5 ms·

This honestly seems like a pretty wholesome form of marketing to me. Have customer service reps clearly label themselves as such (All of these guys have "Amazo

by cm2012 8y ago

This honestly seems like a pretty wholesome form of marketing to me. Have customer service reps clearly label themselves as such (All of these guys have "Amazon FC Ambassador" in their name, username, and profile, it's not hidden.) Have reps look for false statements about Amazon. Reps correct false statement with facts. It's literally adding truth and facts to the world in a transparent way.

CobrastanJorji 8y ago
I'm with you. If they were doing the same thing but without the labeling, it'd be much creepier in practice but much harder to notice. This is definitely better.
themoonbus 8y ago
It's good they're transparent, but are you arguing that whatever the reps say is inherently truthful because Amazon is transparent about their role? I don't consider paid statements to be a good indicator of anything except that Amazon is trying out different PR tactics.
- cm2012 8y ago
  I'm saying everything they're saying appears to be factual, and also that they are transparent.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    In the article there is an example of a tweet talking about great working conditions. Which is not factual.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Good thing "great" is subjective.
    - tylerhou 8y ago
      Source?
      - themoonbus 8y ago
        Undercover reporting and a survey of 241 workers: https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/whats-it-really-like-working-for-amazon-a-survey-of-241-warehouse-employees-says-its-toxic-one-called-it-worse-than-prison.html https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/whats-it-really-like-wo... It's not the most comprehensive data, but I would put more stock in this than in paid tweets from employees. If they really wanted to address the issue in a transparent way, why not conduct some independent research and release results to the public? E.g. an anonymous survey of a representative sample of warehouse workers.
        tylerhou 8y ago
        I mean, that's a survey of one warehouse. I'm not sure if there's enough information to conclude that all Amazon warehouses have terrible working conditions.
        themoonbus 8y ago
        That's why I said it's not the most comprehensive. However, there have been multiple investigative reports. Enough to make it a pattern. And again, nearly anything is a better source of truth than tweets by employees paid to tweet positive things, which was my original point.
        tylerhou 8y ago
        Your original point was that the claim that "Amazon working conditions are great" is not factual, i.e. your original point was "Amazon working conditions are not great". I don't see any mention that "paid tweets from employees are not the best source of truth" in your original comment. I agree that we should take paid tweets by employees with a large grain of salt, but I also want to point out that you likewise have essentially 0 evidence that they're not telling the truth, apart from random surveys and a few investigative reports, most of which are about warehouses halfway around the world. I think it's import to remember that, like Amazon, journalists also like to appeal to a certain narrative (how often do they report about the amount of Good Amazon has done for the world?). A pattern of a few (potentially based) data points is hardly a pattern.
  - themoonbus 8y ago
    What gives their statements the appearance of fact? Do you think press releases are factual because you know a PR agency was paid to write them?
    - rev_jones 8y ago
      Not OP, but to answer you myself from the article: Tweet: Hello! Amazon does pay their employees minimum wage - any less would be illegal One thing that often gets overlooked are the employee benefits that Amazon provides for all employees - Health insurance, 401K, career/financial counseling. Amazon pays minimum wage is a factual statement. Minimum wage is not a good wage for the job but its still factual. You either offer them health insurance, 401K, counseling or you dont. I would say that's also a factual statement. Whether or not you agree with it is your decision but actually having transparent facts is refreshing these days.
      - themoonbus 8y ago
        This is how all marketing works, though? You create a message that focuses on certain facts (proof points) that paint you in the best possible light (although, I'm not sure how much credit I should give Amazon for not breaking the law and paying minimum wage...) I'm still not seeing why Amazon should be commended for what they're doing here, it's just form of social media marketing.
        cm2012 8y ago
        This is how all communication works. If they didn't do this, falsehoods would stand uncorrected, which is how online lynch mobs are sustained.
        themoonbus 8y ago
        That is such an over-generalization that I don't know where to begin... no, not all communication is in the mold of paid PR. And, paid PR is not how you correct falsehoods. How about independent research? For example, if Amazon actually was interested in transparency, they could let a 3rd party survey a representative sample of warehouse workers and make public the results. That would be true transparency.
falcolas 8y ago
One bit of transparency sorely missing is that these people are employed full time by Amazon's marketing division - they are not current FC employees. They are only expected to have some FC experience in their background. A lot of folks who have worked for Amazon have FC background; even I could qualify since I helped with some Christmas rush packing back in the mid 00's (I worked at an attached call center).
- txru 8y ago
  I don't think that's the case. I work at Amazon currently, so I can see employee profiles. One of the Twitter accounts with a unique first name is the only person with that first name in the company, and she works at the FC in Florida, as her profile says. Her title is normal for an FC associate as well.
gthtjtkt 8y ago
> It's literally adding truth and facts to the world in a transparent way. It's literally not. How can you call opinions about working conditions "facts"? Even some of the objective information they post is misleading according to the article, specifically the "we pay 30% more" bit.

