hckrnws

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.

> If they really wanted to be pro-consumer, they'd say "Available cheaper here: ..."

Which company does that?

One claiming to be a pro-consumer search engine for products?

But plenty of companies do things like "If you find a cheaper quote we'll match it."

> But plenty of companies do things like "If you find a cheaper quote we'll match it."

Do you believe this is done for the consumer, instead of increased brand recognition and customer loyalty?

Coincidentially, I have the cheapest bridge to sell! If you find a bridge cheaper than mine, anywhere, I'll even match the price!

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.

Are you serious? It increases brand recognition and customer loyalty precisely because it is good for the consumer

The comment read as if it implied that companies are doing it for the consumer's benefit, instead of their own.

Which is a false dichotomy. Trade is supposed to be mutually beneficial.

When has Amazon ever claimed that? And a price match policy makes no sense for a 3rd party platform like Amazon. That's up to the first party sellers.

Did you even bother to read the thread? The top-level comment, the Amazon employee defending the practice.

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.

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.

https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/leadership-...

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.

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).

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.

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.

"…[Amazon] could warn the consumer the price is lower somewhere else, and point them there…"

That would be a miracle.

(On 34th Street.)

Beat me to it. Now I have to delete my reply.

Rules around pricing like that are standard retail practice since well before the internet even existed.

Many standard practices become illegal when you have the amount of market power that Amazon does.

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.

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

> it is Amazon’s web property and they can do whatever they want

Maybe in a different world, one without antitrust law.

But in a sense you're right, they have de facto right to do whatever they want because of the lack of enforcement.

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...

for sure they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make it "pro consumer" as said above

[flagged]

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.

When Google did it with their search results on their site that included links to their own products everyone lost their shit about it.

And those were just links to sites, not things to buy...

Companies are required to follow the law.

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.

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.

Yep. That happens. But delisting some items that cost less but not others doesn’t fix your problem. So…?

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.

Getting 6 months, you were lucky! I've heard of kickstarters that were ripped off on AliExpress before they even finished their own product...

Doesn't that just mean that they brought little more to the table than an idea?

It's an interesting debate. One more thing they did was prove there was a market for the idea.

I think we should severely limit copyrights and patents, but not get rid of them entirely.

Or they're just ideas.

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.

> can also be found on AliExpress for a third of the price, both of them sold by FWHZHW

Am I a conspiracy theorist to believe that Amazon is behind Trump’s decision to end the de minimis?

Not just Amazon. Every retailer and seller wants to keep their 80% margins(manufacturing price wise).

That's been my theory since it was announced.

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

AliExpress obviously isn't comparable and the price is irrelevant when it takes 2-3 weeks vs same-day/1day

Depends much on what you are buying. There are many cases of totally not urgent things that costs 75% less. So waiting makes totally sense.

How often do you actually need something the same day?

Almost always, considering the price is only $5 more

> 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?

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...

> 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.

And, as I hope we will soon see proven, illegal.

Like other commentators I'd argue that the intentions don't matter much, the outcome does.

"The purpose of a system is what it does" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...)

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

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.

Brilliant. Like how Google websites constantly deprioritized Firefox (and promoted Chrome) and slowly killed it.

"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.

One might say Amazon is a dire strait for hopeful authors?

> this is meant to be pro-consumer

it's pro-Amazon and anti-competition, surely. (Amazon doesn't care about consumers except as profit sources)

> The sellers don't HAVE to sell to Amazon, but then they'd miss out on giant POs from Amazon at good terms.

So they have to sell to Amazon?

> I'm not sure if calling it a "widespread scheme to inflate prices" is the fairest thing.

It's fair if it's true, effectively or otherwise.

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.

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.”

Edit: including how they protect their margin!

That isn't lowering prices at all, it is raising prices.

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.

> 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.

IANAL

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).

https://www.winston.com/en/blogs-and-podcasts/competition-co...

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.

IANAL.

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.

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.

"Aligned interest"

LOLNO

Fellow traveller that gets dark patterned to death once a corporate position of power is established (we are here).

I will never financially support Amazon ever in my life time. Any product or service that is exclusive to Amazon is not worth it.

