6 ms·
Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
- eschneider 3y agoI'm sure that if making the site less shitty would boost profit, Amazon would have done that.
- thejazzman 3y agoTarget and Walmart have sure upped their game the last few years, both in UX and fulfillment. I'm shocked every time I use them (and shouldn't be at this point)
- karmakaze 3y agoIt probably works both ways so can continue indefinitely, perhaps with diminishing returns. Much like bundling or unbundling can boost profits.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI think the main issue is that Amazon doesn't have to boost the sales of actual goods if they can make it up in ad fees. And that situation is only stable if for some reason the vendors have to be on your site and keep advertising anyway, which is the hallmark of a monopoly adjacent situation.
- ssss11 3y agoWhen profitability, not customers, is your focus… then of course they did.
- ramenmeal 3y agoA good indicator a monopoly is at play.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoNot really. Senior ux dev at <insert crate and barrel like company> told me that they A/B tested a more efficient flow and found conversion to sale dropped. Turns out when people have to put up with more hassle to buy something they get more committed, especially for high ticket items
- cratermoon 3y agoThat’s not at all the kind of enshittification Amazon was doing.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoIt's not too far off
- cratermoon 3y agoHow is changing up site UX at all the same as changing the content but staying with the same UX?
- bogomipz 3y agoWhich is in interesting because Amazon's "Leadership Principles" a are well-known and well-publicized part of Amazon's culture. Number 1 on that list is of course "Customer Obsession", which states: >"Customer Obsession: Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers."[1] It's probably no surprise that this is little more than a meme whose sole purpose is to be ceremonially regurgitated during job interviews. [1] https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/leadership-principles https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/leadership-...
- MrRolleyes 3y ago[dead]
- azzthrooww 3y agoIt really isn't a meme. It's taken pretty seriously at the company, often gets cited in meetings as a reason to do (or not do) something, and is almost always referenced in large strategic projects/planning docs. It's even sometimes included in criteria for determining performance/promotions. The problem lies in the fact that there's no one single definition of who "the customer" is, and no one single definition of what the best thing for that customer is. One team might see customer obsession as making sure only the best ads are shown, but there's probably another team who thinks that being obsessed about customers means showing the _most_ ads, while a third team sees _the ad companies_ as "the customer" and thinks that being customer obsessed means making them as happy as possible. There's a weird side effect about being so serious about customer obsession. Like I mentioned earlier, it's often used as a promotion criteria, so people will come up with weird stuff and then spin it as "customer obsessed" so they can get promoted, even if it's something like showing more ads or constantly reminding people to buy something (which probably gets spun as "helping the customer to not miss out on a good deal" or something like that).
- bogomipz 3y ago>"The problem lies in the fact that there's no one single definition of who "the customer" is ..." From the post that we are commenting on here: >"... show that company executives, including former CEO Jeff Bezos, knowingly made changes to the e-commerce platform that boosted profits while harming consumers and sellers, and making the site less usable." It's pretty clear who the customer were here. It's literally all the parties that were not Amazon. Something that "gets cited in meetings" yet not applied in practice pretty much supports it being little more than meme status.
- Obscurity4340 3y agoFriendly Social Browser is pretty good for making using Third-Party webapps rather than App Store Apps as seamless as possible
- Groxx 3y agoProbably meant this to go somewhere else?
- Obscurity4340 3y agoWat?
- Obscurity4340 3y agoNah
- RecycledEle 3y agoI remember when DealExtreme (DX.com) was popular. I complained that their search was broken and returned to many unrelated results. Their reply was that that boosted sales. That was when I started trying to avoid them. Not the are gone.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- transcriptase 3y agoUnrelated but their drop shipping service was great, complete with practically free custom branding on anything customer facing. Before it became the insane high-volume low-profit fraud ridden race to the bottom it is now, I made spending money in university selling Wii accessories on both eBay and a simple online shop. I was always up front about authenticity, long shipping times, and tested products myself first. Then Amazon and Aliexpress came along (to the mainstream) so it’s no surprise they couldn’t remain viable.
