5 ms·

Let's take a moment to look at how disingenuous this article is: * Out of twelve returned trackers, one of them went to landfill. The article focuses on that i

• eigenvector 6y ago
  I completely agree that their methodology is not robust. But Amazon also refused to state what fraction of items go to landfill, despite making subjective claims that it's "on occasion" and the "vast majority" are liquidated or resold. If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up and would only benefit them to say so. If we want to know the actual number of items that go to landfill, we don't need to send GPS trackers everywhere, we can just mandate Amazon (and all other companies) to report on that. It's not like they don't have the data.
  • inopinatus 6y ago
    That is a very reasonable public policy idea. Let's add to that list of failures: the article has no discussion of reasonable policy ideas (despite quoting researchers whose life's work is in producing them). NB: don't assume that there's no downside to any given retailer unilaterally disclosing their return rates, because returns are a measurable factor in marginal cost & revenue assessment and partially describe both the elasticity of demand and overall customer sentiment. Every retailer of scale would be interested in obtaining the return statistics (especially segmented) of their competitors; and, as the tone of the article illustrates, there are any number of hacks poised to scribble out mendacious venom on the basis of such data, so no corporate PR lackey worth their communications degree will willingly start that conversation.
  • Spooky23 6y ago
    In fairness, they outsource and sell returns by the pound. It’s a big business - they have no idea what happens to it.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    > If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up Absolutely. > and would only benefit them to say so. Not nearly as obvious. It might have some PR benefits (this week, until later when public opinion shifts), but it also provides information about their business that they may prefer to not share (off the top of my head, it probably leaks something about defect rates and their quality controls).
    • rbecker 6y ago
      > but it also provides information about their business that they may prefer to not share On the other hand, it's probably not a good idea to be kept in the dark regarding how major sectors of the economy function, with only the word of corporate PR departments to go on that everything is fine.
    • WalterBright 6y ago
      People may use this knowledge to defraud Amazon. For example, if it is clear that Amazon doesn't actually check the returns but sends them to the landfill, then an unscrupulous buyer may return a brick and keep the product for free. People are very clever in figuring out ways to defraud companies, so if I was Amazon I'd be skeptical about giving out information about internal processes without a very good reason to.
  • kelnos 6y ago
    > If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up and would only benefit them to say so. I expect Amazon likely outsources a lot of returns handling, so they may not have that data.
    • hef19898 6y ago
      They do, even if it was outsourced. Which it isn't, at least in Europe last time I talked tpo people. Liquidators, companies buying returns graded as unsellable, are used a lot so. Whatever they do with the stuff buy wholesale from Aamzon, and others, isn#t necessarily Amazon's or anyone else problem, if you ask me. Amazon does have all the data, downto the individual returns, about the processing, decission, reason codes and final fate (sodl as new, warehouse deal, sold as used or liquidated, donated,...). They also have every reason to not share that data publicly.
  • econcon 6y ago
    I use amazon India, sometimes I receive broken stuff and I repair it on my own and ask Amazon India if they are willing to refund the part of the sale price. Recently I had received a dented cooktop and since it was functional and my family isn't too much interested in aesthetics, Amazon offered 30% refund to keep it. I think I am doing my part to prevent these products from ending up in landfill. Amazon also honours refund and return request, but not all time I request it. It's still better than offline shop experience where I've to deal with a real person making weird faces which I find hard to interpret.
• arsome 6y ago
  Canadian tax dollars at work... They got sued a few years back for some ridiculous food allegations in a similar vein too.
  • srveale 6y ago
    Are you talking about when they said Subway chicken was only 50% chicken? Subway sued, lost, and had to pay legal fees. Pretty happy with that use of my taxes tbh.
  • darepublic 6y ago
    Yea the CBC takes its cue from left wing American media which it poorly imitates
• rkagerer 6y ago
  I agree their methodology is far from rigorous, although I still found it an interesting read. I've seen a lot of people on HN complain after receiving counterfeit items or "new" goods that were obviously someone else's returns. I wonder what the Venn diagram would look like of those individuals and the ones who are outraged now.
