4 ms·
With the right circumstances, I would actually accept such a deal. Those circumstances would have to include clauses such as: 1. reasonably low purchasing quo
by kevindong 7y ago
With the right circumstances, I would actually accept such a deal.
Those circumstances would have to include clauses such as:
1. reasonably low purchasing quotas (i.e. well under a few hundred dollars per month)
2. reasonably substantial rent discounts
3. Amazon maintains its competitive pricing
4. the "subsidized" rent has to be meaningfully cheaper than a comparable "unsubsidized" competitor while maintaining substantially equivalent quality
However balancing #1 and #2 cannot actually be possible in reality in my view.
- chii 7y agoin the short term, amazon may be willing to make a loss to acquire customers. But in the longer term, the rental discount has to at least be balanced by the extra profit from the sales quota. If amazon then turn a dial to increase sales quota (or decrease the discount), they then stand to make significant profit on the captive customer (who may no longer have an option to move away at the same low cost). I think this type of deal is anti-competitive, and should be prohibited under monopoly laws (i.e., using dominance in one market to leverage another market).