I have stopped going to movies that are made and published by MGM. I have no intent to watch thew new James Bond movies.

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.

Does anyone know what happened here?

The market realized that a used book in good condition is practically the same as a new one. The rest is just supply / demand.

I buy my used (and sometimes new) books off of eBay.

eBay is a better bookstore than Amazon now.

How did you manage to turn "increase their lowest price to appear on Amazon" into "incentivise sellers to have their lowest prices on Amazon"?

> 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).

Calling this pro-consumer is insane.

> 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.

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.

Why wouldn't you reuse Amazon packaging when sending an item on ebay?

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 is good if you don't have prime though as you save on postage.

What exactly is the problem here? Sounds like you're just irrationally petty.

Where have had said I had an issue? I was just commenting on the amazon/ebay leveraging as someone about spoke about it...

My bad, I was meaning to answer the other poster who said it was "extremely frustrating".

If I wanted to order from Amazon I would have.

You didn't order from Amazon. Somebody else did, for your convenience.

They probably mean receiving the package directly from Amazon?

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

| 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!! : /

> Think of Amazon as a search engine for products

Hahahahaha you lost me

> Amazon wants its site to be the lowest-price destination for products

Have you not used target.com or walmart.com recently?

> when you go to Amazon you'll get the lowest price

> there's been a reshuffling of chairs

Hmm.. I think those two things are in conflict.

> The title is a little clickbait-y.

The attourney general of California disagrees with you.

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?

Two things jumped out at me.

1. Average American spends THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR year at Amazon. That’s staggering.

2. As of now the trial is not scheduled to begin until January 2027 (although the discussed injunction is meant to address that). I believe the length of time required to get a decision in court is the single biggest impediment to justice being served. It usually waters down the final judgment, makes costs prohibitive for plaintiffs, and allows perpetrators to continue benefiting from illegal behavior indefinitely. In some cases, the defendant can be elected President in the interim eliminating any chance of facing a court decision.

> 1. Average American spends THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR year at Amazon.

Where else would americans be getting home goods like soap, appliances, electronics? Vitamins, perscriptions, etc?

The answer to almost every one of those, for the vast majority of Americans, is one of like 5 megacorps. Target, Walmart, Kroger, CVS, Amazon. Things have largely stopped being available retail because of all this consolidation. If I want to go buy a multivitamin, its no joke like $25 a bottle at my grocery store, and $8 on amazon. It is just kinda... a part of people's lives now, and the alternatives all involve either spending more money or time.

It’s funny: a loved one gifted me a book knowing I’m opposed to Amazon’s practices. They let me know they bought it elsewhere and the act of paying more was part of the gift’s charm (they’ll use Amazon otherwise.)

I've found that books of all things are usually something you can get for Amazon prices elsewhere.

You can buy used books, they sell extremely cheap and are perfectly readable. There is a lot of seller, at least in France, but I guess it must be similar in usa.

Used books in France appear extremely cheap because new ones can't be discounted. By law (I think) retailers only allowed to offer a maximum 5% off.

Used books are exempt from the law entirely, so they're priced by pure market forces.

In countries like the US or UK, a recently-published book might already be 40% off list price, so used copies may not be as much of a bargain.

Not invalidating your comment, but sometimes paying "new goods" means to support the creator.

I just Google the book name followed by the word epub and generally find what I'm looking for pretty quickly.

Apples and oranges. Both fruits, some don't enjoy one as much.

Books are staggeringly affordable (aside from hardback), and if even they seem too expensive, libraries exist and offer ebooks. I would honestly be embarrassed to announce this – it reveals something very unflattering.

Staggeringly affordable? Last time I checked ebooks were roughly the same price as physical books. That's ridiculous. If they were like 20% of the price I'd buy them.

I don't care man. It doesn't matter to the world whether I spend money on books or not. It only matters to me. Or I guess it's more correct to say it matters much more to me than to the rest of the world.

So yeah, I'm not worried about it. I don't tip either, by the way, unless I see a very good reason to. Given the choice, I prefer to keep my money rather than give it away. Couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about it.

