4 ms·

Counterfeiting isn't even the worst thing on Amazon. Low-tech, low-skill, low-capital entrepreneur forums like /r/flipping have recurring posts about people du

Counterfeiting isn't even the worst thing on Amazon. Low-tech, low-skill, low-capital entrepreneur forums like /r/flipping have recurring posts about people dumpster diving outside retailers, some of which have yet to lock their garbage cans. They look for discarded consumer goods, primarily cosmetics, toiletries, and electronics, but sometimes even packaged food. The posters go on to brag about their profits selling this stuff on Amazon or eBay. Their rationale is that these items are perfectly good and were discarded due to slow sales or being discontinued. That's objectively false: most was discarded because it is either expired or defective. The "good" stuff is sold to Marshall's, Ross, NewEgg, or the rest of the multi-billion dollar "off-price" ecosystem. But people don't want to hear that and any attempt to caution them is downvoted to oblivion. To be fair, Amazon has taken steps to ameliorate this. Certain categories are now restricted to large volume sellers, which weeds out the dumpster divers. ...until they find a different category or a different website, or a way to lie or cheat their way back into the old one. If all else fails, they go on /r/DIY and learn how to make children's furniture out of poison soaked pallets they can steal from their local hardware store.

ramblenode 9y ago
> Their rationale is that these items are perfectly good and were discarded due to slow sales or being discontinued. That's objectively false: most was discarded because it is either expired or defective. What does party A's rationale for discarding something have to do with party B's utility of the thing? It's possible a merchant may not want to stock an item that someone else wants, perhaps because the merchant can't sell it at a profit or they want to protect their brand. Something about trash and treasure. For food at least, the expiration date is usually the manufacturer's "best by" date, meaning when they no longer back the product with their brand, not whether the food is still good to consume. This, among other practices, leads to a mind blowing amount of retailer food waste in the US. I'm all for scavengers being able to profit from what would otherwise be wasted as long as they're honest.
- fludlight 9y ago
  There are four parties here, not two. A is the company whose products the dumpster diver B took. C is the marketplace where B lied and said the goods were as advertised by A. The aggrieved party is D, the end consumer, who thought they were buying the quality advertised by A or implied by relevant laws and regulations. IMHO, most of the blame lies with B, but experience has shown that C will almost always turn a blind eye in the name of growth. > For food at least, the expiration date is usually the manufacturer's "best by" date, meaning when they no longer back the product with their brand, not whether the food is still good to consume. This, among other practices, leads to a mind blowing amount of retailer food waste in the US. I'm all for scavengers being able to profit from what would otherwise be wasted as long as they're honest. There are legitimate ways to reduce food waste, but this is not one of them. The main problem is that dumpster divers don't advertise their wares as "scavenged from a dumpster" or "expired" or "recalled" because that would result in lower profits.

ramblenode 9y ago

> Their rationale is that these items are perfectly good and were discarded due to slow sales or being discontinued. That's objectively false: most was discarded because it is either expired or defective. What does party A's rationale for discarding something have to do with party B's utility of the thing? It's possible a merchant may not want to stock an item that someone else wants, perhaps because the merchant can't sell it at a profit or they want to protect their brand. Something about trash and treasure. For food at least, the expiration date is usually the manufacturer's "best by" date, meaning when they no longer back the product with their brand, not whether the food is still good to consume. This, among other practices, leads to a mind blowing amount of retailer food waste in the US. I'm all for scavengers being able to profit from what would otherwise be wasted as long as they're honest.

fludlight 9y ago
There are four parties here, not two. A is the company whose products the dumpster diver B took. C is the marketplace where B lied and said the goods were as advertised by A. The aggrieved party is D, the end consumer, who thought they were buying the quality advertised by A or implied by relevant laws and regulations. IMHO, most of the blame lies with B, but experience has shown that C will almost always turn a blind eye in the name of growth. > For food at least, the expiration date is usually the manufacturer's "best by" date, meaning when they no longer back the product with their brand, not whether the food is still good to consume. This, among other practices, leads to a mind blowing amount of retailer food waste in the US. I'm all for scavengers being able to profit from what would otherwise be wasted as long as they're honest. There are legitimate ways to reduce food waste, but this is not one of them. The main problem is that dumpster divers don't advertise their wares as "scavenged from a dumpster" or "expired" or "recalled" because that would result in lower profits.