9 ms·

While it is absolutely valid to discuss Amazon's market power and the nature of monopoly in the modern era, the ideas that a featured product would be featured

While it is absolutely valid to discuss Amazon's market power and the nature of monopoly in the modern era, the ideas that a featured product would be featured because it makes the company more money is in no way scandalous! If any retail store has an end-cap product placement of an item that they are featuring, everyone presumes it is because it is a profit maximizer for them. Why is it presumed that Amazon must be a more impartial arbiter of quality versus traditional brick and mortar retail? In part it is because Amazon is a marketplace, but both are middlemen (except for private label products from your grocery store or Walmart/target).

filmgirlcw 7y ago
I would say the difference here is that you can’t see ratings/reviews from other buyers on an end-cap the same way you do online. So the phrase “Amazon’s Choice” suggests that there is a level of editorial oversight that might not exist if the phrase was “featured by Amazon.” Overall, I agree that this isn’t a huge surprise, but I think the fact that Amazon has data on things like returns, ratings, reviews, makes it totally understandable why someone would assume a “choice” product was chosen because of those factors and not because the company paid to be featured.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  "Amazon's Choice" certainly suggests editorial oversight, but only in the way that "Quality Inn" suggests quality. For anything that isn't an objective, measurable fact, companies are allowed to lie.
  - GavinMcG 7y ago
    The difference is that Quality Inn represents itself as "quality". Amazon is advertising other products as being chosen by them. We know not to trust a company's claims about its product, but if you ask an employee about a product you expect an honest answer – not one based on a kickback, for example.
    - wolco 7y ago
      I worked for electronic stores in the 90s. Certain products gave more commission. We sold the products that paid more. I sold phones at some point.. Depending on the brand I might get an extra 5 dollars. Those are the phones that were sold more. An employee isn't going to give you an objective honest answer or they would tell you walmart has it for cheaper.
    - morroc 7y ago
      Store employees might also have been incentivized to suggest a specific product based on kickbacks the store receives. There is a precedent there. You shouldn't expect unenforceable honesty from anyone.
    - Benjammer 7y ago
      I'm sorry, but that's BS. What brick and mortar store doesn't promote third party products in the exact same fashion? Case in point, literally a brick and mortar store with "<store name>'s Choice" as the slogan, to market a brand created by a third party company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Choice
      - onion2k 7y ago
        By the sounds of it "Sam's Choice" is similarly deceptive. That doesn't let Amazon off the hook here though.
        barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        I don't see how Sam's Choice is deceptive. Private label product programs are created by retail organizations, often at the behest of the founders/top management (usually the same in family run retail organizations). This is how I imagine it went down: -Sam Walton said "We should have a private label soda program. Loblaw in Canada has President's Choice." -Category manager of Soda floats this to potential suppliers. -Cott Beverage says "Hey, we'll do it. How 'bout we call it 'Sam's Choice'?" -Category manager of Soda says "Great! I'll tell Sam." (or more likely, the VP of Grocery/Merchandising) -Sam Walton says "Great Job! Sam's Choice, nice touch. That's my name!"
  - 27182818284 7y ago
    hahaha, oh wow. I have been completely incorrect on my interpretation of Amazon's Choice. Historically when I searched for something, I've often find a product in the results with 80-90% of the features I'm looking for. That result was often listed as Amazon's Choice, so I built it up in my mind to mean "users of Amazon mostly get this one" I was fine with that because, like I said, it usually wouldn't fit the criteria exactly, but it was 80-90% of the way there so it made sense to me that it would be the choice of most people, but not all.
    - nightfly 7y ago
      That's what the Amazon's choice feature is supposed to do. Instead of having their customers paralyzed by the many options they choose /something/.
  - markdown 7y ago
    > companies are allowed to lie And this is just accepted. Ridiculous.
    - ajross 7y ago
