Amazon seller/distributor/agency here; I've been in the space for over a decade.
The title is a little clickbait-y. As far as I understand it:
1. Think of Amazon as a search engine for products.
2. Amazon wants its site to be the lowest-price destination for products.
3. If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price).
This is where it gets a bit more complicated:
4. Amazon sells ~40% of its goods under its own purchasing arm, known to sellers as Vendor Central. (These are items shipped and sold by Amazon.com). This purchasing arm wants X% margins from *brands, based on whatever their internal targets. From what I've experienced personally -- their terms are generally better than their competitors (Walmart/Target/Costco/Sams), so it's generally a no-brainer to sell directly to them when I can instead of selling direct.
So when 4 has a conflict of interest with #1-3, you get the systemic effect that in order for the sellers to get their **sweet purchase orders from Amazon, they now need to raise prices elsewhere so the purchasing arm gets their cut. The sellers don't HAVE to sell to Amazon, but then they'd miss out on giant POs from Amazon at good terms.
Designing a system to incentivize sellers to have their lowest prices on Amazon... I'm not sure if calling it a "widespread scheme to inflate prices" is the fairest thing.
*edit: Historically, Amazon VC basically ran at near break-even under Jeff, "your margin is my opportunity" and all that. Since Andy took over there's been a reshuffling of chairs and the different business units have different margin requirements now.
**edit2: the price inflation mostly affects big brands that sell 8+ figs/yr on Amazon, because smaller sellers don't get POs from VC (too small to bother).
> 1. Think of Amazon as a search engine for products. 2. Amazon wants its site to be the lowest-price destination for products. 3. If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price).
Stockholm syndrome at its finest -- reinterpreting "punishing a seller if an item is cheaper anywhere else on the internet, even a site they don't directly control" as "pro-consumer".
If Amazon really were a search engine for their own products, they should just give an accurate answer for their own site. If they really wanted to be pro-consumer, they'd say "Available cheaper here: ..."
ETA: Showing competitor's prices could still be a strategic win for Amazon. It conditions users to always first check Amazon; and most of the time if it's cheaper, the ease of one-click ordering and/or batching deliveries should make it worth ordering from Amazon even if it's a few dollars cheaper elsewhere.
It's not done for either of those reasons. It's done to remove the decision point around believing you need to comparison shop on impulse purchases, by pretending that a price will be matched later should you find one. However, the terms are usually such that they will never be honoured.
Wise does (did?) that. I was doing large international money transfer a couple years ago and they advertized in app the rates of other companies in the space. At the amounts I was transferring it was cheaper for me to transfer with OFX so I did that. They are more expensive at small sums though, not to mention Wise card makes foreign payments much easier.
Nobody, because no company is actually pro-customer. Which is fine, the customer and the company's goals don't align beyond "want product" and "supplies product".
The problem is that Amazon abuses it's market position as being the search engine for customer products to unfairly prevent anyone from competing with them. Being "better than Amazon" as a seller in the margins is completely impossible, because Amazon demands sellers price match them.
Let's say you're a seller who wants to make 7$ from each sale as revenue (your actual margins from making the product aren't relevant to this estimate). If you list this product on the Amazon store, Amazon is going to take your listed price and apply their own price cut on top of this (although it's usually framed the other way around, so you list the final sale price and Amazon then says how much they take). For simplicity's sake, we'll go with a 30% cut, so they list it for 10$. Now let's say there's a second storefront you want to sell to, we'll call it Bamazon. Bamazon has a lower cut than Amazon does, let's say it's 10%. So the final product would then be listed for 8$ (taking into account customer psychology on price listings), making Bamazon the better seller, right? The smart customer gets a better deal, Amazon is incentivized to improve their margins if they don't want to lose market share and everybody's happy.
Wrong. What happens instead is that Bamazon will now also list the product for 10$ (because if it's listed lower, Amazon screws the seller by delisting them from Amazon, which is unacceptable for the seller because Amazon is the one with the monopoly position, so the seller then can sell absolutely nothing), making the product equally expensive for the customer and making Bamazon's deal only an improvement for the seller, who now gets higher profits from their sales, screwing the customer. Meanwhile Bamazon is rendered unable to compete with Amazon on their better margins since Amazon is the assumed default. Any benefit of a different store having better margins is fully masked by this approach, only benefiting Amazon.
It's a Most Favored Nations clause and their use on online platforms is both ubiquitous, scummy and makes things more expensive for the customer while also entrenching Amazon's monopoly position. This crap is usually couched as pro-customer rethoric, but it really isn't. It mostly serves to entrench monopolies not on their quality, but through their existing market share. (Valve also famously does this by the way.)
Just a heads up, since no company is pro-consumer, and I assume you know what it is to be pro-consumer, if you started a truly pro-consumer business, you would put all the others out of business.
Just think about that.
Ironically, a large part of Amazon's rise was on the back of their very pro-consumer policies. Not many companies would tolerate large scale GPU return fraud (among other items) for those many years for example.
That's a very simplistic take because it assumes full transparency for all consumers - all while advertising, one of the biggest industries in our society, explicitly allows companies to turn the money they make from consumer-hostile behavior into additional reach, and even worse: all while large companies and VCs keep buying up pro-consumer businesses and enshittifying them.
Some companies have good intent. Public benefit corporations are a thing. They aren't really relevant, because unscrupulous companies outcompete them.
Your assertion that pro-consumer companies would outcompete unscrupulous ones depends on consumers and regulators holding them accountable. So why are you arguing against being suspicious of companies?
Obviously the best strategy for companies is to appear to be pro-consumer, but "cheat" (meaning price fixing but also things like advertising and buying up competitors) as much as possible. In that context, "all companies are anti-consumer" is a decent shorthand for "you should assume every company is anti-consumer because the regulatory environment favors it, even if there are exceptions."
And why would they want to be pro-consumer anyway? We want them to be pro-consumer because we are consumers. But they are Amazon. They are going to be pro-Amazon.
I mean, their very first Leadership Principle is "Customer Obsession", so they do at least ostensibly want to be pro-consumer. Though yes, obviously those "principles" are only in service to making money.
The interests of customers and the business are aligned the vast majority of the time, but in those cases the phrase "pro-consumer" is meaningless because no choice had to be made. In the more unusual cases where they do not align, then that's a different matter.
The assumption everyone seems to have is that the customer is the average consumer purchasing items and services on Amazon’s website. That hasn’t been true in more than a decade.