  • ornornor 6y ago
    It happened to me many times. So much so that I quit amazon and went to brick and mortar instead (who will often price match amazon anyway) Amazon is welcome to sell these returns instead of throwing them away that’s not the issue. The problem was that they sell something as new when it’s been opened and used. I think no one would have an issue with it if the returned items were sold as such for a discount.
• mdorazio 6y ago
  To build on your last point, if your return rate is above ~10% - 15% depending on category (as a merchant), you actually get penalized by Amazon to the point where they will de-list your product. Return rate targets vary by category, but in general most merchants want them to be under 5%.
• refurb 6y ago
  This crap is why journalism is in such disrepute. And this is from the Canadian Broadcasting Company - Canada's gov't funded TV/radio/print news service, not some fly by night organization focused on spitting out content to maximize ad impressions. Doesn't give you much hope for quality reporting if they can't get it right.
  • cal5k 6y ago
    The CBC is not considered to be particularly reputable even within Canada, which is extremely irritating given that our tax dollars are paying for it.
  • ficklepickle 6y ago
    Marketplace is sensationalized garbage. Watch one of their videos on YouTube to see what I mean. It's all spin, trying to make people outraged. CBC is definitely a mixed bag. Marketplace is amongst their worst.
• hermanradtke 6y ago
  I don't disagree with your assertion that the article is disingenuous. However, > "30-40 percent of online purchases are returned" what absolute hoopsla. I've worked in online commerce and this is off by an order of magnitude. A very few segments (e.g. shoes) may approach such return rates. In the online retail world, a 30-40% return rate is common for apparel (clothes), shoes and accessory purchases. Certain categories, such as occasion (wedding, party, etc) could be significantly higher than 40%. Source: I was an executive at a Nordstrom subsidiary for many years.
  • xyzzyz 6y ago
    You're supporting his point: apparel is one of the segments where such return rate is plausible, but it is completely off the mark for general merchandise.
    • bergstromm466 6y ago
      Fair enough. But it sounds like you're arguing that it's ok to waste because it's not in all the segments mentioned? I'm missing the larger critique. Are you ok with this waste? I guess sometimes it seems to me like the HN community nitpicks over tiny details and fails to take part in the larger systemic critiques.
      • xyzzyz 6y ago
        If you read my comment again, you’ll see that there is absolutely nothing there about whether “waste is ok”.
        • inopinatus 6y ago
          Since I started this by inadvertently writing the most upvoted comment, I'd like to put on the record that I'm against returns waste (and it boggles my mind to imagine anyone, or at least anyone with a soul, being for it), but I'm also against sensationalised tabloid journalism because I don't believe it's a constructive contribution to the discussion of how we get to a more sustainable supply-return chain. On the contrary it tends to cause exactly those firms who'd be most intrinsically part of the solution (and whose employees most certainly would love to say "we're part of the solution", because they are not the sociopaths some would paint them as) to get their backs against the wall, since anyone even participating in the discussion makes themselves primarily a target for invective.
• bergstromm466 6y ago
  > Let's take a moment to look at how disingenuous this article is Uhmmm do you have a vested interest you're not disclosing? I honestly do not have another explanation for your comment. You must be getting well paid for your defence of Amazon? I just hope others here can also see through the smoke and mirrors of your arguments The important part of the article that you seem to have 'missed' is the critique of this powerful monopolistic corporate player, Amazon: "[Amazon] did write the playbook on free returns, says Jason Goldberg, chief commerce strategy officer at Publicis Groupe, a global marketing and advertising agency. The tactic of enticing customers to buy more than they need and return what they don't want "has had tragic repercussions for the environment and business," he says."
  • dang 6y ago
    You broke the site guidelines badly with this comment. We've had to warn you about that multiple times before. If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.