- vgeek 3y agoTheir discoverability was awful. What about how AliExpress' search works? The first few listings will be prior viewed items, typically wildly unrelated to the current search-- just remarketing ads based on products visited. Then the things labeled as ads are even more outlandish and inappropriate (serums, pills, pseudo-scams)-- but I guess the ROI is there, else they wouldn't be running them. Similar to the old days of FB where any scammy rebill products were allowed, then once an advertiser base was built, they canned all of the exceptionally unscrupulous advertisers.
- reportgunner 3y agoWhat about youtube search ? The first five results are related and then you get some npc garbage that "you may like".
- thrill 3y agoWTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.
- duped 3y agoThey don't, actually. This is an idea from Milton Friedman and it's just taught in business "ethics" class.
- raytopia 3y agoThere's a good post [0] on stackexchange discussing this. [0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
- iamflimflam1 3y agoThat’s just one of their duties. They are also supposed to make sure they obey any rules, regulations and laws.
- Gibbon1 3y agoThe government allows corporations to shield their shareholders from the companies malfeasance. If I own shares in Exxon Mobil no ones going to sue me personally for damages or put me on trial because the company did something illegal. That can absolutely happen in a general partnership. The government has every right to attach strings.
- frankfrank13 3y agoIf you can both downgrade the quality of your product and boost profits, you may be a monopoly. If Amazon can charge for worse ads, use that data and learnings to undercut its sellers by better positioning its own/preferred products, and therefore make more money you can almost certainly argue it is a monopoly, which is what the FTC is trying to do.
- throwaway5959 3y agoVice’s site is basically unusable on mobile between the rendering issues and ads.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- steveBK123 3y agoThis is always an entertaining angle on the medias war on ad tech.. the fact that most of their websites are loaded with said awful ad tech.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hamstrunghuman9 3y ago[flagged]
- frankfrank13 3y agoare you equating banning extremists on social media to being an e-commerce monopoly cause thats a tough line to draw
- hamstrunghuman9 3y ago[flagged]
- Arainach 3y agoNo one has banned 50% of the country. Source, please.
- hamstrunghuman9 3y ago[flagged]
- vivekd 3y agoAm I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is trying to make a weak case that Amazon is a monopoly by claiming look they had the power to show crappy ads. Which is a weak argument. Maybe Amazon is too big and too dominant in the market. I don't know. But this article and this aspect of the case looks weak.
- makeitdouble 3y agoThis also affected ad buyers, as they had to compete with the junk and pay more to get an effect. Ad buyers are also Amazon consumers that got harmed, which matters if we go by the traditional benchmarks for antitrust.
- wlesieutre 3y ago“Made site shittier to boost profit” describes nearly 100% of online advertising
- vivekd 3y agoExactly! I would go further it applies to almost 100% of all advertising from TV to radio to billboards, poster ads ...
- mynameisash 3y agoI don't know what has happened to YouTube ads in the last year or so, but now that YT is cracking down on adblockers, I'm seeing a lot of them. One thing I'm noticing is that most ads are absolutely garbage. It was one thing to see the 'professional' ads for T-Mobile internet and makeup and whatnot, but I'm seeing a ton of clickbait-style ads for things that are very clearly get-rich-quick and/or straight-up scams. "This one new method of heating your house is taking America by storm!" "This new device that cleans your house in five minutes is being called revolutionary by experts."
- m463 3y agoHonestly, any advertisements during/after shopping degrades the customer experience. advertisements during search, before viewing products, upsells before or during the shopping cart, popups when buying or afterwards, and all of the above when receiving/"activating"/using your product. I feel there is a "respectful" business model/opportunity that people will pay for, but I don't think business people stand up for things, or if they do they sell out and the monetization begins.
- paxys 3y agoThat describes every business in existence. How is this even a lawsuit?
- justrealist 3y agoLinda has the FTC eating a lot of paint chips these days.
- bagels 3y agoFacebook gets in trouble for relevant ads. Amazon gets in trouble for irrelevant ads.
- dylan604 3y agoergo, ads === trouble
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- erikerikson 3y agoThe actual FTC announcement so you don't have to visit Vice: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...