The real customer are the third party sellers and those using Amazon platforms.
The elephant in the room is that Amazon keeps increasing their fees.
So if someone needs to adjust the price to accommodate Amazon fees, on Amazon, they're penalized.
Not to mention increasing ad costs, which at this point is another fee.
It's not for the benefit of the consumer, it's for the benefit of Amazon: Amazon wants people to buy on Amazon at the lowest cost for the consumer and at the highest margin for Amazon - they won't sacrifice their fees.
Hell, even something as simple as their sorting/filtering is so broken/clunky as to be anti-consumer. Try sorting lowest-to-highest and seeing how hard it is to actually understand the final price of everything that pops up (amidst all the sponsored trash).
This reads like propaganda. Amazon has no business de-listing products because of their price elsewhere.
If it wanted to be pro-consumer, I don't know, it could warn the consumer the price is lower somewhere else, and point them there, like a good search engine of products! Sounds ridiculous? Yeah, because those claims are a bit ridiculous too.
I'm not convinced Amazon has any market power here. Online and physical retail competitors are alive and well, so Amazon has very little room to actually push up prices. It's margins in this area are under 5%. AWS has market power and has a 25% margin, and yet the complaints almost always focus on the retail side.
Section VII is on the anti-competitive effects of Amazon's conduct.
You argue the market space includes physical retail competitors, which the complaint rejects. They describe their reasoning, point out how Jeff Bezos also doesn't see them as interchangeable, hence "physical stores and online stores are not reasonably interchangeable substitutes for one another from the standpoint of consumers".
Indeed,"most merchants—even those that sell through both channels—do not consider physical brick-and-mortar stores to be in the same market as online stores".
It also describes the effect on third-party sellers, like how Chewy.com, Wayfair.com, and Newegg.com charge lower fees, so the seller would like to set a lower price there, but Amazon's policies and market power inhibit the seller "because doing so would result in the suppression of the Buy Box for their Amazon listing."
There's a dozen or so examples of sellers raising their prices elsewhere in order to no lose the buy box, affecting also Amazon competitors:
> A major competing online marketplace to Amazon itself confirmed that it has heard from merchants that they would need to raise their prices on its marketplace or decline to participate in a discount/sale event because a lower price on its marketplace had disqualified or could disqualify their offers from the Amazon Buy Box. This rival marketplace operator reported that during a sales event, certain merchants contacted it to pull their items from the event or indicated that they would need to raise their prices because they reported that they had lost the Buy Box on Amazon, believed they would lose the Buy Box on Amazon, or believed that they would be delisted on Amazon because their item prices were lower on this competing website for the event. ...
> one Walmart manager reported to Bloomberg that “Walmart routinely fields requests from merchants to raise prices on its marketplace because they worry a lower price on Walmart will jeopardize their sales on Amazon.”
> Amazon’s coerced price parity agreements with Marketplace sellers constitute
unlawful contracts and/or combinations in restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act.
(The Cartwright Act is California's main antitrust law.)
I don’t like it, but it is Amazon’s web property and they can do whatever they want. They could put up political banners on the top of their website, but I wouldn’t recommend it with how divided the country is.
They can't do whatever they want, we live in a regulated economy for precisely this reason. Otherwise you get exactly what is happening here, a company using it's near monopoly power to raise prices on everyone to enrich a few
> The policy and spirit of the California antitrust laws are to promote the free play of competitive market forces and the lower prices to consumers that result. Amazon, the dominant online retail store in the United States, has violated the policy, spirit, and letter of those laws by imposing agreements at the retail and wholesale level that have prevented effective price competition across a wide swath of online marketplaces and stores.
The linked-to article concerns a possible preliminary injunction related to that antitrust case.
You don’t need to be a monopoly for anti-trust law to come into play. Airlines can’t collude on pricing, for example, even though no single airline is a monopoly.
Yes. And? There's no claim that Amazon is part of a price-fixing cartel or other collusion.
A pure monopoly is one where there is a single seller or provider. The US grants limited-time monopoly power to a new patent holder, and USPS has a monopoly on traditional letter delivery within the United States, for examples. A pure monopoly is therefore not necessarily illegal.
"In a legal context, the term monopoly is also used to describe a variety of market conditions that are not monopolies in the truest sense. For instance, the term monopoly may be referring to instances where: ... There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)"
That use certainly seems appropriate in the context of Amazon's ability to dictate prices, as described in California's complaint, yes?
malfist literally wrote "near monopoly power", which is not the same thing as claiming that "Amazon is a monopoly".
You asked malfist 'In what sense does Amazon have “near monopoly power”?'
I answered that question. The state of California claims Amazon has enough market share to dictate prices, making it a near monopoly, and it abuses those near monopoly powers in violation of California anti-trust laws. California doesn't need to demonstrate that Amazon is a pure monopoly because that is irrelevant, and not true.
I farther pointed out that even using the term "monopoly" without the "near" qualifier can mean "There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)", with citation.
Which means your statement "Amazon is a monopoly" is a correct summary of the issue, even if those injunction request and complaint don't use those terms.
It seems you think the term "monopoly" can only ever be applied to pure monopolies. You seem to be confusing the economic and legal definitions. Quoting the introduction paragraph from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
> In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.
This thread concerns a lawsuit, so the legal definition is the most relevant.
Is Walmart a “near monopoly”? How about Costco? They both have significant pricing power over their suppliers. How would you differential them from Amazon, if at all?
If we’re using your definition and not anything directly alleged in the CA complaint…
Do you understand what malfist wrote by "near monopoly power", and agree that it's a correct description of California's anti-trust lawsuit?
If not, what do you not understand?
As to your new set of questions, do you mean my personal beliefs, or do you mean the process by which the courts determine if an organization is abusing monopoly power, or to you mean an actual court decision? I'll answer all three.
Personally, yes, these companies abuse their near monopoly power. The failure to enforce the Robinson–Patman Act, the de-fanging of the FTC and consumer protection agencies, and the post-Borkian re-casting of antitrust law to "consumer welfare", has, IMHO, devastated the American free market resulting in a centralized command economy dominated by a handful of megacorporations.
Nor am I alone in this belief. It is not hard to find articles like "Walmart’s Monopolization of Local Grocery Markets" at https://ilsr.org/article/independent-business/walmarts-monop... which, among other things, points out how the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has, since the 1960s, greatly raised the threshold for what "highly concentrated" market capture means, and WalMart is extreme even by that definition.