      Again, though, the practice is pervasive. Are the "best value!" items you see at the ends of grocery aisles really the best value? How often are things "on sale" from prices for which they were never offered? I mean, I guess it's OK to be outraged about this. But doing it specifically about Amazon seems maybe a little unobjective.
      - rapind 7y ago
        I find marketing in general outrageous. I'm not surprised by or find Amazon particularly egregious in their marketing. This is apparently the system we want, at least until no one wants it anymore. I will almost subconsciously assign a negative mark to companies who aggressively market, and a positive mark to those I deem authentic (spoiler, very few). I'm at the point now that I'm saving a ton of money because I'm simply turned off by the hard sell. It's like when you immediately close a tab on an article you were about to read because 4 different "Join our newsletter" modals slid in. I'm guessing I'm not the only one (but maybe one of few?). Is it possible that marketing practices have gotten so out of hand that they are very gradually nudging consumers away from what they're selling? Anyone know if marketers talk about this sort of backlash at w/e conventions they have, or is it just push push push. The data must identify at least a hint of a negative trend right? How long until there are "authenticity consultants"?
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        You're not the only one. I too am the less likely to buy something from someone the more they seem to be pushing it.
      - pilsetnieks 7y ago
        > How often are things "on sale" from prices for which they were never offered? At least in the EU that's blatantly illegal.
  - rexpop 7y ago
    > companies are allowed to lie. And that's in no way scandalous?
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > isn't an objective, measurable fact, companies are allowed to lie. Pedantically, it isn't a lie if it isn't objective and measurable. It's an opinion, and opinions are not lies. As for "Amazon's Choice", it's literally true. Amazon chose it. They make no representation as to why they chose it.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Even more pedantically, lying is all about intent to deceive. A correct statement is still a lie if you think it’s wrong. The key question here is: does Amazon intend to deceive? It’s probably impossible to know but the odds are decently good.
  - bambax 7y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "allowed". Is it legal? Yes. Will customers retaliate when they find out -- or at least, learn to ignore that lie as just another marketing tactic with no value? More than likely.
  - paulific 7y ago
    Yes, I remember my local supermarket had 'recommended' products that were marked like they were specials, but were not actually discounted at all. I appreciated the business logic, but basically stopped shopping there.
  - mattrp 7y ago
    The more comparable products are Sam’s “President’s Choice” and Costco’s Kirkland. Both of which have long developed brand promises that represent at least above average quality and some level of curation. Choice is a specific word chosen by Amazon to give the impression its products have similarly been curated. It’s deliberate subterfuge.
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    I agree with other users. I took it as an official designation that Amazon had vetted the product and/or vendor for consistency, and that returns/reviews/volume of purchase were all factors in a genuine recommendation for the product. I'm a tech savvy 30-something cynic, too. Think about how it would fool others. If the name of the product or brand line was "Amazon's Choice" then I would consider it branding. But when used as a designation, I expect more.
completelylegit 7y ago
The vast majority of people don’t think about or understand advertising and marketing - if they did it wouldn’t work as well as it does. Amazon has tons of little “ha ha tricked you” ways of making more money these days. Next time you but an N-pack of anything on Amazon - more often than not the pack costs more per unit.. thats not how economy of scale is supposed to work right?
- steve19 7y ago
  I have noticed this in supermarkets as well. Either it is to trick the consumers but could equally be consumers would rather buy 6 cans of X in a pack than go to the effort of taking 6 cans individually off the shelf.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    The easy proof of this is in the cracker section: "family size" is always priced more per unit than smaller sizes.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      I don't know where you all shop but I check unit prices all the time and rarely see an inversion.
      - stickfigure 7y ago
