5 ms·

Walmart isn't carrying it. It's being sold by a third party on Walmart.com. Walmart allows third parties to sell on Walmart.com just as Amazon allows third part

by mdasen 4y ago

Walmart isn't carrying it. It's being sold by a third party on Walmart.com. Walmart allows third parties to sell on Walmart.com just as Amazon allows third parties to sell on their website.

Sakos 4y ago
Where do you see that it's a third-party seller? I'm not seeing it. edit: Reading through the text and looking at the pictures, it's obvious that it's a third-party, but nothing on the site explicitly says "this is a seller not associated with Walmart". Comparison: Amazon: https://i.imgur.com/rGdTkM4.png https://i.imgur.com/rGdTkM4.png Walmart: https://i.imgur.com/JRwhzBy.png https://i.imgur.com/JRwhzBy.png Edit: Ahhh, of course. You're right, thanks guys.
- anamexis 4y ago
  I think it's not obvious because it is out of stock, so no one is selling it. If you find an in-stock item from a third party, it's pretty straightforward. https://imgur.com/a/tqjlPui https://imgur.com/a/tqjlPui
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    It's pretty straightforward once you know what to look for, but I don't think I'd call it straightforward overall. It's halfway down the page, sandwiched between shipping and return policy, and doesn't show up at all on the search results.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
somehnguy 4y ago
It annoys me to no end that Walmart.com defaults to mostly 3rd party junk when you search. Every single time I have to adjust search settings to ‘in-store’ only, which isn’t a 1 second fix when you’re on mobile just due to network latency. The only reason I ever buy from Walmart is when I want the product the same day and am willing to drive 10 min to my local store. If that isn’t the case, I have the entire internet of sellers to choose from and it surely isn’t going to be Walmart that I pick.
- pengaru 4y ago
  Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined people would be upset about not having access to what wal-mart stocks in-store vs. its web site. The shelves are largely stocked with cheaply made chinesium junk as it is! Try buy a can opener that doesn't bend on first use or a wooden spoon in your local wal-mart, I dare you. It's just one step above DOLLAR GENERAL from where I'm sitting.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    The Walmart stores will sell items that make cost-quality trade-offs you wouldn't, but they don't sell outright frauds like this HD.
    - blincoln 4y ago
      I generally go out of my way to avoid Walmart, but the one recent datapoint I have was a flour sifter bought there. It didn't work even when brand new. The design was physically flawed, not a one-off defective item.[1] It was essentially a film prop. It looked like a flour sifter, and AFAICT it was really made from stainless steel, but one couldn't use it to sift more than maybe a handful of flour before it became permanently useless. Didn't do anything to change my opinion about buying things from them, and seems like "outright fraud", just not at the level of a fake 30TB SSD.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        It seems like you intended to link the item but didn't?
    - pengaru 4y ago
      There's a threshold in the cost-quality trade-offs past which it's indistinguishable from fraud.
  - nazgulsenpai 4y ago
    The only time I shop in a physical Walmart store is when I need something I can't wait for, on which case I check In-Store on the website first and it is indeed clunky.
MereInterest 4y ago
If I'm going to Walmart.com, giving my credit card information to Walmart, on a page with Walmart's logo prominently displayed, then it feels more like a business relation with Walmart that they subcontract out. Like if I buy a t-shirt from a dropseller, and it's defective, I can take it up with the dropseller and don't need to argue with the manufacturer. Granted, a similar argument could be made about eBay, so I think history plays a huge role. When Walmart puts up a marketplace for 3rd-parties without clearly disclaiming it as being from not-Walmart, Walmart's history and reputation as a direct seller customers lets a reasonable customer conclude that they are buying it directly from Walmart. eBay was never a seller themselves, and doesn't have Walmart's reputation, so products listed on eBay don't cause the same customer confusion.
- mdasen 4y ago
  I don't disagree, but Amazon and other sites are operating the same model. Walmart and Amazon provide similar prominence about whether a product is being sold by them or by a third party. I agree that eBay doesn't cause that confusion because they were never a first party seller. I think the issue is that we'd need a regulation and one that clearly stipulates what the situation is. For example, one could propose that when a retailer that sells goods as a first party also provides a marketplace for third party goods, 10% of the page's size above the fold must be the third party's branding and that branding must be larger than the branding of the retailer. That would make it very obvious. One of the issues that we're facing is that our regulations often don't specify enough of how something must be implemented. For example, sites must label their ads. Google used to make the ads have a different color background that made it easy to visually filter ads from organic results. Now they just write "Ad" in light grey (#aaadb2) against a gray background (#202124) with much less prominence and contrast than the title of the link. Twitter puts "Promoted" below the tweet rather than at the top of the tweet so that when you're scrolling you'll read the tweet before seeing that it's an ad (and it's rgb(113, 118, 123) (light gray) on black while the regular text is rgb(231, 233, 234) (nearly white) on black). The FTC does require that ads and sponsored content be clearly labeled, but doesn't really specify or enforce standards. I think if I labeled something as "Ad" as #aaadb2 on a #aaadb1 background, that clearly wouldn't pass muster. There'd be almost zero contrast. How much contrast is needed? How prominent should we require messages that clarify important things like this? As you note, you're going to Walmart.com and giving your information to Walmart on a page where Walmart's logo and branding is basically all that you see - except for a tiny "Sold by XYZ" note. I don't know what the solution is entirely, but it's going to take regulatory action if we want to deal with this. If Amazon is doing it, Walmart will do it. If Google is limiting the contrast on how it marks ads, Twitter will also limit the contrast.

by mdasen 4y ago

Walmart isn't carrying it. It's being sold by a third party on Walmart.com. Walmart allows third parties to sell on Walmart.com just as Amazon allows third parties to sell on their website.