The legal process is to identify the relevant market. This can neither be too narrow - the market for "RC Cola" is not "those who buy RC Cola" but also includes other colas - nor too large -- RC Cola is not really interchangeable with milk, even though both are liquids which people drink.
If 99% of the people drink RC Cola, that could be because they love the taste, and are willing to pay more for it. (This is the premise of the Borkian view that monopolies are a direct and visible expression of consumer choice.) The anti-trust case must therefore also show there was abuse of its market position. That is what California's complaint does by describing many cases of third-party sellers unwilling to offer lower prices elsewhere, for fear of retaliation by Amazon. (The "consumer welfare" interpretation wrongly, IMO, rejects the idea that vendor concerns like this are part of antitrust law.)
There's probably more, but I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. I only know about these details because of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit and commentary about the influence of Lina Khan on the FTC.
"A newly unredacted FTC complaint shows that PepsiCo and Walmart worked together to rig grocery pricing, drive up pricing at competitors and protect Walmart’s dominance. Internal PepsiCo documents reveal a coordinated strategy to give Walmart better wholesale prices, penalize independent and regional grocers that tried to lower their prices and preserve Walmart’s “price gap” by pushing rivals’ shelf prices up."
but then having it dropped voluntarily by the Trump/Ferguson FTC.
Which is why these sorts of things are now taken up on state courts, like California for Amazon, or New York (see Gelbspan v. Pepsico and Walmart at https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/mopabybynva/...). That does use the word "monopoly" and "monopolist", and describes the SSNIP test as the Hypothetical Monopoly Test used to determine if the relevant market is well-defined.
So if you are looking for actual court cases which have determined this, you either haven't been paying attention to the topic (completely understandable!), or you are a willing supporter of the Chicago School and the billionaire class which gain power by promoting it.
I guess I’m looking for a definition of the market for which Amazon holds a “near monopoly” and the criteria for establishing that designation.
It can’t be because 99% of people shop at Amazon to the exclusion of other retailers, because they don’t. Indeed, Amazon’s share of aggregate retail spending is quite low.
The response has been, roughly, “There are a bunch of court cases where these things are hashed out, and Amazon’s name has come up.”
OK, but as I said to begin with, antitrust is not just about monopoly power.
What monopoly powers does Amazon hold? At what point did they acquire them (roughly) looking back to their founding 30 years ago?
Maybe frame this the other way: If Amazon is only a “near monopoly”, what would have to happen to drop the “near”? What weight is that word carrying?
Then you need a primer in competition and anti-trust law.
The steps are to identify the relevant market and show abuse of market power - abuse as defined by antitrust law. The relevant market is not "aggregate retail spending". The California complaint goes into details about how online sales are not interchangeable with brick and mortar stores, something I mentioned earlier.
Determining abuse is not a simple plug&chug exercise.
It's not "99%", but such levels are a political decision about how what is fair and what is unfair market power. I pointed to the ISLR page, and mentioned how the threshold for concerns about market concentration has increased. Here's the full paragraph:
> Even by the permissive standards of today’s Justice Department, Walmart’s market power is considered extreme. Under guidelines established by the department’s Antitrust Division in 2010, markets in which one corporation captures more than 50 percent of revenue are defined as “highly concentrated.” (The agency has repeatedly raised this threshold since the 1960s, including sharply increasing it in 2010. These guidelines are used to evaluate mergers.)
My response has been "here are complaints which go into the details that you've asked about. You should read them to understand their arguments."
> but as I said to begin with, antitrust is not just about monopoly power.
And I completely agreed with you. However, for this specific case of Amazon, the California complaint can correctly be interpreted as concerning abuse of monopoly power, even if California never used that term. Because they don't need to use that term.
> What monopoly powers does Amazon hold?
Addressed in the complaint.
> At what point did they acquire them (roughly) looking back to their founding 30 years ago?
Why does that matter? When did Standard Oil become a monopoly? I doubt the Supreme Court of Ohio had to determine a rough date before being able to issue a breakup order.
> what would have to happen to drop the “near”?
Why does it matter?
I've already pointed out that economics and law use different definitions of "monopoly". Adding the qualifier "near" ensures that "monopoly" isn't misread as the economics definition of being a (pure) monopoly.
Determining abuse is not a simple plug&chug exercise.
I’m not asking about abuse, I’m asking about monopoly. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s possible to become a monopoly through legitimate competitive action, and indeed similarly preserve that monopoly without violating anti-trust law.
So again: Why is Amazon a “near monopoly”? You go on for pages and pages through multiple comments that amount to, “Because California alleges that they are”—despite California not using that word, just words about anti-competitive practices that you claim are the same thing. I deny that claim. I believe California is alleging Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive behavior that would be anti-competitive behavior whether they’re a monopoly, near monopoly, or no monopoly at all.
Please do me the honor of remembering that I gave examples of monopolies and near monopolies which are not considered abusive, and linked to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly with more details.
"However, the existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices"
> Why is Amazon a “near monopoly”?
Again, the lawsuit is that Amazon is abusing their power as a "high-market-share firm". This is widely characterized as Amazon being a monopoly. I have provided many links which support my interpretation.
> I deny that claim.
I can't help but conclude you are being obstinate. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly : "A monopoly is when a single company or entity creates an unreasonable restraint of competition in a market."
If you want to argue over what "unreasonable" means, go ahead. But denying terms which date back to the 1800s[1] is parading your own stubbornness.
What do you define as "monopoly" or "near monopoly", and when should the law step in to restrain a monopolist? Can you demonstrate external support for your interpretation?
Because as it stands, it seems like you don't understand the basics of the topic, but believe you do, and are doubling-down, unwilling to consider that you don't.
> I believe California is alleging Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive behavior that would be anti-competitive behavior whether they’re a monopoly, near monopoly, or no monopoly at all.
I assume you read how California claims Amazon violated the Cartwright Act. This requires an ability to harm market-wide competition, in a properly defined relevant market. That's why the complaint goes through the effort of defining the market, and presents evidence of market-wide harm to that market. This is why I've been careful to insist that being a monopoly isn't the problem - abusing monopoly power is the problem.