Sure, ebooks could be cheaper, but they’re still cheap as hell. $5-10 for what, ten hours of entertainment? A fraction of what you pay to dine out. I mean, you can be as cheap as you like, but this thread exists because you’re promoting your cheapness tactics for others to emulate, which, at scale, actively harms the very things you are enjoying. You can be cheap! It’s just parasitical, which is why I suggested it was a shameful thing to announce.

I looked up the price for Project Hail Mary which I read recently, it's like $20 and the physical book is the same price. Think about that. Imagine all the work involved in producing and transporting the physical book, compared to just infinitely copying a single epub file that's probably generated automatically from a word document or whatever they use to write books. The fact that those are the same price is outrageous. It's completely unreasonable.

I wouldn't say I'm cheap, I'd say I'm frugal. I'll happily spend money on things, just not when I don't need to. And especially not when it's completely unreasonable like ebook prices. I can get it for free so I'll take that deal. You can say it's parasitical, I guess I don't disagree with that. Personally I think there's a lot bigger fish to fry in that department like insanely rich people who hardly pay any taxes, but sure I'm slightly parasitical in some minor and insignificant(to everyone except me) ways.

I also don't really think it matters that much. Most authors don't make enough money to live off it. The ones who do, make a fortune. I generally read books written by those lucky few who make a fortune, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about not paying money to Andy Weir, who's worth about $55 million according to a quick Google search. He'll be fine. And all the middle men like Amazon and publishers etc can pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I mean millionaire authors are one thing, but saying "Most authors don't make enough money to live on, so I'm not going to pay them for their work" is a bit absurd.

That's not what I said. I said I don't read their work. Maybe I do some times, but it's not often and I seriously doubt the $2 or whatever they end up getting after everyone else has their cut makes any difference to them.

Maybe you should care a little bit what the people spitting in your food think about it.

Oh yeah because I definitely want to be giving money to entitled shits who'll spit in my food. That makes all the sense. Tipping happens after anyway.

And for the record I'm not American, we don't have the insane tipping culture you guys do. I know you're American because only an American would say what you just did.

I'm not American, but I assumed you were American because you were defiantly declaring that you don't tip, whereas in Europe (for example) it would not be worthy of comment :P

Guess we both assumed.

Also, you're right that the tip comes after, so not tipping is safe... until you go to the same restaurant twice (in America).

Are you going to give an epub as a present to somebody?

No, I don't mind giving physical books as gifts to people who want them. In fact I don't mind physical books at all.

I just prefer ebooks because an ebook reader is 100 times better. It has backlight so I can read in the dark, it's compact so I can put it in my pocket, it's light and ergonomic so I can easily hold it and flip pages in one hand, and it can fit literally a whole library worth of books in my pocket. It's not even a competition, as far as I'm concerned physical books are furniture at this point.

Weird, I regard a far-superior UI as the advantage for physical books (with ebooks winning on just about every single other front).

I have found eBay to be cheaper for books than Amazon.

Love is "I remembered."

For vitamins/supplements specifically, there's Costco, iHerb, nootropics depot.

While they might not be the absolute cheapest options, they're usually a pretty good price and at least with those sources I'm not too concerned with counterfeit or tainted supplements, unlike Amazon [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20499808

I'll add to the chorus who ditched Amazon years ago because of their predatory practices. I do recognize though that I'm a relatively rich American so I can afford to, but if everybody who did, could, the market might look different.

That said, how much of that $3k/year is spent on things they need vs things they bought through Amazon's upselling algorithms? I drive past the giant warehouses and I wonder, how much useful stuff is actually in there? Because when I do find myself on amazon.com most of what I see is just trash wrapped in plastic.

And it proves a point: Things are still available at retail. Sometimes it is a box store but just as often it's a smaller shop. Does it take more time? Sure! But seriously, what is everybody using all that time they saved by shopping at Amazon for? From what I see it's more shopping online.

> If I want to go buy a multivitamin, its no joke like $25 a bottle at my grocery store

Such a rort. There's so much margin in them that my grocery store permanently has "buy 1 get 1 free" deals, and occasionally "buy 1 get TWO free".