by cm2012 8y ago

CobrastanJorji 8y ago

I'm with you. If they were doing the same thing but without the labeling, it'd be much creepier in practice but much harder to notice. This is definitely better.

themoonbus 8y ago

It's good they're transparent, but are you arguing that whatever the reps say is inherently truthful because Amazon is transparent about their role? I don't consider paid statements to be a good indicator of anything except that Amazon is trying out different PR tactics.

cm2012 8y ago
I'm saying everything they're saying appears to be factual, and also that they are transparent.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  In the article there is an example of a tweet talking about great working conditions. Which is not factual.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Good thing "great" is subjective.
  - tylerhou 8y ago
    Source?
    - themoonbus 8y ago
      Undercover reporting and a survey of 241 workers: https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/whats-it-really-like-working-for-amazon-a-survey-of-241-warehouse-employees-says-its-toxic-one-called-it-worse-than-prison.html https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/whats-it-really-like-wo... It's not the most comprehensive data, but I would put more stock in this than in paid tweets from employees. If they really wanted to address the issue in a transparent way, why not conduct some independent research and release results to the public? E.g. an anonymous survey of a representative sample of warehouse workers.
      - tylerhou 8y ago
        I mean, that's a survey of one warehouse. I'm not sure if there's enough information to conclude that all Amazon warehouses have terrible working conditions.
        themoonbus 8y ago
        That's why I said it's not the most comprehensive. However, there have been multiple investigative reports. Enough to make it a pattern. And again, nearly anything is a better source of truth than tweets by employees paid to tweet positive things, which was my original point.
        tylerhou 8y ago
        Your original point was that the claim that "Amazon working conditions are great" is not factual, i.e. your original point was "Amazon working conditions are not great". I don't see any mention that "paid tweets from employees are not the best source of truth" in your original comment. I agree that we should take paid tweets by employees with a large grain of salt, but I also want to point out that you likewise have essentially 0 evidence that they're not telling the truth, apart from random surveys and a few investigative reports, most of which are about warehouses halfway around the world. I think it's import to remember that, like Amazon, journalists also like to appeal to a certain narrative (how often do they report about the amount of Good Amazon has done for the world?). A pattern of a few (potentially based) data points is hardly a pattern.
- themoonbus 8y ago
  What gives their statements the appearance of fact? Do you think press releases are factual because you know a PR agency was paid to write them?
  - rev_jones 8y ago
    Not OP, but to answer you myself from the article: Tweet: Hello! Amazon does pay their employees minimum wage - any less would be illegal One thing that often gets overlooked are the employee benefits that Amazon provides for all employees - Health insurance, 401K, career/financial counseling. Amazon pays minimum wage is a factual statement. Minimum wage is not a good wage for the job but its still factual. You either offer them health insurance, 401K, counseling or you dont. I would say that's also a factual statement. Whether or not you agree with it is your decision but actually having transparent facts is refreshing these days.
    - themoonbus 8y ago
      This is how all marketing works, though? You create a message that focuses on certain facts (proof points) that paint you in the best possible light (although, I'm not sure how much credit I should give Amazon for not breaking the law and paying minimum wage...) I'm still not seeing why Amazon should be commended for what they're doing here, it's just form of social media marketing.
      - cm2012 8y ago
        This is how all communication works. If they didn't do this, falsehoods would stand uncorrected, which is how online lynch mobs are sustained.
        themoonbus 8y ago
        That is such an over-generalization that I don't know where to begin... no, not all communication is in the mold of paid PR. And, paid PR is not how you correct falsehoods. How about independent research? For example, if Amazon actually was interested in transparency, they could let a 3rd party survey a representative sample of warehouse workers and make public the results. That would be true transparency.

falcolas 8y ago

One bit of transparency sorely missing is that these people are employed full time by Amazon's marketing division - they are not current FC employees. They are only expected to have some FC experience in their background. A lot of folks who have worked for Amazon have FC background; even I could qualify since I helped with some Christmas rush packing back in the mid 00's (I worked at an attached call center).

txru 8y ago
I don't think that's the case. I work at Amazon currently, so I can see employee profiles. One of the Twitter accounts with a unique first name is the only person with that first name in the company, and she works at the FC in Florida, as her profile says. Her title is normal for an FC associate as well.

gthtjtkt 8y ago

> It's literally adding truth and facts to the world in a transparent way. It's literally not. How can you call opinions about working conditions "facts"? Even some of the objective information they post is misleading according to the article, specifically the "we pay 30% more" bit.