    • bergstromm466 6y ago
      Rephrasing the beginning of this comment: When you write this, questions come into my mind like: "does this person have a vested interest they're not disclosing?", "How much is this person getting paid to defend Amazon?" and "Are others also able to see through the smoke and mirrors of this person's arguments?". I honestly do not have another explanation for your comment. I think the important part of the article that the OP missed is the critique of this powerful monopolistic corporate player, Amazon. - Honestly though @dang, I appreciate the moderation - but I worry that you and others in SV do not realise that these companies that I critique have a lot of power, and are rapidly reshaping society in harmful ways. I know a part of you likely does, but I do think Silicon Valley overal does seem to live in a bubble and in my opinion often lacks self-reflection in some very important areas. I do want to strive to be compassionate to others, but some days I am just really frustrated and I might miss the mark. But is it really okay with you to drown out some voices, or is it because you disagree with my politics? Anyways, to try to meet 'the Other', I've recently been inspired by the idea of 'Coalescism': "Coalescism A major problem with activism, and political and human relations in general, is schism. Countless organizations, subcultures, and microdemgraphics are constantly shearing-off and presenting themselves as wholes, but as distinct from every other whole, especially those most similar to them. [...] Activism especially has this problem—tell me, why haven't activists already solved all the problems? It's because their organizational structure is almost entirely based on a politics of schisms and infighting, and this tendency is constantly encouraged—and activist communities are constantly attacked—to maximize the number of schisms and factious sub-movements which defect from any unified front. This tendency has reached its nadir with the news coverage of the Occupy protests in 2011, which accused the protesters—who were, quite correctly, mad at a whole host of injustices—of being "unfocused" or vague in their articulation of issues. However, this is exactly what a functional activism movement might look like to outsiders—there are many injustices, many ways that people have been harmed, many things that must be corrected—and compared to this complexity, the singular Justice is quite simple, but unspeakable to those who disagree with justice as an end. In their good intentions, however, those committed to justice are aligned, and find it easy to communicate. It is only the mistaken assumption that an activist movement should have a clear, specific, tiny reason for its existence which makes people accuse Occupy of being vague. [Our project] is a procedure for relating with anyone, for any cause, and for knitting disparate intentions and groups into larger wholes. First, there is the assumption holographic or stigmergic cooperation: We assume that "the Others" are already out there and already working with us. Second, there is the assumption that any conflict, any disagreement or difference in political stances, is illusory, and due merely to an artifact of language. This is a very powerful assumption which grants benefit of doubt to the other—maybe this person seems aligned against my interests, maybe they speak in a way which seems hateful, but I must assume that they are a compassionate, intelligent being who is trying to say and do the best they can to help themselves and those they care about, and, if they are engaging in political discoures, presumably the entire world as well. This assumption—which can never be disproven—allows one to delay foreclosing on political discussion, in favor of exploding outward the political disagreements and misalignments which cause conflicts (schisming and infighting). These exploded, extended discussions can then explore systematically each point of difference, defering disagreements indefinitely as a difference in terms. The result of assuming that disagreement is an illusion is that conversations can continue until differences in terminology are dethreaded, collated, then rethreaded (like fixing a stuck zipper), revealing deep underlying agreement in values, which was merely obscured by superficial stances taken in significating terminology. This process undoes identity politics and builds deep bridges between conflicting ideologies. Coelescism is the practice and the idea that we are all already working together, and that the only way we can "save the world" is to recognize this fact. If, after we have formed a very large bloc of cooperaters, we find a few people who are genuinely antithetical to cooperation or ongoing communication, well, then we know who the hostile actors are. I have never known this form of communication to fail, because it does not ever end, but always proceeds through the extension of oneself through the development of additional compassions. Others may convince themselves that we are their enemy and leave the conversation, but if we are convinced that they are a friend, it is always possible to extend ourselves and find a new perspective from which to respect the other, and to delicately attempt to continue the conversation, dethreading disagreements as differences in terms as we go."