        Agreed. It does happen, but it's an exception not the rule. I spent my first 7 years out of college building business intelligence software for grocery retailers. My guess is that when it happens, it's a f-up rather than something nefarious. Especially with Amazon, whose seller interface is pretty much user-hostile.
      - pixl97 7y ago
        I would say it happens commonly enough that one must constantly keep one's eye out. For example at my local H.E.B. I see this all the time. 64oz Store brand half and half: $3.50 (avg range $3.25-3.68) 32oz Store brand half and half: $1.50 (avg range $1.25-1.68) Um, wat?
wpietri 7y ago
> everyone presumes [citation needed] Having spent time inside a number of industries, I think there's a huge difference between insider knowledge and general-public knowledge. I'd guess that the average shopper would think something ends up more visible because it's something shoppers buy more frequently. Also, the notion that X is terrible does not justify Y being also terrible. Do people object more to new or newly-revealed terribleness? Yes. Is that a reason not to take their objections seriously? Not at all.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
If a mommy blogger who makes $0/month from her 'business' gets a free product to promote a product on a youtube video watched by 100 people, they have to disclose this. Even reviewers on amazon. Yet Amazon charges for the 'Choice' wording without disclosing the financial side. And they are making way more, and therefore can be way more biased, than the mommy blogger who gets fined a few grand for not disclosing her endorsements. More than just the monopoly situation, the extreme disparity in enforcement of rules, and the amount of fines as a percentage of yearly income, is quite galling.
- kadoban 7y ago
  Bloggers "have to" disclose free products they get? Who enforces that? I've been under the impression that the ethical ones do, the rest don't.
  - Rychard 7y ago
    > Bloggers "have to" disclose free products they get? Who enforces that? In the US, it falls under the FTC.[1][2] [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#disclose https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc... [2]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e37d3cd088c6b4724a389338f9c3e141&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfr255_main_02.tpl https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e37d3cd088c6b4724a...
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      And Amazon does not have to: > Does the FTC hold bloggers to a higher standard than reviewers for traditional media outlets? > No. The FTC Act applies across the board. The issue is – and always has been – whether the audience understands the reviewer’s relationship to the company whose products are being recommended. > If the audience understands the relationship, a disclosure isn’t needed Surely the audience understands Amazon's relationship with... Amazon.
      - 7y ago
hrktb 7y ago
> the ideas that a featured product would be featured because it makes the company more money is in no way scandalous! This is completely true for most retailers. In particular for in person sales where people can straight assume they are getting bullshitted to close the sale. The disconnect comes from amazon’s relentless push for customer satisfaction, clear labeling of the promoted and sponsored entries, separation between popular choices and well rated products etc. That’s a corner of shadiness where we don’t expect it, which ends in a shock.
alexandercrohde 7y ago
Well, the fact that this has so many upvotes, sort of contradicts you. Some portion of people (maybe 15 or 20)% had brand-trust in amazon that their "choice" products were a service to the purchaser. With that disproven, those same people (presumably the ones who were most trusting of Amazon) now have been bitten and are forced to reevaluate Amazon's honesty and Amazon's reputability. I imagine those upvoting this topic are the very 10-15% who find this behavior shocking and potentially self-destructive of amazon.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize this is a dark-pattern. Amazon must realize that the "Amazon's choice" label ONLY increases sales if consumers misunderstand what that seal really means in that context. A consumer has every right to feel outrage over intentional unethical behavior from a company. Similar deceit by other companies doesn't excuse this, nor does it mean the shopper's repulsion is invalid.
rdsubhas 7y ago
It's clear that a promoted item can be paid for. What looks unethical / abuse of monopoly-ish here is - you (business) something else completely unrelated, like ads or whatever, and in exchange they get an unrelated "Amazon's choice" tag. It feels similar to a kickback/bribe.

