OK, if that never happens, then it doesn’t happen and the requirement doesn’t reduce competition from comparison shopping between Amazon and direct sales (assuming that the retailer won’t cut their own throat by selling for less on Amazon than direct). That means that the only place the requirement has teeth is by preventing sellers from gouging Amazon customers compared to direct purchasers. I completely understand why sellers don’t like this, but it’s hard to see how it’s harming consumers. As a loyal Amazon shopper, I’m delighted to hear that I’m not being a sucker by just clicking on the buy button rather than looking to see if the manufacturer is selling the same thing direct for free.
Talking abstractly about the BUY BOX and funnels and conversion rates is fine, but what it really means is that consumers correctly understand that if Amazon shows you a Buy Now button on a listing, you can pretty confidently just click the button if you like the product and the price, but if you have to screw around with marketplace listings, you need to actually read about shipping charges and seller reputation and expected delivery dates and all that. It signifies Amazon putting their reputation behind the deal that’s being offered. That’s pro-competitive. It makes it easier for small companies (who have no reputation and could be complete frauds) to make sales because it makes the whole trust and skepticism hurdle disappear. But it can’t work if Amazon is putting the Buy Now button on a bad deal.
The fricked part is I don’t think it’s most valuable commodity is it’s delivery service. It’s the data that they glean from their workers as lab rats for AI technology.
I highly suspect they are doing business with the military.
They do a lottttt of business with the military and are still mad and contesting Microsoft getting the $10b JEDI contract. From what I remember most of their government contracts are with their AWS division
OK, now I know what you’re talking about. The only time I see that is when an item is only available used. If it’s common in other situations they aren’t ones I come across very often.
I don’t think they are. As I’ve said before, Amazon isn’t uniquely evil, they’re just uniquely large. And by being uniquely large they get scapegoated for all the problems of consumerism, like blaming a drug dealer for the existence of addicts. Walmart used to fill that role (but never Target, despite being a nearly identical company). Now, amusingly, people are lamenting that poor Walmart can’t compete with Amazon in online retailing. Just like I got angry when the local mall eventually drove the downtown department store out of business, because I was too young to remember when department stores drove all the specialty retailers out of business.
That’s essentially what I said. It’s certainly what I meant. I don’t think they do anything differently than any other company would in their position. I don’t think any company should be in their position.
I unscientifically looked at the last 15 or 20 things I’ve purchased on Amazon. There was exactly one item where there was a better price than the promoted one. It was a one-cent price improvement on a $50 item, the seller had a 77% positive review rating, and shipping was 10 days slower. There were 2 where another seller had a significantly better headline price, but it was worse after shipping.
And the stuff about coupons and add-to-cart and mention-this-ad-to-get-a-discount is exactly what I don’t want. I don’t want to have to create a new account with a new manufacturer every time I want to buy something, and maybe get hosed with huge unexpected shipping charges that materialize at checkout and not now how long delivery is going to take and have a hard time finding the invoice six months from now.
I think part of the confusion here is that you’re thinking of this as competition, when it’s actually just price discrimination. As someone who doesn’t have the time or patience to mess around with a bunch of tricks, I affirmatively don’t want to get the sucker’s price when I just buy something on Amazon. I like that Amazon is only recommending me sellers who have contractually agreed not to offer a lower price elsewhere. That’s part of the product!
A lot of people don’t know that when you return an item it often ends up in the landfill. It makes buying online that much tougher because my wife almost 100% refuses to return things, heh.
vertical integration is as natural as growth and monopolies. of course if you shop around for all three things you would get a better price at the cost of your own time and effort. so regulatory aspects probably need to happen similar to what they do in mining, oil drilling, and marijuana industries. it’s just not clear where the line is between “healthy” value-add and anti-competitive rent seekers.
My sister got 2 free mattresses in the last 5 years because she bought one that you could return within 30 days if you don’t like it and she wanted to return it but they said they don’t actually take returns so just donate it somewhere lmaoo
This ended up as an easy way to get a couple brand new avocado mattresses (I think that’s what they were) to people that needed them
the bump is consumerism, but not somehow promoted disproportionately by amazon vs say shopping malls.
amazon streamlined returns such that it costs them virtually nothing, via whole foods stores, and special integration with ups/fedex/usps. like they can pick them up in bulk from the shipping co and transfer to distribution centers.
I think it goes in the same category as wholesale club memberships and annual fee credit cards. It’s worth it if you pay attention to the details and take advantage of the benefits.
The bump in what is consumerism? Returns? But if returns are bumped because of Amazon’s streamline that you’re talking about, then Amazon is disproportionately responsible for returns. And ease of returns promoting consumerism is part of JT’s point, and it seems reasonable.
i do agree with you, but i mean it’s not some invented c-suite or lobbyist evil. it just happens like spread of animal species to other territory or pandemics. i agree, it does need to be regulated, but probably not by denying companies from trying to integrate.
the fact that amazon, and walmart before them, and us steel or standard oil before them, decided to start to also start making a product and drink companyX’s milkshake is in fact rooted in “normal” market motives and incentives. we should not stop companies from vertical integration at all. we probably should regulate them when there’s only a handful of players controlling overwhelming market share.
controlling the UX for too many returns is how amazon tries to make sure products and retail website aren’t dogshit. (disclosure: i used to work in a related org at amzn). it’s really not disproportionate at all compared to say b&m department stores, hardware stores, or even online clothing (gap, rei, etc).
I know I’m the crazy anarchist around here, but I essentially never talk about how companies or rich people or governments are some different species of evil. It’s all banality of evil. You have certain conditions (the laws, resources, institutions, infrastructure) and a set of results are going to follow.
There are a lot of ways to change the initial conditions. I think “we probably should regulate them when there’s only a handful of players controlling overwhelming market share” is going to be way on the too little too late side after government is already captured, but the threshold here is undefined and there are many different ways to regulate.
this tablet for one. 