5 ms·

Re: Amazon, many companies do the same thing (e.g. CVS, Target, Costco). With Costco in particular, Kirkland products are higher quality and cheaper than the co

by Armic 6y ago

Re: Amazon, many companies do the same thing (e.g. CVS, Target, Costco). With Costco in particular, Kirkland products are higher quality and cheaper than the competition in almost all categories they are in, which is a benefit to me as a consumer. Should Kirkland be broken off just because other companies can't compete with it? If not, what's the justification for Amazon?

CamperBob2 6y ago
The victims are the third-party sellers. Store brands are a completely different subject. They are purchased and licensed from the manufacturers. Do you think Costco has a factory making paper towels someplace, next door to their factory making alkaline batteries?
- Armic 6y ago
  So you're saying it's okay for Amazon/Costco to put up Amazon Basics/Kirkland, so long as they're paying someone else to make it for them?
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    I don't see why not, but admittedly I haven't thought it through any further than that. The comparison with store brands doesn't really work because Costco and Sam's and Target don't invite third-party sellers to build their businesses on what amounts to sharecropped shelf space. Procter & Gamble and Berkshire Hathaway can hold their own in any negotiations with Costco and Amazon. For small businesses, the situation is more like the complaints we always hear about Apple's app store, where the company buys or builds their own first-party competitors in categories that prove unexpectedly successful. Dirty pool, but legal enough... at least as long as you (a) don't hold a monopoly on distribution, or aspire to do so; and (b) didn't just get back from Washington, DC where you told Congress that you didn't do this. Both of these factors are problematic with Amazon, IMO. It's true that they don't hold a monopoly on distribution, technically speaking, but where else are third-party sellers supposed to turn?

by Armic 6y ago

CamperBob2 6y ago

The victims are the third-party sellers. Store brands are a completely different subject. They are purchased and licensed from the manufacturers. Do you think Costco has a factory making paper towels someplace, next door to their factory making alkaline batteries?

Armic 6y ago
So you're saying it's okay for Amazon/Costco to put up Amazon Basics/Kirkland, so long as they're paying someone else to make it for them?
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  I don't see why not, but admittedly I haven't thought it through any further than that. The comparison with store brands doesn't really work because Costco and Sam's and Target don't invite third-party sellers to build their businesses on what amounts to sharecropped shelf space. Procter & Gamble and Berkshire Hathaway can hold their own in any negotiations with Costco and Amazon. For small businesses, the situation is more like the complaints we always hear about Apple's app store, where the company buys or builds their own first-party competitors in categories that prove unexpectedly successful. Dirty pool, but legal enough... at least as long as you (a) don't hold a monopoly on distribution, or aspire to do so; and (b) didn't just get back from Washington, DC where you told Congress that you didn't do this. Both of these factors are problematic with Amazon, IMO. It's true that they don't hold a monopoly on distribution, technically speaking, but where else are third-party sellers supposed to turn?