Soap comes from Costco.

Soap comes from everywhere. It's in the grocery store, drug stores. Hell it's in every hotel you stay in. Just grab it before you go and you've got a few weeks' supply.

Add Costco to the 5 and that’s pretty much it for options.

At least I don't feel morally repugnant shopping at Costco. I live right next to WalMart and leave it as a means of last resort. Cancelled Amazon Prime. I guess Vonz/Ralphs/Albersons are all Krogers, so I'm got there if I need small groceries.

There used to be 6 Walgreen's in my city. Now there are 2. I've used Amazon to fill some of that gap because the 30 minute drive is bonkers for toothpaste. COVID hit this economy like a Mack truck and helped the monopolists grab even more of a share.

Toothpaste is in basically every store. Dollar stores, grocery stores. Probably most convenience stations.

It might surprise you to know that there are different kinds of toothpaste and even toothbrushes, all with differing levels of effectiveness. Some people get advised to use specific kinds by their dentist.

[dead]

Average American spends THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR year at Amazon. That’s staggering.

Is it? That’s by households, not individuals. Is it really crazy to imagine a household spending $200-300/month at Costco, Walmart, Whole Foods—or Amazon?

I spend $200-300 per week at whole foods, much to my own chagrin and moral discomfort.

If it brings you moral discomfort, why do you shop at whole foods? Shopping at Walmart (or whole foods!) would also bring me moral discomfort, so I just ...don't do it.

Maybe there's no comparable or better alternative? (Possibly because of Whole Food's capitalist power)

AFAICT, the numbers Matt’s referencing include Whole Foods so that’s a Whole Foods + Amazon.com $3,000.

Frankly, I think a lot of people have lost perspective on just how rich the average American household is: Around $145k annual income.

Not shocking that Amazon is capturing 2% of that gross.

You’re way off the median household income is $80K

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

Median isn’t the average and Matt was computing the average household Amazon spend.

The mean is almost always a meaningless statistics. It only takes a few people to buy stuff like this to skew it.

http://www.sellersprite.com/en/blog/most-expensive-thing-on-...

Be that as it may, the point at issue was the Amazon spending of the average US household. I’m not sure what point relevant to the discussion you’re trying to make, other than reflexively arguing with any use of means in economic analysis. OK, sure, tell Matt Stoller.

I guess it's just always important/helpful to keep in mind that the average is almost certainly going to be misleading when the distribution is extremely skewed, as is the case for household income. It's usually a mistake to talk about averages in these cases, when the median is almost always going to be more meaningful.

Agree, but can't we just include both average _and_ mean? And maybe min/max while we're at it? Seems like that could give a much clearer picture (without even needing a graph!?)

Min & max are also meaningless for most distributions, so probably you should instead look at P1 and P99 or something, and all of a sudden you're now talking about 5 numbers when all you wanted was a quick point.

The average Amazon spending of a US household, not the Amazon spending of the average US household. That second one gets weird.

I’d be comfortable assuming household income and household Amazon spend are highly correlated.

It actually is for the normal distribution.

Household income is not normally distributed. In fact nothing with a hard zero can be normally distributed.

Sure, but I’m certain US household income is not normally distributed, and I’d bet all the money in my pockets that US household Amazon spend isn’t normally distributed, either.

You're conflating two different things, but what you point out is still useful because it suggests that there are a few people on the higher end who make a LOT more and are dragging the mean up when compared to the median. The mean is probably not as indicative of the fortunes of most Americans as GP suggests. $3000 is a lot of money for most families, but there are a few for which it's increasingly not only inconsequential, but more like a rounding error.

That's on food and consumable household stuff. I imagine some people do all of that shopping through Amazon. But on average?

I spent $3000 at borders bookstore in one year, back in the day. But Amazon gets about $100 a year from me.

You should spend less at Amazon. $100 less per year.

I do agree with you.

This is very bad math on the part of the article. You can’t just take total revenue/number of households. I mean have they not heard of a little side business Amazon has called AWS?

Amazon is not just a US company either.

They also have an ad business. You could rightfully argue that ad spend gets passed on to the consumer.