If Amazon had no monopoly at all, which I'll interpret as having little market power, then it does not have that ability, so cannot violate the Cartwright Act, so would not be in the complaint, which again tells me that you need to learn more about antitrust law. (Note that I am specifically addressing the part of the complaint which can be regarded as relevant to explaining how "near monopoly" is a correct characterization.)
"That is, Monopoly is a kind of Commerce, in buying, selling, changing or bartering, usurped by a few, and sometimes but by one person, and forestalled from all others, to the gaine of the Monopolist, and to the Detriment of other men."
"The parts then of a Monopolie are twaine, The restraint of the liberty of Commerce to some one or few: and the setting of the price at the pleasure of the Monopolian to his private benefit, and the prejudice of the publique. Upon which two Hinges every Monopoly turneth."
California claims that Amazon restrains the liberty of third-party sellers to set prices which do not benefit Amazon, and which prejudice the public, making Amazon a monopolist even when using a 400 year old definition.
These laws do not prohibit putting up political banners, but Amazon certainly cannot do whatever they want.
There are laws regarding price fixing, abuse of monopoly powers, discrimination on a protected class, product labeling, and making false and misleading statements about drugs.
If they sell Cuban-made cigars made with conventionally grown tobacco, then while they technically can put up a banner claiming "these organic, made in the USA cigars, if smoked twice daily, will cure epilepsy in children - buy now!", they'll have broken several laws.
That's not legally correct in the US, EU, or the UK. Private ownership gives Amazon a lot of discretion over its own site design, messaging and whatnot, but not unlimited freedom to do or say whatever they please.
In the US major firms do not get a free pass simply because they own the platform and the idea that a website constitute "private property" doesn't work as a defence to anticompetitive conduct or to display a political banner expressing support for a political party of candidate without triggering additional rules / limits.
In the EU this is even less the case, as it effectively treats some platform conduct as capable of creating societal/systemic risks and thus needs to be kept in check. Whether is happens like that all the time in reality is subject of another discussion, I think; the point is that the mechanisms exist.
Political spending/advertising is a regulated activity that goes beyond rules that apply to private property. In the UK, for example, spending, donation, reporting etc. if the activity is intended to influence voters, falls under specific regulations: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-guidance/campaign...
you may want to re-evaluate your understanding of the word hackers. It has had a few definitions during my lifetime and none of the fit with how you have used it here.
My understanding of hackers is entirely based on people on this message board.
And of course hackers and other similarly minded people would be outraged if something they bought on Amazon could be found for cheaper elsewhere, and then the company would have to process a thousand percent increase in returns as well as losing the sales.
This doesn't make sense; these days it seems like the majority of products on Amazon can also be found on AliExpress for a third of the price, both of them sold by FWHZHW. From what you're saying, these things should disappear from Amazon's search listings, but in my experience they're the ones promoted straight to the top, and anything else gets buried under that mountain.
So consider the alternative (because this happened to us): 5-6 years back, one of our brand stores sold a thing (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08DKG3NX7) that created an entire niche of products, and 6 months after our success, a buncha clones came out of the woodwork.
On Amazon, they created listings that imitated our copy and images. On AliExpress/Taobao/etc., they ripped off our images and pretended to be us. Deciding which product/listing is the original product is super nontrivial especially when there's international trademarking and IP law (or lack thereof) involved.
The amount of product images on Amazon these days with incorrect shadows or perspective lines... wow.
If Amazon detected and banned any seller whose product images were gen AI or which didn't match user photos, it'd go a long way towards regaining trust.
That is the whole point of copyright/patent law. Society benefits by having interesting ideas brought to market, and society misses/looses out when people who bring ideas to market are punished by copycats, stopping new ideas/innovation.
You wouldn't have had an industrial revolution without copyright/patent laws.
In the modern world where we have done most of the low hanging fruit a new novel idea could be even more valuable for society to protect.
Agreed. The only explanation is that people don't want to use aliexpress so it's not counted as a direct competitor. If you're prepared to wait even a week, you can get less than 1/3 the price and this has been true for over a decade!
This is just not true. Sure if you want trash you can get it on Aliexpress and Amazon, but lots of good quality stuff is not available on Aliexpress at all.
Even some Chinese manufacturers have a broader range on Amazon than Aliexpress.
yeah, that seems like the easiest pitch of all times. Trump wanted to do tariffs, especially on China anyway, Amazon likely just nodded trying to hide their grin.
of course it's hard to know what went through the heads at Amazon, the initial tariff news were crazy and Amazon doesn't want a recession, as it's bad for business
> 3. If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price).
Most favored nation clauses are often considered anti-competitive.
Indeed, I don't know in what world you would call that pro-consumer behavior. In fact I thought I recall Amazon already got sued for this kind of agreement in their contracts, but maybe it's now merely a non-contractual agreement for doing business with Amazon?
> Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible.
It's an entirely different issue when it is retailers buying from suppliers and setting prices vs first party sellers selling through platforms and setting the price themselves.
> If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon, you'll get the lowest price).
This is a funny idea of pro-consumer, as we all know that the result of this is increased prices.
The seller can not afford to reduce the Amazon price to match other channels and still pay Amazon's margin, or afford to have the product hidden and lose the channel - and so is forced to increase the price elsewhere.
The net result is prices increase across the board, and Amazon gets to tell customers they are getting the 'lowest price', but they did it by increasing the price across the whole market.
This is pro-Amazon both in terms of margin and market share. In many ways, it is also pro-competitor/seller/distributor/agency... but it is very much anti-consumer.
Thanks for replying that. I think after reading this, I'd go with what was said at the end: “There is no such thing as an unintended consequence” - Amazon claiming that what they're doing is to the benefit of consumers is bullshit. Obviously Amazon knows about all of what's going on (i.e. they cause prize inflation elsewhere) and they willfully tolerate these consequences of their policy.
"Designing a system to incentivize sellers to have their lowest prices on Amazon..." so that vendors like the above person getting "the systemic effect that in order for the sellers to get their *sweet purchase orders from Amazon, they now need to raise prices elsewhere" IS intentional!
'Designing a sytem' to 'raise prices elsewhere'!
Probably the person's intent was to protect Amazon, but in my eye this is just providing a very strong real evidence against them now.
Here’s an example where Amazon strait up increases prices.
There’s a great deal of self published fiction posted online for free. Amazon is happy for people to sell bundle that into a book and sell that.
Kindle Unlimited specifically requires authors to remove earlier copies of their own works to become part of kindle unlimited. Thus increasing the minimum price for everyone above what it would otherwise be.
