5 ms·

> Either way, it seems like finding that entity, and preventing it from interacting with Amazon, would stop a majority of this in its tracks. From the comments

> Either way, it seems like finding that entity, and preventing it from interacting with Amazon, would stop a majority of this in its tracks. From the comments I was expecting a flood of knock-offs or really problematic products, but it seems the main argument is they’re cheap and delivery takes a boat trip across the globe. Is there any solid reasons these vendors shouldn’t be on Amazon ? The knock-offs on AliExpress look to me like a different problem.

derefr 4y ago
There's nothing inherent to these vendors (as people) and/or (most of) their products that would mean that they shouldn't be allowed on Amazon, no. The problem is instead with the shell game these vendors are playing — creating thousands of temporary brands, pumping them or "brushing" them with fake reviews, and then discarding those brands at a moment's notice when things go sour for them, only to replace them with another brand selling the same shitty products the next day, with the same people behind it. Amazon's seller reputation system was designed to function under an assumption of "one persistent brand per group of people who work to sell a thing." But people noticed that Amazon uses "one legal company with a trademark" as a proxy for "one group of people"; and so have created thousands of distinct "legal companies with trademarks" with the same group of people behind them. Which Amazon's reputation system has no way of coping with. If Amazon could deduplicate brands — i.e. require that the same group-of-people sticks to selling stuff under the same company/brand — then there'd be no problem, because then their reputation system would work: if the stuff was crap, the company/brand would get a bad reputation, and then nobody would buy their stuff any more.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Thanks. The “hit and run” aspect, coupled with fake reviews are indeed problematic when they occur. It’s also baked into Amazon’s model: their whole goal was to make it more accessible to small and upcoming entities to go sell globally. I was looking at the “baby mocassin” listing the tweet is mentioning, and picked one of the “small business” labeled ones that have probably been vetted as an actual US business: https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A1O25JS82TADDG&isAmazonFulfilled=1 https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A1O25JS82TADDG&isAm... The only info is about the last 12 months, and we don’t get much clues about the business behind it, even as it has a full store page in Amazon. And of course Amazon wouldn’t want you to get too involved in a any specific shop, as it would strongly lower their leverage as a marketplace (shops stop being replaceable)
spfzero 4y ago
The OA mentioned someone who lost an eye due to improper product design and the vendor was safely hidden behind several layers of false-front entities. I don't know how common that is, but buyers should be aware that many Amazon sellers, including domestic ones, operate in the way the OA explains. Biggest annoyance IMO is that they clog up the search results and make it harder to find products you'd actually buy. Many sell the exact same item, which you then have to skip over, over and over again. Someone at Amazon must be bonus'd on adding new vendors.
- Marsymars 4y ago
  > Biggest annoyance IMO is that they clog up the search results and make it harder to find products you'd actually buy. And Amazon not letting you filter out third-party sellers is effectively a dark pattern. bestbuy.ca has search results primarily comprised of third-party sellers, but has a prominent “Best Buy Only” filter at the top of the results.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    I wonder if it wouldn’t put them in a problematic position as a marketplace operator, especially as they’re already abusing their position with their “Amazon basics” lineup. “We listened to customer demand” wouldn’t as a defense for filtering for goods that go through their warehouse (which also doesn’t guarantee you get what you expected)

derefr 4y ago

There's nothing inherent to these vendors (as people) and/or (most of) their products that would mean that they shouldn't be allowed on Amazon, no. The problem is instead with the shell game these vendors are playing — creating thousands of temporary brands, pumping them or "brushing" them with fake reviews, and then discarding those brands at a moment's notice when things go sour for them, only to replace them with another brand selling the same shitty products the next day, with the same people behind it. Amazon's seller reputation system was designed to function under an assumption of "one persistent brand per group of people who work to sell a thing." But people noticed that Amazon uses "one legal company with a trademark" as a proxy for "one group of people"; and so have created thousands of distinct "legal companies with trademarks" with the same group of people behind them. Which Amazon's reputation system has no way of coping with. If Amazon could deduplicate brands — i.e. require that the same group-of-people sticks to selling stuff under the same company/brand — then there'd be no problem, because then their reputation system would work: if the stuff was crap, the company/brand would get a bad reputation, and then nobody would buy their stuff any more.

makeitdouble 4y ago
Thanks. The “hit and run” aspect, coupled with fake reviews are indeed problematic when they occur. It’s also baked into Amazon’s model: their whole goal was to make it more accessible to small and upcoming entities to go sell globally. I was looking at the “baby mocassin” listing the tweet is mentioning, and picked one of the “small business” labeled ones that have probably been vetted as an actual US business: https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A1O25JS82TADDG&isAmazonFulfilled=1 https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A1O25JS82TADDG&isAm... The only info is about the last 12 months, and we don’t get much clues about the business behind it, even as it has a full store page in Amazon. And of course Amazon wouldn’t want you to get too involved in a any specific shop, as it would strongly lower their leverage as a marketplace (shops stop being replaceable)

spfzero 4y ago

The OA mentioned someone who lost an eye due to improper product design and the vendor was safely hidden behind several layers of false-front entities. I don't know how common that is, but buyers should be aware that many Amazon sellers, including domestic ones, operate in the way the OA explains. Biggest annoyance IMO is that they clog up the search results and make it harder to find products you'd actually buy. Many sell the exact same item, which you then have to skip over, over and over again. Someone at Amazon must be bonus'd on adding new vendors.

Marsymars 4y ago
> Biggest annoyance IMO is that they clog up the search results and make it harder to find products you'd actually buy. And Amazon not letting you filter out third-party sellers is effectively a dark pattern. bestbuy.ca has search results primarily comprised of third-party sellers, but has a prominent “Best Buy Only” filter at the top of the results.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  I wonder if it wouldn’t put them in a problematic position as a marketplace operator, especially as they’re already abusing their position with their “Amazon basics” lineup. “We listened to customer demand” wouldn’t as a defense for filtering for goods that go through their warehouse (which also doesn’t guarantee you get what you expected)