4 ms·

Not mentioned in the article, but it’s not uncommon that companies bribe Amazon employees to look the other way or help committing these frauds. Some people tol

Not mentioned in the article, but it’s not uncommon that companies bribe Amazon employees to look the other way or help committing these frauds. Some people told me that they even protect you from being downranked. They created variations of their best selling products so their new selling products get on the same page as the old ones. You have to look twice at the review for which product it is at the bottom. It is still fraud and should be punished, but fining this is like a police officer fining you for parking on a disability spot, while a murder is happening 20 feet away.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
Amazon itself is much worse about this practice than I assume The Bountiful Company was. They "unify" reviews for different DVD and Blu-Ray releases of the same film; they unify reviews for different translations of the same book... it's completely absurd. Go to Amazon's page for any media item such as a movie or a TV show, and you'll see that all of the reviews take pains to indicate what product they're actually talking about, because everyone recognizes that all of the reviews are mostly displayed on products they're not related to. This article explained the concept of the fraudulent behavior pretty well. But it didn't give even one example of two products that were inappropriately variated. As far as I learned from the article, the company being fined never did anything wrong! The complaint ( https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/the_bountiful_company_complaint.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/the_bountiful_c... ) is more detailed, but it doesn't seem to make the case that there was a problem: > Later in 2020, Respondent began selling a new Nature’s Bounty Zinc Gummies product to Amazon for sale on Amazon.com. In August 2020, before the launch of the Zinc Gummies product, the Ecommerce Customer Development Director, wrote in an email: >> [m]oving forward we are going to launch skus with variations that make sense: i.e. Zinc gummy with zinc tablet – gives the strongest opportunity to win from day 1 – gives relevancy, page 1 view, ... increased Conversation, and sales. We are seeing success with this strategy .... > Respondent requested that Amazon create a variation relationship including Zinc Gummies, and two of Respondent’s established products, Nature’s Bounty Calcium Magnesium & Zinc caplets and Nature’s Bounty Zinc 50 mg caplets. The products had different formulations, including different amounts of the main ingredient or additional ingredients. The Zinc caplets were Amazon.com’s “#1 Best Seller in Zinc Mineral Supplements.” So the theory seems to be that by listing their different zinc products as variations of each other, someone was getting defrauded. But I don't see why "40mg zinc" caplets and "50mg zinc" caplets shouldn't be considered variations of each other (different amounts of the main ingredient!), and I also don't see why "40mg zinc" pills shouldn't be considered variations of "40mg zinc" gummy candies (different additional ingredients!). I don't see a big problem with the fact that Tylenol comes in a variation that includes a sedative ("Tylenol PM" - different active ingredients!). How is this different?

thaumasiotes 4y ago

Amazon itself is much worse about this practice than I assume The Bountiful Company was. They "unify" reviews for different DVD and Blu-Ray releases of the same film; they unify reviews for different translations of the same book... it's completely absurd. Go to Amazon's page for any media item such as a movie or a TV show, and you'll see that all of the reviews take pains to indicate what product they're actually talking about, because everyone recognizes that all of the reviews are mostly displayed on products they're not related to. This article explained the concept of the fraudulent behavior pretty well. But it didn't give even one example of two products that were inappropriately variated. As far as I learned from the article, the company being fined never did anything wrong! The complaint ( https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/the_bountiful_company_complaint.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/the_bountiful_c... ) is more detailed, but it doesn't seem to make the case that there was a problem: > Later in 2020, Respondent began selling a new Nature’s Bounty Zinc Gummies product to Amazon for sale on Amazon.com. In August 2020, before the launch of the Zinc Gummies product, the Ecommerce Customer Development Director, wrote in an email: >> [m]oving forward we are going to launch skus with variations that make sense: i.e. Zinc gummy with zinc tablet – gives the strongest opportunity to win from day 1 – gives relevancy, page 1 view, ... increased Conversation, and sales. We are seeing success with this strategy .... > Respondent requested that Amazon create a variation relationship including Zinc Gummies, and two of Respondent’s established products, Nature’s Bounty Calcium Magnesium & Zinc caplets and Nature’s Bounty Zinc 50 mg caplets. The products had different formulations, including different amounts of the main ingredient or additional ingredients. The Zinc caplets were Amazon.com’s “#1 Best Seller in Zinc Mineral Supplements.” So the theory seems to be that by listing their different zinc products as variations of each other, someone was getting defrauded. But I don't see why "40mg zinc" caplets and "50mg zinc" caplets shouldn't be considered variations of each other (different amounts of the main ingredient!), and I also don't see why "40mg zinc" pills shouldn't be considered variations of "40mg zinc" gummy candies (different additional ingredients!). I don't see a big problem with the fact that Tylenol comes in a variation that includes a sedative ("Tylenol PM" - different active ingredients!). How is this different?