- corbezzoli 3y agoWhat’s wrong with Vice? The website loads fast and I don’t see any paywalls
- serf 3y agothe website is fine, they routinely have titles of questionable/nSFW nature -- so much so that other outlets poke fun about it.[0] few want to explain 'I Went to a Gay Rodeo, and Now I Want to Bone Cowboys' to co-workers. [0]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/09/quiz-real-vice-headline-or-vice-is-hip-parody.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/09/quiz-real-vice-headl...
- erikerikson 3y agoI dislike Vice's journalism style, IMO psyops, and rather obtrusive ads. To me, the FTC announcement, beyond being the original source, is to the point and respects my time.
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago> IMO psyops I'm curious, care to elaborate?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoVice Makes Their Site Shittier to Rake in More Profit!
- somethoughts 3y agoI'd be curious if anyone can explain why the FTC doesn't go after Amazon for using its dominance and profits in AWS to massively subsidize its Amazon.com retail offerings (i.e. movie studio/healthcare/grocery/delivery) and undercut its competition in those spaces. It's seem to have stopped since ZIRP has ended and Bezos has moved on but for awhile the AWS profits seem like they were feeding an ever growing conglomerate of disparate businesses with the intent of owning every market. [1] Such actions feel somewhat similar to Microsoft using its dominance and profits from Windows to give its browser away for fee. This ads suit seems like a distraction. That said I'm not particularly anti-monopoly and have a Prime membership - mostly just curious. [1] Anti-Trust Paradox - Lina M. Khan https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...
- Arialonomus 3y agoI am speaking entirely speculatively, but I’d imagine it might be having to do with going for low-hanging fruit, or at least trying to chip away legally before (or instead of) sweeping anti-trust litigation. The appetite for this kind of action hasn’t exactly been great the last few decades, and big swings can lead to big misses (like Activision-Microsoft)
- nojvek 3y agoLina Khan has great intentions but poor results. None of her big tech trials have been successful. EU seems to have a better track record reigning big tech than US DOJ.
- Arialonomus 3y agoThe EU also has a much stronger regulatory framework than the United States does. American corporate-friendly policy decisions make litigating anti-trust more difficult. Not to mention congressional inaction means regulatory policy is stuck generally in the last century. The case against Google has seemed the strongest yet, but we shall see how things play out.
- jalapenos 3y agoIntentionally making sites shit to boost profit is pretty routine. And not just internet rags that bury a tiny slither of content under dozens of ads and popups. The classic one is insurance sites. It's an open secret that they make the claims process as difficult as possible. The ideal insurance claim platform for an insurer is basically to register all zeros on Lighthouse, with a session timeout 50% less than the observed time taken to complete the process (which of course has umpteen pages with no progress indicator and a super slow page load). Similar with government websites related to welfare and services. The harder it is to use, the more people will give up, and the greater the cost savings.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- teeray 3y agoIt’s similar to the repairs line on an appliance extended warranty I once got. I set a stopwatch the moment the hold music and “our lines are busy af” messages began: the call connected at the stroke of 30 minutes—not a second more or less. I did this because it was a third call to this service and I suspected there was a mandatory hold time to make people give up filing claims.
- strken 3y agoI'm not sure government websites related to welfare and services have been noticeably worse than those for paying my tax.
- adamsb6 3y ago"Accept more defects" sounds like a statement about tradeoffs. Defects being too low could reflect that you're putting too much effort on reducing defects when that effort could be better spent on other things. Getting rid of the long tail of defects takes a lot more effort than getting rid of the most obvious cases.
- cpeterso 3y agoThe article says “defects” is Amazon’s internal term for irrelevant junk ads and that “Mr. Bezos instructed his executives to ‘[a]ccept more defects’ because Amazon can extract billions of dollars through increased advertising despite worsening its services for customers.”
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoThe complaint, with some redactions removed: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonec...
- ilaksh 3y agoWe could and should replace these types of technopolies with advanced decentralized technologies.
- solarkraft 3y agoIsn't "make it shittier to rake in more profit" a core value of capitalism? I'm glad something (for now it looks a bit like a token action) is being done about monopolies and funky business structures, though. Google, Apple and Microsoft could be next, with their "using our product also forces you to use our service" practice.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]