The number Matt’s quoting doesn’t include AWS, AFAICT. It’s “North American segment” revenue in AMZN accounting. AWS is accounted separately as a global unit.

Though now that I write that, I wonder if Matt divided by the total number of North American households or the number of US ones.

EDIT: Amazon North American segment revenue divided by aggregate North American household count is roughly $2,300. But I’m guessing the real number is closer to Matt’s estimate as US households are wealthier and likely represent a disproportionate fraction of that revenue.

This is sadly typical arrogant HN commentary jumping off to sound clever, cynically playing on the 'engineer mentality' fallacy, having put no effort to discredit the argumen as witnessed by the now clearly stupid argument presented, yet selfishly putting the onus on others to correct. It's quite sociopathic.

Would you rather I suffer from Gellman Amnesia?

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/01/18/gell-mann-amnesia/

If you can’t trust someone’s analysis about something you know about, why trust him about something you don’t?

I dunno, going in with the starting assumption that Matt Stoller is innumerate and/or will twist statistics to support his otherwise specious arguments is not a terrible approach.

On the particulars of this number, he seems to be close enough, but it’s not nearly as shocking with any context: The average American household Walmart spend is comparable, Apple captures almost half that with a handful of devices and services.

[flagged]

Well considering over the course of four years I got around a quarter million of AMZN (and sold it as soon as it vested)…

And if you actually read the report you would see where he is still wrong.

Hint: there is more to “North America” than just the US.

> Well considering

That makes your comment even worse!

> if you actually read the report you would see where he is still wrong

“about $3000 for every household in America.”

Please let us know what alternative number did you get after your careful reading of the report.

Well since the lawsuit only considers the US and the revenue reported is for “North America”. I’ll let you figure that out.

No, please tell me how do you get a result which is not about $3000 per US household. I’m really curious!

North American revenue includes US, Mexico and Canada. The lawsuit is only about US households.

Also, while technically correct that what is included in “how much people in North America spend at Amazon”. The lawsuit is about online sales. Whole Foods by itself made $150 billion in revenue which comes under North American sales.

> The lawsuit is only about US households.

Still waiting for the estimate of dollars per US household which is not about $3000. Come on, you can at least try to get to $2800 and claim victory!

> Whole Foods by itself made $150 billion in revenue.

That seems wrong by an order of magnitude. Or maybe you mean in a decade?

How am I suppose to estimate it if Amazon doesn’t split out US revenue?

You can request your complete purchase history from Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/hz/privacy-central/data-requests/prev...

They will send you a bunch of spreadsheets and it's pretty easy to calculate your total expenditures. That showed us we were spending about $5k a year, mostly small stuff with very few purchases over $100. With Prime it was easy to order a little here and a little there. All those littles add up.

We got rid of Prime and now spend about $300 a year on Amazon. Half of that for Kindle books. We do spend a $100 a month more at Costco to make up for it. A nice side effect is that we have a lot less clutter and junk around the house.

Lol, that sounds about right. I checked, our household spent $2700 last year on amazon. Only 3 things above $100 though, so it's just accumulation of lots of smaller purchases.

i’m confused why that feels staggering to you.

Do you realize how generous their return policy is? How convenient it is to order from them, and set up a subscribe-and-save for monthly household items? Also consider how many people set up wedding or baby shower registries on Amazon.

I have been avoiding amazon recently for ethical reasons but i’m genuinely confused by your comment. It sounds like you’ve never shopped at amazon lol. And with inflation…$3k isn’t even that much money in the US. That’s $250 a month.

3k is less than I expected considering median disposable income is ~50k. Where does the rest go?

That figure for "disposable income" doesn't include tons of effectively-mandatory spending.

average ≠ median

Yeah, but surely this goes in the other direction rather than answering the question; average > median

The author ignores that a small business shoppers falls in North America retail, so only dividing consumer household is incorrect

My relatives use it for ordering office supplies for their business.

Average household, not American

I wouldn't ascribe averages to mean much. I expect there is a small minority that buys everything on amazon (everything meaning groceries, holiday gifts, prescriptions, etc) that would jack up the average significantly.

