4 ms·
> macys wouldn't be given a free pass if it sold counterfeit nikes in their B&M store The equivalent would be holding a shopping mall liable for the fraud and
by hrktb 7y ago
> macys wouldn't be given a free pass if it sold counterfeit nikes in their B&M store
The equivalent would be holding a shopping mall liable for the fraud and lost business one of their tenant caused by sourcing counterfeit goods. I don't see any brick and mortar shopping mall getting more than a tap on the wrist under this premise.
- wool_gather 7y agoNo, shopping mall is not the right analogy. Amazon is much closer to a consignment store in this regard -- doubly so for the "fulfilled by Amazon" stuff. You've walked into Amazon's store; the stuff on the shelves happens to be owned by someone else, but Amazon is displaying it, handling the transaction, providing customer service, and so on. And while a (large enough) consignment store can't police everything, I think for egregious enough problems they can't have their cake and eat it too. This is the same crap that Uber tries: if you want the power to control the (work|sale) experience to such a degree, then you have to take responsibility when it goes wrong.
- novaleaf 7y agoI think it's more akin to multiple suppliers not multiple tenants. 1) There's a single unified storefront 2) Supplier of a product is transparent to the customer shopping experience 3) The checkout, payment, and shipping experience is singular and unified The unified and efficient experience is amazon's strength, and I still make 90% of my purchases there. But yes, they should police and be held accountable for bad suppliers. It is amazon's store they are being sold at.