4 ms·

Brick and mortar retailers sell third party products but they don't allow third party sellers (in their brick and mortar stores). To test this, go to Target an

Brick and mortar retailers sell third party products but they don't allow third party sellers (in their brick and mortar stores). To test this, go to Target and ask if you can put some items on the shelf for them to sell for you. If that's an option, it's a marketplace. Everything sold by Target is sold by Target. Amazon is the online version of a flea market in the parking lot of a big box store. I don't know if that is the distinction lawmakers are making, but to me that is the difference.

scarface74 6y ago
What’s the practical difference? Depending on the terms, if an item doesn’t sell, they can send it back to manufacturer/wholesaler. This is/was especially prevalent with media like magazines, CDs, games, books etc.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  That's different, and the actual transaction doesn't occur as you describe. The stores had already paid for the magazines, books, etc. When they returned the physical media to the manufacturer, it was because the manufacturer accepts and destroys them or attempts to resale them to discount retailers. The manufacturer usually rebates the stores for the returns because they want the stores to keep buying from them, but this usually comes in the form of rebates/discounts on new inventory purchases, not as refunds on the returned products.
- jlbnjmn 6y ago
  Conflict of interest.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Thought experiment. If Amazon had to divest the marketplace and not integrate third party sellers with their website and decided to sell the most popular/profitable products in house, would that help the third party sellers? Who would buyers go to? Amazon.com or the hypothetically amazonmarketplace.com?
    - jedberg 6y ago
      The more likely outcome would be a amazon.com remains the marketplace, and they spin out Amazon Basics as a separate company that would then sell on Amazon.com alongside all the other 3rd parties. Amazon.com would no longer have an incentive to feature Amazon Basics as it would be just another seller. At the same time, you might see Amazon Basics in Walmart or Costco.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        And where would the products that Amazon sells as a traditional retailer go? And Alexa and Fire products? Until Amazon Basic gives Amazon virtual “slotting fees” to have the best placements...
- ardy42 6y ago
  > What’s the practical difference? One is the liability is much clearer. At least in some jurisdictions, if the manufacturer can't be located to take responsibility for a defective product, the retailer can be sued instead. IIRC, Amazon weaseled out of some hoverboard product safety lawsuits by claiming it wasn't the actual retailer. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/amazon-beats-state-farm-in-suit-over-hoverboard-battery-fire https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/amazon-beats-state...
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And how does splitting the marketplace up alleviate that problem? That does just the opposite. Now Amazon corporate can shield itself even more.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > And how does splitting the marketplace up alleviate that problem? That does just the opposite. Now Amazon corporate can shield itself even more. In this case, my hope would be that Amazon would shut down the 3rd party marketplace in favor of it's own retail business. Alternatively, it could explicitly wall them off from each other so there's a much clearer distinction and the marketplace could be more easily avoided unless explicitly desired.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Do you really think that’s the outcome any of the people who participate on the marketplace want - not to be integrated with Amazon.com?
        ardy42 6y ago
        > Do you really think that’s the outcome any of the people who participate on the marketplace want - not to be integrated with Amazon.com? I'm sure the integration is desired by many sellers [1], but my sympathies lie with shoppers, and Amazon Marketplace has made my buying experience worse. [1] To give a slanted example: if I'm a seller trying to unload counterfeit or substandard goods, I want a trusted brand like Amazon's to hide behind. Even better if burred distinctions let me piggyback on any goodwill Amazon's first-party sales have created in shoppers.

scarface74 6y ago

What’s the practical difference? Depending on the terms, if an item doesn’t sell, they can send it back to manufacturer/wholesaler. This is/was especially prevalent with media like magazines, CDs, games, books etc.

gamblor956 6y ago
That's different, and the actual transaction doesn't occur as you describe. The stores had already paid for the magazines, books, etc. When they returned the physical media to the manufacturer, it was because the manufacturer accepts and destroys them or attempts to resale them to discount retailers. The manufacturer usually rebates the stores for the returns because they want the stores to keep buying from them, but this usually comes in the form of rebates/discounts on new inventory purchases, not as refunds on the returned products.
jlbnjmn 6y ago
Conflict of interest.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Thought experiment. If Amazon had to divest the marketplace and not integrate third party sellers with their website and decided to sell the most popular/profitable products in house, would that help the third party sellers? Who would buyers go to? Amazon.com or the hypothetically amazonmarketplace.com?
  - jedberg 6y ago
    The more likely outcome would be a amazon.com remains the marketplace, and they spin out Amazon Basics as a separate company that would then sell on Amazon.com alongside all the other 3rd parties. Amazon.com would no longer have an incentive to feature Amazon Basics as it would be just another seller. At the same time, you might see Amazon Basics in Walmart or Costco.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      And where would the products that Amazon sells as a traditional retailer go? And Alexa and Fire products? Until Amazon Basic gives Amazon virtual “slotting fees” to have the best placements...
ardy42 6y ago
> What’s the practical difference? One is the liability is much clearer. At least in some jurisdictions, if the manufacturer can't be located to take responsibility for a defective product, the retailer can be sued instead. IIRC, Amazon weaseled out of some hoverboard product safety lawsuits by claiming it wasn't the actual retailer. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/amazon-beats-state-farm-in-suit-over-hoverboard-battery-fire https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/amazon-beats-state...
- scarface74 6y ago
  And how does splitting the marketplace up alleviate that problem? That does just the opposite. Now Amazon corporate can shield itself even more.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > And how does splitting the marketplace up alleviate that problem? That does just the opposite. Now Amazon corporate can shield itself even more. In this case, my hope would be that Amazon would shut down the 3rd party marketplace in favor of it's own retail business. Alternatively, it could explicitly wall them off from each other so there's a much clearer distinction and the marketplace could be more easily avoided unless explicitly desired.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Do you really think that’s the outcome any of the people who participate on the marketplace want - not to be integrated with Amazon.com?
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > Do you really think that’s the outcome any of the people who participate on the marketplace want - not to be integrated with Amazon.com? I'm sure the integration is desired by many sellers [1], but my sympathies lie with shoppers, and Amazon Marketplace has made my buying experience worse. [1] To give a slanted example: if I'm a seller trying to unload counterfeit or substandard goods, I want a trusted brand like Amazon's to hide behind. Even better if burred distinctions let me piggyback on any goodwill Amazon's first-party sales have created in shoppers.