Some authors make the transition and win, but many destroy their audience and thus current and future revenue sources like donations and patron subscribers. It’s a tempting infusion of cash, but the long term consequences can be devastating making the whole thing really predatory.
The word 'scheme' means that it isn't true if it's only true effectively. If you concede that Amazon didn't deliberately work towards this outcome, you concede that it's unfair to call it a scheme.
> If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price).
> Think of Amazon is a search engine for products.
> [Amazon's] own purchasing arm
...so we can't think of Amazon as just "a search engine", right?
You might as well hand someone a toy and say "Think of this as a toy gun. But this is where it gets a bit more complicated: 40% of these have a trigger that shoots bullets." Whom are you kidding?
Clearly with the scheme you described, these are morally two separate entities colluding with each other to use each others' huge powers in the market to raise prices and pocket more profit for themselves.
That is probably part of the court case: does Amazon.com searches favor VC purchasing in any way, shape, or form. This would require disclosure of their algorithm weights and what not, which they would then need to redact so people can't reverse engineer their algos to SEO Amazon's search.
My understanding is they got caught with this in the mid 2010s and as a result had to come very clean on some of this inter-departmental stuff. Most people who've worked at/with Amazon know its fief-like bureaucracy and clean delineation of business units (as both a strength and a weakness), so I'd be curious if there was more to it.
Then the other question would be: if you run a system that has certain emergent behaviors coming from it, without direct collusion -- how much would you be on the hook for various things that do end up happening? It makes sense that Amazon search wants lowest prices on Amazon, and it makes sense that Amazon VC wants margin, so when the two effects result in price inflation is that Amazon's problem.
You don't actually have to directly communicate with someone in order to collude, you just have to both be knowingly working towards that same end (tacit collusion).
But that's aside from the ridiculousness of suggesting that BUs are so independent that their actions aren't being viewed in total by the shared management they both report to.
ELT at Amazon is responsible for the outcomes of their BUs, negative ones included, whether the individual BU leaders 'knew' what those outcomes would be or not. In fact, that's literally how it's supposed to work; ELT directs strategic outcomes from the top.
In cases like this I like to suggest to remember Microsoft's case with IE bundling. The mere act of using monopolistic power of one arm of the business is enough to trigger anti-monopoly laws.
Hiding listings that are found cheaper elsewhere would be very much suspect under these laws.
I re-read your post three times and cannot see how your first hand account of this practice does not square perfectly and ring true with the assertion Amazon has put in place a “widespread scheme to inflate prices.”
If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price)
Yeah, no, this is meant to be pro-Amazon, not pro-consumer.
I wish ebay would hide listings that are more expensive than amazon. It's extremely frustrating getting amazon packages from ebay purchases. I make sure to 1 star all of them.
Some peoolle have automated ebay/amazon leveraging set ups - for eg the cheapest I could find a brand name snorkel set on ebay was £19.99 - and since i often find ebay the cheapest, I bought without futher searching.
3 days later the package arrived from amazon, complete with packing slip, where I found it cost £16.
Searching the sellers account they had thousands of random listings - where I assume they can leverage a small profit. Items came and went quickly from their inventory, I assume as amazon prices fluctated.
It sure sounds like Amazon is fucking you as both a buyer, and a seller - and yet, your comment comes off as very defensive of Amazon, as if they're a blameless party with no agency here, subject wholly to the whims of some invisible hand that they themselves have built and are operating.
| Designing a system to incentivize sellers to have their lowest prices on Amazon...
Is not what you conlude, not at all, and is contradicting yourself just two lines up:
| they now need to raise prices elsewhere
Bingo! The claim exactly! And you really say, that this is not a widespread, also as you described intentionally designed systematic effort to infalte prices?! Come on!! : /
The thing I noticed and is not talked about is used books on Amazon. There was a golden time when they were effectively a buck each due to companies processing so many systematically and now you can't find a used book there that isn't a few dollars off new at best.
> If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price).
It’s not pro-consumer, take two seconds to consider second order effects here. If a producer can sell for lower elsewhere they can’t compete on price with Amazon unless they want to lose amazon sales.
> 1. Think of Amazon as a search engine for products.
That's difficult to do when their search is so atrociously bad. It ignores keywords and places matches well down the page, if it displays them at all.
Plus the classic 'choose a department to enable sorting' prompt. 30 years and their programmers can't work out how to order items from different 'departments'. Why should a customer have to know about their internal taxonomy?
It's probably better to think of Amazon as a product promotion engine. What the customer thinks they want is less important than what Amazon wants to sell.
Thank you for your insight and sharing of your perspective. This system leads to some interesting conclusions and observations. One is, that it explains why big brand products made a significant dive in quality. My decades old bose QC25 where of superb quality at 250 € while my somewhat new Bose quiet comfort ultras priced at 350 € are of comparatively very poor quality.
It also opens the market for cheap knockoffs. If some chi-fi headphones for 60 bucks are almost as good as the big brands and the big US brands are forced for high prices despite the bad build quality by Amazon, another big seller website should emerge. Oh wait, this already happened with AliExpress and temu.
What you mean it is not fair?
Imagine you are huge company that will not fail, you can enter any market, dump the prices, gather market share, make that the main stream of revenue, and suddenly you can click to kill someone whole business. This is a vendor lock-in based on a dumping model.
On the other hand, don't tell that prices are not personalised anywhere. 4 is destroying the economy with gray area tactics
Anyone working there should be ashamed of being part of that
So If Amazon wante to be the lowest price Destination, but Takes fees for Listings, FBA etc, then the product price needs to include that fees. That will make the product more expensive and since amazon wanted to be the cheapest Destination, the price does need to gonup everywhere?
It's maybe the Fairest Thing, but is it good for the Overall Economy?
Practically speaking, in 2026, are there any big ticket items an American could buy abroad and have the travel economics work out to their favor?
The big one I do is medical tourism, though I have family in Taiwan. I've done a bit of dental works where the cost in the US is $3k-$5k after insurance, and at Taiwan is maybe $300-$500 (10x diff) cash pay. I've also done scan-all-the-things health spas in a Taiwan hospital for $300-$500, where American equivalents are again 10x.
Labor-intensive products. Custom suits, leather jackets, etc., are so, so much cheaper in places with lower costs of living. For individual items, flights might make it a toss-up, but on the scale of an entire wardrobe, flying to Turkey, having a bunch of tailored clothes made up, and then flying home would definitely work out.
