4 ms·

Amazon's perspective is that they are a store / marketplace that a seller can optionally sell on. They are ensuring their customers get the best price. Like any

Amazon's perspective is that they are a store / marketplace that a seller can optionally sell on. They are ensuring their customers get the best price. Like any store, if you don't like their terms then don't sell your product in their store. Pretty solid logic I think. But the reality is they are a store that dwarfs every other in customer reach making it difficult for small businesses to grow without utilizing Amazon as one of their sales channel. Hence, Amazon's 15% commission gets baked into everything even if it's not sold on Amazon. I think the law needs to evolve in a way to recognize scenarios like this where there is massive asymmetry - not necessarily a monopoly - between one dominant market player and others which is harming the consumer. Amazon's response of course would be "no fair; you're using us for product discovery but then giving the sale to the brand owner". Which has some validity. If you took away the commission, then they would be relegated to a search engine that relies on ad revenue only. But that would mean lower prices so consumers would win in the end.

cool_dude85 4y ago
>Amazon's response of course would be "no fair; you're using us for product discovery but then giving the sale to the brand owner". Almost as bad as someone walking into a brick and mortar store and then going to some big website to actually buy the TV. No fair indeed.
- Spivak 4y ago
  I mean it kinda is no fair, the ability for people to do this is a fairweather tolerance because big box still come out ahead even when price matching online retailers. The moment that stops being the case is when you will start to see stores charging covers.
  - scarby2 4y ago
    I always wonder how many people actually do this. It has to be a pretty significant difference for me not to actually buy it at the store. If I'm at the store and i can put something in my cart and buy it then I'm not going to order it online and wait for delivery to save $5. Also delivery is extremely unreliable these days...
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > I always wonder how many people actually do this From watching other people at stores, it's maybe 15%? For goods that need to be installed or carefully handled, it's less common. Headphones? Pricecheck. Mechanical Keyboard? Pricecheck. Washer and Dryer? Most people pricecheck even though it seems like something they wouldn't. Turns out that most people shop around for those, so internet pricechecking is part of it. Food items that seem too expensive? Pricecheck. You can save a bunch on dry/bottled goods. Amazon Prime feels like a Costco membership. You have to make sure you use it, to justify it.
onepointsixC 4y ago
>They are ensuring their customers get the best price. No they are not. They are setting the price on their platform to be the minimum price. That's very different and bad for consumers.
- lots2learn 4y ago
  They're saying "give our customers your best price or you can't sell the item on our platform; you're free to sell it anywhere else of course for whatever price you want but you just cant have access to our customers". Now I do think it hurts the consumer - as I reasoned in my post - but in a round-about way; one that that law currently doesn't seem to be able to reach.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> They are ensuring their customers get the best price No, they are making sure they get the biggest cut
NickC25 4y ago
>If you took away the commission, then they would be relegated to a search engine that relies on ad revenue only. They'd also still be a major corporation / quasi-monopoly that powers like 80%+ of the internet and is wildly profitable. I see no problem with taking a small cut of their revenue away that they only have due to shady business practices. But Wall Street would cry Won't anyone think of the shareholders? I wouldn't give a shit if that caused Jeff's net worth to drop 5% or 10% - the guy would still have more money than the rest of the world save for 4 or 5 people rather than just 1 or 2 people.

cool_dude85 4y ago

>Amazon's response of course would be "no fair; you're using us for product discovery but then giving the sale to the brand owner". Almost as bad as someone walking into a brick and mortar store and then going to some big website to actually buy the TV. No fair indeed.

Spivak 4y ago
I mean it kinda is no fair, the ability for people to do this is a fairweather tolerance because big box still come out ahead even when price matching online retailers. The moment that stops being the case is when you will start to see stores charging covers.
- scarby2 4y ago
  I always wonder how many people actually do this. It has to be a pretty significant difference for me not to actually buy it at the store. If I'm at the store and i can put something in my cart and buy it then I'm not going to order it online and wait for delivery to save $5. Also delivery is extremely unreliable these days...
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > I always wonder how many people actually do this From watching other people at stores, it's maybe 15%? For goods that need to be installed or carefully handled, it's less common. Headphones? Pricecheck. Mechanical Keyboard? Pricecheck. Washer and Dryer? Most people pricecheck even though it seems like something they wouldn't. Turns out that most people shop around for those, so internet pricechecking is part of it. Food items that seem too expensive? Pricecheck. You can save a bunch on dry/bottled goods. Amazon Prime feels like a Costco membership. You have to make sure you use it, to justify it.

onepointsixC 4y ago

>They are ensuring their customers get the best price. No they are not. They are setting the price on their platform to be the minimum price. That's very different and bad for consumers.

lots2learn 4y ago
They're saying "give our customers your best price or you can't sell the item on our platform; you're free to sell it anywhere else of course for whatever price you want but you just cant have access to our customers". Now I do think it hurts the consumer - as I reasoned in my post - but in a round-about way; one that that law currently doesn't seem to be able to reach.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> They are ensuring their customers get the best price No, they are making sure they get the biggest cut

NickC25 4y ago

>If you took away the commission, then they would be relegated to a search engine that relies on ad revenue only. They'd also still be a major corporation / quasi-monopoly that powers like 80%+ of the internet and is wildly profitable. I see no problem with taking a small cut of their revenue away that they only have due to shady business practices. But Wall Street would cry Won't anyone think of the shareholders? I wouldn't give a shit if that caused Jeff's net worth to drop 5% or 10% - the guy would still have more money than the rest of the world save for 4 or 5 people rather than just 1 or 2 people.