Sakos 4y ago

Where do you see that it's a third-party seller? I'm not seeing it. edit: Reading through the text and looking at the pictures, it's obvious that it's a third-party, but nothing on the site explicitly says "this is a seller not associated with Walmart". Comparison: Amazon: https://i.imgur.com/rGdTkM4.png https://i.imgur.com/rGdTkM4.png Walmart: https://i.imgur.com/JRwhzBy.png https://i.imgur.com/JRwhzBy.png Edit: Ahhh, of course. You're right, thanks guys.

anamexis 4y ago
I think it's not obvious because it is out of stock, so no one is selling it. If you find an in-stock item from a third party, it's pretty straightforward. https://imgur.com/a/tqjlPui https://imgur.com/a/tqjlPui
- MereInterest 4y ago
  It's pretty straightforward once you know what to look for, but I don't think I'd call it straightforward overall. It's halfway down the page, sandwiched between shipping and return policy, and doesn't show up at all on the search results.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

somehnguy 4y ago

It annoys me to no end that Walmart.com defaults to mostly 3rd party junk when you search. Every single time I have to adjust search settings to ‘in-store’ only, which isn’t a 1 second fix when you’re on mobile just due to network latency. The only reason I ever buy from Walmart is when I want the product the same day and am willing to drive 10 min to my local store. If that isn’t the case, I have the entire internet of sellers to choose from and it surely isn’t going to be Walmart that I pick.

pengaru 4y ago
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined people would be upset about not having access to what wal-mart stocks in-store vs. its web site. The shelves are largely stocked with cheaply made chinesium junk as it is! Try buy a can opener that doesn't bend on first use or a wooden spoon in your local wal-mart, I dare you. It's just one step above DOLLAR GENERAL from where I'm sitting.
- jefftk 4y ago
  The Walmart stores will sell items that make cost-quality trade-offs you wouldn't, but they don't sell outright frauds like this HD.
  - blincoln 4y ago
    I generally go out of my way to avoid Walmart, but the one recent datapoint I have was a flour sifter bought there. It didn't work even when brand new. The design was physically flawed, not a one-off defective item.[1] It was essentially a film prop. It looked like a flour sifter, and AFAICT it was really made from stainless steel, but one couldn't use it to sift more than maybe a handful of flour before it became permanently useless. Didn't do anything to change my opinion about buying things from them, and seems like "outright fraud", just not at the level of a fake 30TB SSD.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      It seems like you intended to link the item but didn't?
  - pengaru 4y ago
    There's a threshold in the cost-quality trade-offs past which it's indistinguishable from fraud.
- nazgulsenpai 4y ago
  The only time I shop in a physical Walmart store is when I need something I can't wait for, on which case I check In-Store on the website first and it is indeed clunky.

MereInterest 4y ago

If I'm going to Walmart.com, giving my credit card information to Walmart, on a page with Walmart's logo prominently displayed, then it feels more like a business relation with Walmart that they subcontract out. Like if I buy a t-shirt from a dropseller, and it's defective, I can take it up with the dropseller and don't need to argue with the manufacturer. Granted, a similar argument could be made about eBay, so I think history plays a huge role. When Walmart puts up a marketplace for 3rd-parties without clearly disclaiming it as being from not-Walmart, Walmart's history and reputation as a direct seller customers lets a reasonable customer conclude that they are buying it directly from Walmart. eBay was never a seller themselves, and doesn't have Walmart's reputation, so products listed on eBay don't cause the same customer confusion.

mdasen 4y ago
I don't disagree, but Amazon and other sites are operating the same model. Walmart and Amazon provide similar prominence about whether a product is being sold by them or by a third party. I agree that eBay doesn't cause that confusion because they were never a first party seller. I think the issue is that we'd need a regulation and one that clearly stipulates what the situation is. For example, one could propose that when a retailer that sells goods as a first party also provides a marketplace for third party goods, 10% of the page's size above the fold must be the third party's branding and that branding must be larger than the branding of the retailer. That would make it very obvious. One of the issues that we're facing is that our regulations often don't specify enough of how something must be implemented. For example, sites must label their ads. Google used to make the ads have a different color background that made it easy to visually filter ads from organic results. Now they just write "Ad" in light grey (#aaadb2) against a gray background (#202124) with much less prominence and contrast than the title of the link. Twitter puts "Promoted" below the tweet rather than at the top of the tweet so that when you're scrolling you'll read the tweet before seeing that it's an ad (and it's rgb(113, 118, 123) (light gray) on black while the regular text is rgb(231, 233, 234) (nearly white) on black). The FTC does require that ads and sponsored content be clearly labeled, but doesn't really specify or enforce standards. I think if I labeled something as "Ad" as #aaadb2 on a #aaadb1 background, that clearly wouldn't pass muster. There'd be almost zero contrast. How much contrast is needed? How prominent should we require messages that clarify important things like this? As you note, you're going to Walmart.com and giving your information to Walmart on a page where Walmart's logo and branding is basically all that you see - except for a tiny "Sold by XYZ" note. I don't know what the solution is entirely, but it's going to take regulatory action if we want to deal with this. If Amazon is doing it, Walmart will do it. If Google is limiting the contrast on how it marks ads, Twitter will also limit the contrast.