previously purchased item into the store, grab a new, identical item from the shelf, and then proceed to the customer service desk for a fraudulent return. Once I returned the first aid kit, no examination was performed at all besides turning the package over to scan the bar code. Within 90 seconds, I had my refund and was on my way.

On to the next stop -- the second Target location I pulled up to was the same way upon entering the store. No Target employee was stationed at the entrance in order to direct me to the customer service desk, although I did notice an appropriately-dresses security guard mingling with the customer service desk employees (more than roaming the store looking for shoplifters, I suppose). I was able to present those $119 diamond earrings for a refund, but the associate did examine them carefully to ensure nothing was afoot or missing from the return. In fact, this Target associate called a manager to examine them as well. This is the minimum I would expect, and it was performed nicely here. I was issued a full refund once the earrings was declared in brand new condition.

When I arrived to the third and final Target location, I was actually greeted (or ran into) another security officer-dressed individual who directed me to the customer service desk with my digital camera refund. The associate who helped me did in fact take the camera out of the box to examine it, but did not remove the actual camera from the foam pocket it was contained in. Therein lies a problem -- a cheaper digital camera could have been placed in the box and returned and nobody would have discovered it until it was too late. Or, until the next customer bought the "returned" camera. I was able to leave the customer service desk with a full refund and with a small exam of the box I returned.

All in all, the only successful return I consider here was the earring transaction. The associate there examined my return carefully and followed that up with a second air of eyes on the return. Any funny business would have been caught. In the other two cases, very little to no examination was performed on the returns, and full refunds were processed. In no case was any Target employee available to qualify my returned items from having come from outside the store, although one security officer did direct me to the customer service desk when I entered the location. Still, no kind of return identification was placed on the return product.

It looks like Target is slightly ahead of Wal-Mart here in terms of qualifying returns when presented at the customer service desk, but not by much. It's amazing to see that very little training or process standardization is being followed by customer service associates of the two largest discount retailers in the U.S. when it comes to preventing return fraud -- but there you have it.

Join me here at BloggingStocks at this same time next week for another edition of The Wal-Mart Weekly. Until then, have a great weekend.