5 ms·

LOL that's some serious spin. "Amazon policy of having the lowest price" = Amazon punishes any listings if they discover off-amazon channels with lower prices

LOL that's some serious spin. "Amazon policy of having the lowest price" = Amazon punishes any listings if they discover off-amazon channels with lower prices and savings passed on to consumers. That right there is the very spirit of anticompetitive behavior. Refined, distilled, purified, and concentrated. And yes, it absolutely raises prices and puts the proceeds squarely in Amazon's pocket.

viro 5y ago
Or you're not allowed to punish Amazon customers for using Amazon and charging more on the platform....
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  If I'm selling widgets and eBay wants a $5 cut while Amazon wants a $10 cut, it is Amazon that is asking for $5 more. Not me.
  - viro 5y ago
    The customer doesn't care. It's the price of business. Charge the same price or don't use the platform.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      Wow, this thread is lousy with Amazon spin doctors! A. It's Amazon doing the charging, B. No, it's the price of a regulatory environment that frees the largest distribution channel from the need to compete on price, and C. we're talking about the legality of retaliating for exactly that.
      - viro 5y ago
        A. who sets the price? ... not amazon. B & C You want to pass on standard costs of business on to the customer. The fair pricing rule restricts that practice and is pro consumer. As a consumer I don't care the rule hurts ur bottom line. Just like sellers paying for fake reviews should be criminal fraud.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        Don't hold your breath on that last one. Fake reviews are good for Amazon, so they will continue unabated.
        cgriswald 5y ago
        This practice is anti-consumer and pro-Amazon. The "fair pricing rule" means the Amazon-related costs of doing business are spread across all a business' pricing rather than only the Amazon-sold merchandise. This can mean higher prices for non-Amazon customers. This benefits Amazon, has some (possibly small) negative effect on margins and/or sales for the business, and costs customers more. The best you can argue for is that if you are an Amazon customer, you're paying less for the convenience of Amazon than you would be otherwise; but it's not clear that's a net win for consumers at all.
- rory 5y ago
  You're not "punishing" them by passing off the higher costs of that channel to the consumer. You're creating an incentive to buy your product via lower-cost channels, so everyone wins (except Amazon).
  - viro 5y ago
    No only the business wins here, I'm on Amazon's site because I want to order from Amazon. I don't want to deal with ur shitty shipping and re-entering all of my information constantly.
    - rory 5y ago
      If those are benefits you value, you should be happy to (indirectly) pay Amazon the premium that they charge for it.
    - AlexandrB 5y ago
      So then pay the Amazon premium. Why should I pay more off-Amazon because you want to shop on Amazon?
      - viro 5y ago
        Because you choose to put ur product on that platform. Because I'm more likely to purchase the item if it's on Amazon. The fair pricing rule is literally pro consumer.
rkk3 5y ago
> LOL that's some serious spin. "Amazon policy of having the lowest price" = Amazon punishes any listings if they discover off-amazon channels with lower prices Is it spin? Amazon's policy is that they can't list on Amazon at a higher price [1]. So they want to charge a higher price on Amazon, but they can't. How do consumers win with them charging higher prices on Amazon? [1]https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHU https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHU...
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Because then when Amazon cranks prices, like they are doing, customers could go elsewhere and pressure them to stop. Amazon would have to provide a service that was actually worth the premium they charge. Perish the thought.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > Because then when Amazon cranks prices, like they are doing, customers could go elsewhere and pressure them to stop. > Amazon would have to provide a service that was actually worth the premium they charge. Perish the thought. I don't follow this argument... They need to raise prices, to put pressure on themselves to provide a better service to customers because they raised prices? I am not a fan of the tech oligopolies, there are tons of legitimate criticism of them but this seems circuitous

viro 5y ago

Or you're not allowed to punish Amazon customers for using Amazon and charging more on the platform....

jjoonathan 5y ago
If I'm selling widgets and eBay wants a $5 cut while Amazon wants a $10 cut, it is Amazon that is asking for $5 more. Not me.
- viro 5y ago
  The customer doesn't care. It's the price of business. Charge the same price or don't use the platform.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Wow, this thread is lousy with Amazon spin doctors! A. It's Amazon doing the charging, B. No, it's the price of a regulatory environment that frees the largest distribution channel from the need to compete on price, and C. we're talking about the legality of retaliating for exactly that.
    - viro 5y ago
      A. who sets the price? ... not amazon. B & C You want to pass on standard costs of business on to the customer. The fair pricing rule restricts that practice and is pro consumer. As a consumer I don't care the rule hurts ur bottom line. Just like sellers paying for fake reviews should be criminal fraud.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Don't hold your breath on that last one. Fake reviews are good for Amazon, so they will continue unabated.
      - cgriswald 5y ago
        This practice is anti-consumer and pro-Amazon. The "fair pricing rule" means the Amazon-related costs of doing business are spread across all a business' pricing rather than only the Amazon-sold merchandise. This can mean higher prices for non-Amazon customers. This benefits Amazon, has some (possibly small) negative effect on margins and/or sales for the business, and costs customers more. The best you can argue for is that if you are an Amazon customer, you're paying less for the convenience of Amazon than you would be otherwise; but it's not clear that's a net win for consumers at all.
rory 5y ago
You're not "punishing" them by passing off the higher costs of that channel to the consumer. You're creating an incentive to buy your product via lower-cost channels, so everyone wins (except Amazon).
- viro 5y ago
  No only the business wins here, I'm on Amazon's site because I want to order from Amazon. I don't want to deal with ur shitty shipping and re-entering all of my information constantly.
  - rory 5y ago
    If those are benefits you value, you should be happy to (indirectly) pay Amazon the premium that they charge for it.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    So then pay the Amazon premium. Why should I pay more off-Amazon because you want to shop on Amazon?
    - viro 5y ago
      Because you choose to put ur product on that platform. Because I'm more likely to purchase the item if it's on Amazon. The fair pricing rule is literally pro consumer.

rkk3 5y ago

> LOL that's some serious spin. "Amazon policy of having the lowest price" = Amazon punishes any listings if they discover off-amazon channels with lower prices Is it spin? Amazon's policy is that they can't list on Amazon at a higher price [1]. So they want to charge a higher price on Amazon, but they can't. How do consumers win with them charging higher prices on Amazon? [1]https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHU https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHU...

jjoonathan 5y ago
Because then when Amazon cranks prices, like they are doing, customers could go elsewhere and pressure them to stop. Amazon would have to provide a service that was actually worth the premium they charge. Perish the thought.
- rkk3 5y ago
  > Because then when Amazon cranks prices, like they are doing, customers could go elsewhere and pressure them to stop. > Amazon would have to provide a service that was actually worth the premium they charge. Perish the thought. I don't follow this argument... They need to raise prices, to put pressure on themselves to provide a better service to customers because they raised prices? I am not a fan of the tech oligopolies, there are tons of legitimate criticism of them but this seems circuitous