filmgirlcw 7y ago

I would say the difference here is that you can’t see ratings/reviews from other buyers on an end-cap the same way you do online. So the phrase “Amazon’s Choice” suggests that there is a level of editorial oversight that might not exist if the phrase was “featured by Amazon.” Overall, I agree that this isn’t a huge surprise, but I think the fact that Amazon has data on things like returns, ratings, reviews, makes it totally understandable why someone would assume a “choice” product was chosen because of those factors and not because the company paid to be featured.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
"Amazon's Choice" certainly suggests editorial oversight, but only in the way that "Quality Inn" suggests quality. For anything that isn't an objective, measurable fact, companies are allowed to lie.
- GavinMcG 7y ago
  The difference is that Quality Inn represents itself as "quality". Amazon is advertising other products as being chosen by them. We know not to trust a company's claims about its product, but if you ask an employee about a product you expect an honest answer – not one based on a kickback, for example.
  - wolco 7y ago
    I worked for electronic stores in the 90s. Certain products gave more commission. We sold the products that paid more. I sold phones at some point.. Depending on the brand I might get an extra 5 dollars. Those are the phones that were sold more. An employee isn't going to give you an objective honest answer or they would tell you walmart has it for cheaper.
  - morroc 7y ago
    Store employees might also have been incentivized to suggest a specific product based on kickbacks the store receives. There is a precedent there. You shouldn't expect unenforceable honesty from anyone.
  - Benjammer 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's BS. What brick and mortar store doesn't promote third party products in the exact same fashion? Case in point, literally a brick and mortar store with "<store name>'s Choice" as the slogan, to market a brand created by a third party company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Choice
    - onion2k 7y ago
      By the sounds of it "Sam's Choice" is similarly deceptive. That doesn't let Amazon off the hook here though.
      - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        I don't see how Sam's Choice is deceptive. Private label product programs are created by retail organizations, often at the behest of the founders/top management (usually the same in family run retail organizations). This is how I imagine it went down: -Sam Walton said "We should have a private label soda program. Loblaw in Canada has President's Choice." -Category manager of Soda floats this to potential suppliers. -Cott Beverage says "Hey, we'll do it. How 'bout we call it 'Sam's Choice'?" -Category manager of Soda says "Great! I'll tell Sam." (or more likely, the VP of Grocery/Merchandising) -Sam Walton says "Great Job! Sam's Choice, nice touch. That's my name!"
- 27182818284 7y ago
  hahaha, oh wow. I have been completely incorrect on my interpretation of Amazon's Choice. Historically when I searched for something, I've often find a product in the results with 80-90% of the features I'm looking for. That result was often listed as Amazon's Choice, so I built it up in my mind to mean "users of Amazon mostly get this one" I was fine with that because, like I said, it usually wouldn't fit the criteria exactly, but it was 80-90% of the way there so it made sense to me that it would be the choice of most people, but not all.
  - nightfly 7y ago
    That's what the Amazon's choice feature is supposed to do. Instead of having their customers paralyzed by the many options they choose /something/.
- markdown 7y ago
  > companies are allowed to lie And this is just accepted. Ridiculous.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Again, though, the practice is pervasive. Are the "best value!" items you see at the ends of grocery aisles really the best value? How often are things "on sale" from prices for which they were never offered? I mean, I guess it's OK to be outraged about this. But doing it specifically about Amazon seems maybe a little unobjective.
    - rapind 7y ago
      I find marketing in general outrageous. I'm not surprised by or find Amazon particularly egregious in their marketing. This is apparently the system we want, at least until no one wants it anymore. I will almost subconsciously assign a negative mark to companies who aggressively market, and a positive mark to those I deem authentic (spoiler, very few). I'm at the point now that I'm saving a ton of money because I'm simply turned off by the hard sell. It's like when you immediately close a tab on an article you were about to read because 4 different "Join our newsletter" modals slid in. I'm guessing I'm not the only one (but maybe one of few?). Is it possible that marketing practices have gotten so out of hand that they are very gradually nudging consumers away from what they're selling? Anyone know if marketers talk about this sort of backlash at w/e conventions they have, or is it just push push push. The data must identify at least a hint of a negative trend right? How long until there are "authenticity consultants"?
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        You're not the only one. I too am the less likely to buy something from someone the more they seem to be pushing it.
    - pilsetnieks 7y ago
      > How often are things "on sale" from prices for which they were never offered? At least in the EU that's blatantly illegal.
- rexpop 7y ago
  > companies are allowed to lie. And that's in no way scandalous?
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > isn't an objective, measurable fact, companies are allowed to lie. Pedantically, it isn't a lie if it isn't objective and measurable. It's an opinion, and opinions are not lies. As for "Amazon's Choice", it's literally true. Amazon chose it. They make no representation as to why they chose it.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Even more pedantically, lying is all about intent to deceive. A correct statement is still a lie if you think it’s wrong. The key question here is: does Amazon intend to deceive? It’s probably impossible to know but the odds are decently good.
- bambax 7y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "allowed". Is it legal? Yes. Will customers retaliate when they find out -- or at least, learn to ignore that lie as just another marketing tactic with no value? More than likely.
- paulific 7y ago
  Yes, I remember my local supermarket had 'recommended' products that were marked like they were specials, but were not actually discounted at all. I appreciated the business logic, but basically stopped shopping there.
- mattrp 7y ago
  The more comparable products are Sam’s “President’s Choice” and Costco’s Kirkland. Both of which have long developed brand promises that represent at least above average quality and some level of curation. Choice is a specific word chosen by Amazon to give the impression its products have similarly been curated. It’s deliberate subterfuge.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  I agree with other users. I took it as an official designation that Amazon had vetted the product and/or vendor for consistency, and that returns/reviews/volume of purchase were all factors in a genuine recommendation for the product. I'm a tech savvy 30-something cynic, too. Think about how it would fool others. If the name of the product or brand line was "Amazon's Choice" then I would consider it branding. But when used as a designation, I expect more.

completelylegit 7y ago

The vast majority of people don’t think about or understand advertising and marketing - if they did it wouldn’t work as well as it does. Amazon has tons of little “ha ha tricked you” ways of making more money these days. Next time you but an N-pack of anything on Amazon - more often than not the pack costs more per unit.. thats not how economy of scale is supposed to work right?