That certainly used to be the case. My dad used to get his suits made in Hong Kong all the time although that became less economical relative to other locations. I don't really wear any of that type of clothing any longer.
Akihabara in Tokyo also used to be a bargain for electronics but I'm not sure that's really true any longer that I've noticed.
I was in Akihabara in Tokyo and other places end of 2024. Prices were nearly US priced but in Yen more or less. No real bargins. Only thing they had going was unique stuff you can't find at all in the mass market garbage we got going on in the US
Much of the "cheap retro games" from Japan are just the games that were more popular there like Paper Mario 64.
It's hard to really properly track these things but over the three trips I've made to Japan over about 12 years. Id say the price rises have been entirely in line with currency and retrogaming inflation.
I.e. I'm not sure it was every as good value as people thought.
I did buy quite a bit over a decade ago but again those were Japan only carts (that wouldn't even run in PAL without a mod chip but would run NTSC-U).
That said it is so much more touristy now I'm sure any arbitrage opertunity would be sweeped away same evening.
Japan is now also making domestic only console versions (at least for switch 2 and I think with PS5 on the cards).
Again this might lead to people thinking consoles are cheap in Japan but these are Japanese only consoles designed to revive the economic doldrum they are in.
Japan is certainly the place to go for second-hand synthesizers and other music equipment, though. The gear is well taken care of, and usually a fair bit cheaper than local rates.
Fair point! I did see an extraordinary amount of music gear in akihabara and never really processed that information.
And the love and care they treat possessions with as well as the way they package second hand devices is inspiring.
It's kind of odd in a way in contrast to Kintsugi (where repair is highlighted). Almost aiming to keep things in perfect condition but then in a way celebrating repair?
Of for sure, the second hand market in Japan is really very inspirational.
In the 90's I did a trip to Japan for second-hand synth gear and came back with 4x the stuff I'd have had, if I'd only shopped local - and this was in a period where synths (my favourite investment) were lower valued on the market even in the US ..
Some things are more costly in the USA. I have a soft spot for the aesthetics of the Fuji Electric Command Switches AR16, AF16. They're like $19+ each in the USA from automationdirect.com. However, in 2024 I found a stall in Akihabara selling Industrial automation stuff including the Fuji switches for 5-10 bucks each. Bought a bunch and made a little demo panel for about 60 bucks. The same items in the USA would have set me back over $150. When I go back I am buying a lot more.
A certain version of JP Zelda Link to the Past is needed for speedrunning and “legally” running randomizers. It was far easier and cheaper to find in Tokyo than online.
I think, latterly, my dad was getting them made in Seoul and I had some clothing made there and Singapore as well. But I had admittedly not been in HK for years and years and didn't really need suits in any case.
Luxury fashion also tends to have large price differences based on exchange rates and tax.
Before the Great Recession, Europeans, particularly Brits, were flying into NYC with empty suitcases. It helps that NYC has a sales tax exemption for clothes items under a certain amount specifically to facilitate this.
> Custom suits, leather jackets, etc., are so, so much cheaper in places with lower costs of living
Even in places like Bangkok a basic bespoke suit with decent construction is going to be starting at $1000, with the slightly better places charging significantly more.
The actually cheap custom suits are cheap because the quality is laughably bad, you're basically getting H&M/Zara quality for higher prices. The reason these products don't really exist in the west is primarily a lack of demand.
Anything where a single importer for an overseas product has been granted a monopoly and can charge whatever they want for it. In the late 1980s/early 1990s the cheapest way to buy an Apple Mac in this country (some way from the US) was to fly to the US, buy it there, and bring it back.
Yea, same here. I was already in India for other reasons, and I thought--hmm let's see what a tailored suit costs. I ended up decking myself out with a sweet wardrobe for what what so cheap I thought it was an English language mistake.
Weirdly for me: IKEA. I’m within ~240 miles of an IKEA in Canada and an IKEA in the US.
While they’ve started to inflate some items to meet currency conversion rates, some items are still cheaper for me to purchase in Canada directly and bring back to the US.
For instance, even at small scale: one BILLY bookcase, article number 205.220.46, is $90 CAD (~$65.70 US) at IKEA CA and $79 USD at IKEA US.
YMMV coming back across the border but in my experience I just got waived through the border every time I told them I was “just coming back with some cheap crap from IKEA”.
Travelling to a no sales tax state for large purchases. Sales tax is roughly 10%, state with no sales tax is 150 miles away for me.
Doing the math, 300 miles round trip, 30 miles per gallon, $4/gallon for gas, if I'm buying something that costs more than $400 I get a free trip to other state.
Downside is that you're only breaking even for the time, but if you're making a $1,000+ purchase then it's definitely worth the time for me to make the trip.
It's likely poorly enforced, but it's on the books and it's a complicated one to track. It was more of a concern when internet sales didn't collect state sales.
There's also Simplified Sellers Use Tax lawsuit that was recently in the courts.
Car's 11 cents a mile, that's less than twenty bucks in gas, me spending ~5 to 6 hours total back and forth retrieving it is still worth so much more than waiting days on end for freight shipment (and the hundreds that can cost, combined with the messy scheduling commitment if you buy any large goods -- I just checked, it's $289! for that Billy to be shipped to my doorstep).
I have in fact brought a rolled up full size mattress home in the back seat of a Fusion Hybrid (it fit! with room for other things!) and it was a great cost savings. As a bonus at the time there was an additional sale in IKEA CA on the mattress that US didn't have, so I saved even more.
I remember decades ago hearing stories of motorcycle racers going to japan to get a honda RS125, put it in their luggage and bringing it back to the US.
They are small race-only 2-stroke motorcycles, not sold in the US at all.
Inside the European Union, traveling to other places to buy things from there would only seldom be profitable, when considering the travel expenses.
On the other hand, I frequently buy things from online shops located in many of the EU countries, because very often for various kinds of things that I want to buy I find the best deals in different countries. There are no extra expenses but shipping, so it is frequent to order things from far away, because at a local shop near me they would be more expensive than buying from another country, even with the added shipping.
I bought a custom couch from Lithuania and got it shipped to the Netherlands after trying a certain brand in a local showroom. The brand is based in Belgium and does some manufacturing in Poland. They even shipped it for free because I met a minimum spend threshold.
