3 ms·

You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Obviously most consumers prefer what is good for consumers rather than what is good for giant retailers. We

You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Obviously most consumers prefer what is good for consumers rather than what is good for giant retailers. We don't have to justify that to anyone.

listenallyall 5y ago
You are missing the point of the whole argument. Amazon is successful because it does TONS of things that are GREAT for consumers. And lots of other stores do too. When a store opens at 6am on Black Friday, do you think they are doing it because their employees requested it? No, consumers did. Do you think retailers like slashing margins razor-thin? No, but if they don't, consumers will go elsewhere. Result is lower prices across the board. "Good for giant retailers" would be for you to pay shipping on all orders. To limit refunds as much as possible. To be "out of stock" on popular items they put on deep discounts and have you select an expensive alternative instead (i.e. bait and switch). Amazon and Walmart have enabled consumers to buy all kinds of goods without paying the premium that established brands charge -- the cheapest tent at REI.com is an $80 Kelty. Meanwhile Amazon has a wide selection at $60 and below from "SEMOO" and "ILOFRI" and "TEKOMI". The OP suggested lawmakers should somehow make it illegal for Amazon to offer preferential treatment -- prominently featuring their items -- to suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Every store does the exact same thing -- and this is GOOD for consumers. When your supermarket puts Coca-Cola on sale (because Coke paid the supermarket), it brings out extra bottles and places them at the front of the store and makes it easy to buy. Sure you can still buy Pepsi, it's back somewhere on aisle 12 where it always is.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  ...suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Haha you can't even pretend to have misunderstood the situation to this extent. QED on the bad faith. Amazon DGAF what percentages other retailers get. How would they even know those? They are penalizing suppliers for the prices that consumers pay at other retailers. So long as Amazon are allowed to do this, they'll just keep slowly increasing their cut. What's 34% today will be 40% next year, etc.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    I concede that in haste I wrote "to" instead of "at". Amazon offers preferential treatment to suppliers that don't charge less (to consumers) AT other retailers. And before you say it's up to the retailers what to ultimately charge the consumer, this is not true in today's economy, where sites like Amazon, Newegg, eBay and Walmart act as marketplaces enabling direct manufacturer to consumer sales. Although I made the initial mistake, I'm pretty sure you just piled on with more bullshit. I'm rather confident Amazon has a good read on what its suppliers charge other vendors, just Wal-Mart and Target do in the B&M space, and that they do very much care.

You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Obviously most consumers prefer what is good for consumers rather than what is good for giant retailers. We don't have to justify that to anyone.

listenallyall 5y ago

You are missing the point of the whole argument. Amazon is successful because it does TONS of things that are GREAT for consumers. And lots of other stores do too. When a store opens at 6am on Black Friday, do you think they are doing it because their employees requested it? No, consumers did. Do you think retailers like slashing margins razor-thin? No, but if they don't, consumers will go elsewhere. Result is lower prices across the board. "Good for giant retailers" would be for you to pay shipping on all orders. To limit refunds as much as possible. To be "out of stock" on popular items they put on deep discounts and have you select an expensive alternative instead (i.e. bait and switch). Amazon and Walmart have enabled consumers to buy all kinds of goods without paying the premium that established brands charge -- the cheapest tent at REI.com is an $80 Kelty. Meanwhile Amazon has a wide selection at $60 and below from "SEMOO" and "ILOFRI" and "TEKOMI". The OP suggested lawmakers should somehow make it illegal for Amazon to offer preferential treatment -- prominently featuring their items -- to suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Every store does the exact same thing -- and this is GOOD for consumers. When your supermarket puts Coca-Cola on sale (because Coke paid the supermarket), it brings out extra bottles and places them at the front of the store and makes it easy to buy. Sure you can still buy Pepsi, it's back somewhere on aisle 12 where it always is.

jessaustin 5y ago
...suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Haha you can't even pretend to have misunderstood the situation to this extent. QED on the bad faith. Amazon DGAF what percentages other retailers get. How would they even know those? They are penalizing suppliers for the prices that consumers pay at other retailers. So long as Amazon are allowed to do this, they'll just keep slowly increasing their cut. What's 34% today will be 40% next year, etc.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  I concede that in haste I wrote "to" instead of "at". Amazon offers preferential treatment to suppliers that don't charge less (to consumers) AT other retailers. And before you say it's up to the retailers what to ultimately charge the consumer, this is not true in today's economy, where sites like Amazon, Newegg, eBay and Walmart act as marketplaces enabling direct manufacturer to consumer sales. Although I made the initial mistake, I'm pretty sure you just piled on with more bullshit. I'm rather confident Amazon has a good read on what its suppliers charge other vendors, just Wal-Mart and Target do in the B&M space, and that they do very much care.