steve19 7y ago
I have noticed this in supermarkets as well. Either it is to trick the consumers but could equally be consumers would rather buy 6 cans of X in a pack than go to the effort of taking 6 cans individually off the shelf.
- rhizome 7y ago
  The easy proof of this is in the cracker section: "family size" is always priced more per unit than smaller sizes.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    I don't know where you all shop but I check unit prices all the time and rarely see an inversion.
    - stickfigure 7y ago
      Agreed. It does happen, but it's an exception not the rule. I spent my first 7 years out of college building business intelligence software for grocery retailers. My guess is that when it happens, it's a f-up rather than something nefarious. Especially with Amazon, whose seller interface is pretty much user-hostile.
    - pixl97 7y ago
      I would say it happens commonly enough that one must constantly keep one's eye out. For example at my local H.E.B. I see this all the time. 64oz Store brand half and half: $3.50 (avg range $3.25-3.68) 32oz Store brand half and half: $1.50 (avg range $1.25-1.68) Um, wat?

wpietri 7y ago

> everyone presumes [citation needed] Having spent time inside a number of industries, I think there's a huge difference between insider knowledge and general-public knowledge. I'd guess that the average shopper would think something ends up more visible because it's something shoppers buy more frequently. Also, the notion that X is terrible does not justify Y being also terrible. Do people object more to new or newly-revealed terribleness? Yes. Is that a reason not to take their objections seriously? Not at all.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

If a mommy blogger who makes $0/month from her 'business' gets a free product to promote a product on a youtube video watched by 100 people, they have to disclose this. Even reviewers on amazon. Yet Amazon charges for the 'Choice' wording without disclosing the financial side. And they are making way more, and therefore can be way more biased, than the mommy blogger who gets fined a few grand for not disclosing her endorsements. More than just the monopoly situation, the extreme disparity in enforcement of rules, and the amount of fines as a percentage of yearly income, is quite galling.

kadoban 7y ago
Bloggers "have to" disclose free products they get? Who enforces that? I've been under the impression that the ethical ones do, the rest don't.
- Rychard 7y ago
  > Bloggers "have to" disclose free products they get? Who enforces that? In the US, it falls under the FTC.[1][2] [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#disclose https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc... [2]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e37d3cd088c6b4724a389338f9c3e141&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfr255_main_02.tpl https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e37d3cd088c6b4724a...
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    And Amazon does not have to: > Does the FTC hold bloggers to a higher standard than reviewers for traditional media outlets? > No. The FTC Act applies across the board. The issue is – and always has been – whether the audience understands the reviewer’s relationship to the company whose products are being recommended. > If the audience understands the relationship, a disclosure isn’t needed Surely the audience understands Amazon's relationship with... Amazon.
    - 7y ago

hrktb 7y ago

> the ideas that a featured product would be featured because it makes the company more money is in no way scandalous! This is completely true for most retailers. In particular for in person sales where people can straight assume they are getting bullshitted to close the sale. The disconnect comes from amazon’s relentless push for customer satisfaction, clear labeling of the promoted and sponsored entries, separation between popular choices and well rated products etc. That’s a corner of shadiness where we don’t expect it, which ends in a shock.

alexandercrohde 7y ago

Well, the fact that this has so many upvotes, sort of contradicts you. Some portion of people (maybe 15 or 20)% had brand-trust in amazon that their "choice" products were a service to the purchaser. With that disproven, those same people (presumably the ones who were most trusting of Amazon) now have been bitten and are forced to reevaluate Amazon's honesty and Amazon's reputability. I imagine those upvoting this topic are the very 10-15% who find this behavior shocking and potentially self-destructive of amazon.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize this is a dark-pattern. Amazon must realize that the "Amazon's choice" label ONLY increases sales if consumers misunderstand what that seal really means in that context. A consumer has every right to feel outrage over intentional unethical behavior from a company. Similar deceit by other companies doesn't excuse this, nor does it mean the shopper's repulsion is invalid.

rdsubhas 7y ago

It's clear that a promoted item can be paid for. What looks unethical / abuse of monopoly-ish here is - you (business) something else completely unrelated, like ads or whatever, and in exchange they get an unrelated "Amazon's choice" tag. It feels similar to a kickback/bribe.