The NL dealer wanted €5k but Lithuania wanted €2800 for the same exact couch so I then convinced myself it was worth it to pay for a fabric upgrade. Since its made by the same Belgian company, the warranty is identical and valid across the EU.
I guess you could say I’ve successfully assimilated to my new adopted home in NL and now I hate to pay full price for almost anything!
Is there something a little more general/accessible that you guys have as a demo? It looks super cool but I'm not a rocket scientist so I can't tell how good it is... (am def into agentic AI and am mildly involved in this in the ecom space).
We have our agent on our docs page! (Hi I also worked on this with Jay) https://docs.contextual.ai/ - if you type a question into "ask AI", it's powered by agent composer just like the rocket demo. And we actually have a blog about an ecom agent coming out soon, it was one of our test cases due to a large, public dataset available in this space.
I feel this is def solvable these days -- but the 7 years thing is gonna be tough to overcome at this point.
What I've done on some of these "need to escalate to a human" issues is to buy a ticket to Amazon Accelerate (in Seattle every September), book a Seller Cafe appointment to talk to a leadership team person (I think recently got moved to the captive escalations department), and get someone to talk to face to face.
I know it sounds dumb but I've solved issues that were costing my company 7fig/year sales like this.
FWIW they got a lot better on this past few years, clearly someone high up finally got the memo.
We had a similar issue in 2018 or so, 1 writer wrote a problematic listing copy on a set of SKUs -> one of the Amazon bots auto-banned the entire account (8-figs/year, great performance metrics otherwise), took us 3 days to restore and we have an insider who was able to see internally what was up + let us know how to escalate within the performance/safety orgs.
Nowadays they make sure they give you a warning first + I wanna say a week of time for people to respond before suddenly disappearing your account if you have a good Account Health Score? I think the main issue these days is people don't pay attention to the Account Health tab...
Most executive seller (8+ fig) have a kindasorta dedicated account manager... I think they're part of SASCore (Seller Account Support) that is kinda okay for internal escalations, but it is highly variable in quality based on whether you get a person that's good or downright terrible.
Supposedly anyone can get them these days by paying $1-2k/month? We've got ours since 2018 and when we balked on the price they just waived the fees -- to be fair I basically talk to him 1-2x a year only for important things and do some panel stuff for Amazon to kinda pay my dues.
>We've got ours since 2018 and when we balked on the price they just waived the fees
You must be in the seven figures revenuewise or higher. I am not, and can't imagine getting the fee waved.
That said, what I've heard about having an Amazon account manager: It's just another layer of the same of the usual awful seller support. Since the "manager" can't actually do anything, having one is worse than not having one.
Yeah, low 8s on Amazon. They already take ~50% of our revenue for all expenses, the SASCore person is a drop in the bucket for them.
We also do B&M and website sales which have way less hassle or much lower expenses, but get nowhere near the traffic of Amazon, so that's why we deal with 'em...
>They already take 50%+ of our revenue for all expenses
As mentioned my revenue is far smaller, so I need larger margins. My total marketplace fees plus shipping spend in 2025 was 26% of revenue. My net margin was 28%, but the metric I focus on is margin on COGS; that was 60% in 2025 and 54% lifetime.
Hearing your account and that of another seller with close to seven figures revenue makes me think I should aim for smaller margins. Not as small as yours, but maybe 10% smaller.
>We also do B&M and website sales which have way less hassle or much lower expenses, but get nowhere near the traffic of Amazon, so that's why we deal with 'em...
My Walmart revenue equaled Amazon's in 2025.
I've thought about opening my own website. On the one hand my multichannel software already supports such, so it would be from that perspective just another marketplace. On the other hand, besides the additional cost and hassle, I keep coming back to how difficult it is to match the Amazons and Walmarts of the world in terms of customer reach.
My fees are high but my COGS are low -- they're typically <30%, but our typical unit pricing is <$30 so the FBA fees and base fees/unit sold hit hard.
We make ~30% before labor and net 10-20% after everything so it works OK. Most bigger sellers I know live in the 10-30% net range.
Our Walmart store is pretty sad, cross product lines we sell between 1-10% of our rev on Amazon :( ... but that's also because our products (home and kitchen) have lower cost competitors on Walmart itself. We're the mid-premium product, which is a much better position on Amazon and the right marketplace fit.
> My fees are high but my COGS are low -- they're typically <30%
45% for me in 2025.
>but our typical unit pricing is <$30
$59 ASP in 2025 ($63 average revenue per sale).
>Most bigger sellers I know live in the 10-30% net range.
Yes, that's the impression I've gotten of the marketplace megasellers, of 10% margins being the norm. Not quite the old dotcom joke of losing money on every sale but making it up on volume, but you know what I mean.
>but that's also because our products (home and kitchen) have lower cost competitors on Walmart itself. We're the mid-premium product, which is a much better position on Amazon and the right marketplace fit
That's interesting; I would have thought that Amazon would have more sellers across price points. Walmart has more Chinese sellers with gibberish brand names than before thanks to a noticeable loosening of application criteria, but still fewer than Amazon. Are competitors at your price point not present on Amazon but are present on Walmart? Or they are present on both, but for whatever reason (advertising, FBA/FBM differential) your listings get relatively more visibility on Amazon?
For my product niche, Amazon has (many) more buyers at my pricepoint and value prop (moderately well-designed kitchen gadgets at a price point between your run-on-the-mill gadget and OXO).
Maybe I also know how to SEO better on Amazon vs Walmart, but not sure! ¯\(°_o)/¯
> The sad part is that I sell a book, Computer Engineering for Babies
Oh no way, I bought your book (I think via kickstarter?). :)
First off -- Amazon's super bureaucratic so all of their processes require a certain language and esclation path. I'll have to ask my team's support specialist on what she thinks, but my gut is telling me your language needs to be "compatible with Samsung" or "Samsung compatible" instead of "for... Samsung TV remote".
I've been doing Amazon for 13 years and have a team + a few brands I own in the ecosystem -- just some basic tips:
1. Get brand registry (or find a maker buddy and put it under their brand) for listing control. Generic is not the way to go for listing control -- you need brand registry. Then you can edit away under your own brand.
2. You shouldn't be losing any money doing this. If you're doing 3D printer stuff you should expect your cost to be like 5-10%, Amazon takes 40-50% between all fees, ads around 10%, and the rest is labor/margin... and if your numbers aren't there you need to figure out what's wrong.
