5 ms·

Even without paying for expedited shipping, I get stuff the next day from NewEgg with the free ground shipping option; one of the benefits of living in the Bay

Even without paying for expedited shipping, I get stuff the next day from NewEgg with the free ground shipping option; one of the benefits of living in the Bay Area, near their distribution center. That turn-around is a large part of the reason I prefer to use NewEgg over Amazon, whose merchant partners typically take a week to get stuff to me.

yoshokatana 13y ago
Same for me in New York (they have a warehouse in New Jersey, apparently). Maybe this program will be one of those "less than 30 minutes or it's free" deals? Or possibly delivering them slightly before we finish checkout?
- kbar13 13y ago
  I live near Edison, their warehouse in NJ. I can pick up up same day with their "will-call" program, or I can get it delivered tomorrow or the day after for free :)
blah32497 13y ago
"whose merchant partners typically take a week to get stuff to me" Which is a week faster than Amazon's normal shipping rate. I think Amazon has purposefully made their shipping slower to get more people to sign up for Prime. But I can't make myself sign up to their anticompetitive BS.
- ericd 13y ago
  Or those prime packages simply get bumped up in the queue to be before other orders that were already placed because they need to be to get out as fast as they do. And how is Prime anticompetitive?
  - blah32497 13y ago
    Membership plans are anticompetitive b/c they effectively lock you in to one retailer thereby decrease competition. You're effectively paying for the shipping ahead of time with the membership, so going to NewEgg or TigerDirect means you "throw money away". The other issue is that since there is no fixed cost associated with shipping you things throughout the year, do to the the economics of it, the plan must be to your disadvantage. Amazon isn't a charity - the deal is making them money - and therefore on average the consumers are losing out. Take the 80/yr and split it among all your purchases. Amazon is likely spending less than that on the extra shipping speed. PS: Hypothetically they could be spending slightly more and decreasing their profit margins in exchange for higher volumes (b/c now that you spent your 80 bucks you feel guilty about shopping elsewhere). However I'm almost certain S&H fees are a lot larger than profit margins. Since the market is already very competitive they don't have much of a profit margin in the first place.
    - mbrameld 13y ago
      Free shipping isn't the only thing prime gets you.
    - pkroll 13y ago
      I don't know where I fit in the scheme of things, but I suspect people get a lot more on Amazon than you're thinking they do once they have Prime. I've got 120 orders in the last 6 months. If you take the $80/year and split it among all orders, it's close to free: and that's before all the Amazon Prime Video I've watched. Amazon of course is making money on Prime, but how does that mean consumers are losing out, any more than on anything else they purchase? I'm paying for a bunch of videos, and a very small amount per order to get physical items in two days, with (often) a cheap option for next-day. Lastly, I do not think anticompetitive means, what you think it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
    - ericd 13y ago
      I understand how it encourages lock-in, I would just take issue with the use of the word anticompetitive because it has a lot of implications that don't really fit here (Amazon isn't a monopoly, they're not colluding, etc). Also, Amazon loses a hell of a lot on Prime directly, though I'm sure they just view it as subsidizing growth. I'm sure they've lost money on my shipping, at least. Finally, your zero sum view of the program doesn't really make sense - by increasing the frequency of orders via Amazon, it gives them more power to negotiate better shipping rates, negotiate better bulk rates on products, and expand their distribution network, all of which can benefit both Amazon and me in the form of lower prices than if the program didn't exist, and better service.

yoshokatana 13y ago

Same for me in New York (they have a warehouse in New Jersey, apparently). Maybe this program will be one of those "less than 30 minutes or it's free" deals? Or possibly delivering them slightly before we finish checkout?

kbar13 13y ago
I live near Edison, their warehouse in NJ. I can pick up up same day with their "will-call" program, or I can get it delivered tomorrow or the day after for free :)

blah32497 13y ago

"whose merchant partners typically take a week to get stuff to me" Which is a week faster than Amazon's normal shipping rate. I think Amazon has purposefully made their shipping slower to get more people to sign up for Prime. But I can't make myself sign up to their anticompetitive BS.

ericd 13y ago
Or those prime packages simply get bumped up in the queue to be before other orders that were already placed because they need to be to get out as fast as they do. And how is Prime anticompetitive?
- blah32497 13y ago
  Membership plans are anticompetitive b/c they effectively lock you in to one retailer thereby decrease competition. You're effectively paying for the shipping ahead of time with the membership, so going to NewEgg or TigerDirect means you "throw money away". The other issue is that since there is no fixed cost associated with shipping you things throughout the year, do to the the economics of it, the plan must be to your disadvantage. Amazon isn't a charity - the deal is making them money - and therefore on average the consumers are losing out. Take the 80/yr and split it among all your purchases. Amazon is likely spending less than that on the extra shipping speed. PS: Hypothetically they could be spending slightly more and decreasing their profit margins in exchange for higher volumes (b/c now that you spent your 80 bucks you feel guilty about shopping elsewhere). However I'm almost certain S&H fees are a lot larger than profit margins. Since the market is already very competitive they don't have much of a profit margin in the first place.
  - mbrameld 13y ago
    Free shipping isn't the only thing prime gets you.
  - pkroll 13y ago
    I don't know where I fit in the scheme of things, but I suspect people get a lot more on Amazon than you're thinking they do once they have Prime. I've got 120 orders in the last 6 months. If you take the $80/year and split it among all orders, it's close to free: and that's before all the Amazon Prime Video I've watched. Amazon of course is making money on Prime, but how does that mean consumers are losing out, any more than on anything else they purchase? I'm paying for a bunch of videos, and a very small amount per order to get physical items in two days, with (often) a cheap option for next-day. Lastly, I do not think anticompetitive means, what you think it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
  - ericd 13y ago
    I understand how it encourages lock-in, I would just take issue with the use of the word anticompetitive because it has a lot of implications that don't really fit here (Amazon isn't a monopoly, they're not colluding, etc). Also, Amazon loses a hell of a lot on Prime directly, though I'm sure they just view it as subsidizing growth. I'm sure they've lost money on my shipping, at least. Finally, your zero sum view of the program doesn't really make sense - by increasing the frequency of orders via Amazon, it gives them more power to negotiate better shipping rates, negotiate better bulk rates on products, and expand their distribution network, all of which can benefit both Amazon and me in the form of lower prices than if the program didn't exist, and better service.