I have lots more thoughts but I realize this can become an essay haha. Feel free to ping me if you need some help, loved your books. :)
===
Edit: I don't think you're at risk of getting banned, but you might need an escalation to a higher level support (a captive or escalations specialist within Amazon).
Edit 2: I had some extra downtime to look at it, my approach to resolving the issue would be:
a. You should first try to clearly indicate you're a product accessory and not a Samsung-branded product; review sellercentral best practices for SKU naming but it's gonna be something along the lines of "compatible with Samsung TV remotes"
b. If you get stuck here for too long, I would first remove all reference to Samsung for now from the listing and make it a more generic accessory, acknowledge the brand confusion, reinstate your store, then create a case to add Samsung back into your listing (and be sure to have this case handy if you get future problems so you can reference back and show you're doing this the right way).
c. Phone support works a lot better in recent days than email/chat support. But since you're deactivated I'm not sure if you get access to this.
My personal email is rot13’ed when you click on my username :)
This is my company (not selling anything, just wanna help out the creator of a product that brought my family some joy and showing I'm not some rando :) ): http://www.buyawesome.com
I remember a time when I'd pick up every single call received... now it's the opposite, I only have it ring on recognized phone numbers + I skim voicemails, filter out the ones that leave the 3-4s of silence or autoplay text, and call back those who actually have business purpose with me.
If there exist AI robocalls that start spoofing my friends and loved ones... ugh, I can just imagine the hassle of doing due diligence for every voicemail going forward. (This does kinda remind me of the scams where someone pretends to be a kidnapped distant family member, cries in the background of the call, and asks for ransom money....)
Android has a call screening feature that's amazing. I turn it on for any unknown number. I haven't missed any calls I wanted to receive, and everything else fails the screen.
That's not realistic for many people. I don't have every doctor's office that I might come in contact with in my contact database. Nor every emergency service that may contact me because of an elderly relative or someone else. And presumably you don't have a landline either so you're simply choosing to make yourself not contactable.
Which isn't a reasonable option for a lot of people assuming there are alternatives.
That's fair. I don't have any elderly relatives I'm responsible for, but if/when that situation arrises I'd probably try to set up contact records for their caregivers and providers. It's a shame that scammers and spammers have ruined our telecommunications system and that the telecom companies haven't done anything about it.
> I'd probably try to set up contact records for their caregivers and providers
Won't work. I have both elderly relatives and young children, and it's possible to get calls about them from just about anyone in their respective facilities. It's not possible to try to find and list the phone of everyone who ever watches over them. Including substitutes and temps and so on.
It is frustrating, though, that they require you to provide an exhaustive list of people who can contact them but they are under no such obligation to do the same for you.
I find it easier to set up voicemail. Unknown callers that care will leave a message. That message is speech to text processed and I can decide if to play it or call back. Anything important enough gets through even from unknown numbers. Never have to answer a spam call.
You probably should have at least an option to go to voicemail.
I do get messages from offices I don't have in my contacts database that I generally want to receive. Ignoring total junk is mostly fairly painless at least for me.
I'm ... strongly antagonistic to voicemail myself. But even if you don't check/listen to messages, simply noting who's left a message is a pretty good screening method. For most medical comms, you're unlikely to have a meaningful message left other than "call back" in any regard, so enabling but not listening too hard is viable.
Many medical systems now have some sort of electronic patient record which includes medical staff (MD, RN, PA, etc.) messages, though that's no silver bulet either.
When a phone is receiving dozens of calls per day, answering each and every simply isn't viable, not matter how critical a given call might be.
Unfortunately, it's often older people with a greater dependence on healthcare providers who are also targeted by robocallers, fraudsters, and telemarketers, often to devastating effect.
I've been mulling over an idea for some time: set up an answering machine on freepbx with an IVR that requires the caller to push a button before it's forwarded to a (ringing) phone, otherwise sayonara.
That should cut off most robocallers, shouldn't it?
Doctors have no business calling, medicine isn't done through phone. Contact is possible: when I don't answer spam calls from banks, they send me sms stating their business.
Meanwhile, in the world where I live, doctor's offices call me on a not-frequent but not-rare occasion to reschedule appointments and the like. SMS is increasingly used for a lot of routine stuff like reminders but there's still a fair number of phone calls.
Per another comment, my suburban hospital system has merged with one of the two big city systems and as a patient the electronic health records system saves quite a few phone calls and faxes being sent around. But there are still some calls.
I would treat it analogous to asking ChatGPT to code for you (but for food) - some times it works great, other times you gotta nudge it a bit.
The tool is currently best used by people who already know how to code/cook and don't want to spend too much cognitive bandwidth, but have the skills to mofidy as needed.
That's pretty much exactly how I see it, too. Offload a good chunk of the scut work, but I'm sanity checking the results. Still a strong net positive, at least in my experience.
The title is a little clickbait-y. As far as I understand it:
1. Think of Amazon as a search engine for products. 2. Amazon wants its site to be the lowest-price destination for products. 3. If Amazon finds your product on another website for lower than its own website, it'll just hide your listing from the search -- this is meant to be pro-consumer (when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price).
This is where it gets a bit more complicated: 4. Amazon sells ~40% of its goods under its own purchasing arm, known to sellers as Vendor Central. (These are items shipped and sold by Amazon.com). This purchasing arm wants X% margins from *brands, based on whatever their internal targets. From what I've experienced personally -- their terms are generally better than their competitors (Walmart/Target/Costco/Sams), so it's generally a no-brainer to sell directly to them when I can instead of selling direct.
So when 4 has a conflict of interest with #1-3, you get the systemic effect that in order for the sellers to get their **sweet purchase orders from Amazon, they now need to raise prices elsewhere so the purchasing arm gets their cut. The sellers don't HAVE to sell to Amazon, but then they'd miss out on giant POs from Amazon at good terms.
Designing a system to incentivize sellers to have their lowest prices on Amazon... I'm not sure if calling it a "widespread scheme to inflate prices" is the fairest thing.
*edit: Historically, Amazon VC basically ran at near break-even under Jeff, "your margin is my opportunity" and all that. Since Andy took over there's been a reshuffling of chairs and the different business units have different margin requirements now.
**edit2: the price inflation mostly affects big brands that sell 8+ figs/yr on Amazon, because smaller sellers don't get POs from VC (too small to bother).
reply