It is a well-documented fact that Amazon forces it's sellers to "fix" their prices to match the Amazon price. If you sell on Amazon, you're not allowed to sell the same item for less ANYWHERE. This- coupled with Amazon's insane fees- should be a huge red flag to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and maybe a Attorney General can get them to do their damn job and crack down on it... I wouldn't hold my breath though.

You definitely shouldn't hold your breath considering the CFPB effectively doesn't exist anymore.

The biggest mistake we've made is allowing Amazon (and now Walmart) to both be a seller and to operate what is supposed to be an open marketplace

It's insane that the landlord of the mall is also running the biggest store in the mall

It's led to this scheme, but also just the general enshittification of buying things online. You can never trust what you buy from Amazon because their "marketplace sellers" will send you a counterfeit, and it's hard to find some brand names because they don't want to be in that cesspool

As low rent and lowest common denominator as Walmart was in the 90s, at least I could go in and know that a) I probably was getting the lowest price on that Rubbermaid trash can b) it was legitimately a Rubbermaid trashcan and not someone who ripped off the molds, used plastic that was 50% as good, and sells it under the brand Xyxldk, and c) could reasonably expect to find that trashcan offered for sale in the first place

Doesn't this (except for the counterfeits) apply to Costco too? Is the difference just that Costco never pretended to be an open marketplace, just like how Apple never pretended that iOS is an open system?

No. When you go into a Costco, Costco is a retailer who bought merchandise to sell to you. When you go to Amazon, a large amount of the products are being sold by third party vendors while Amazon is taking a large cut.

I think a bigger mistake is just allowing Amazon (and Walmart) to even exist at their current size. There simply shouldn't be any sellers that large, or any marketplace operators that large.

Your example about malls is actually common in Asia:

- Central and Aeon own malls;

- Tesco owns multi-story shopping complexes including banking, retail, fast food, etc;

- and for that matter, Walmart, Target, Costco, and some grocery stores in the US operate multiple smaller businesses inside, eg banks or fast food.

It’s really not that uncommon for a corporation to operate part of their commercial space as a subsidiary marketplace.

Walmart isn't directly competing with the Subway or bank that operates in the front of their store. There's not a second grocery store operating inside Walmart

EEE

I prefer FUKIDOG brand trashcans

Similar to the shit they're doing on Audible, too. If you want to be part of their subscription service, then you cannot sell your book anywhere else, including your own website, or have it available in libraries. And if you're not part of their subscription service, then part of your sale proceeds gets diverted to authors who are part of the subscription service [0].

[0] https://kindlepreneur.com/audible-royalty-changes/

Isn't that a textbook definition of racketeering?

I worked for a large CPG company and what you are describing happens everywhere all the time and there is zero illegal about it. It’s called a most favored nation clause and if you do decide to sell lower elsewhere and don’t reduce your price to match (and beat) their competitor, then your MFN customer delists you or stops buying from you.

This is happening constantly with the private label brands you see in major stores. There is no CFPB needed here, Amazon has no obligation to carry your product and can dump you anytime. Why would CFPB get involved?

Some of you are just ridiculous with “get gubbermint involved” on everything. If you want to combat this then don’t buy from Amazon, we don’t need CFPB.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2025/12/18/how-w...

Why amazon sellers have not opened up a class action lawsuit is beyond me. This case, succeed or fail will surface enough documentation that they may find cause.

Because Amazon holds all the power and will certainly retaliate. At best such a case could end up in front of a Supreme Court 6-3 in Amazon's favor.

ackshually I don't think that's the best case, but indeed very likely. SCOTUS judges (politicians in robes, really) are first selected for their pro-business bent.

Small companies and individuals cannot pursue expensive lawsuits. It risks their livelihood while it goes through courts over years. And even if you win other big marketplaces may stop doing business with you. Plus class actions are prohibited in many contractual agreements - you’re forced into individual arbitration. It shouldn’t be legal but that’s normal today.

> Small companies and individuals cannot pursue expensive lawsuits.

The fact that lawsuits are won by whoever has more money and time is so deeply problematic. I have no idea how you’d go about equalizing it. Spending limits with devastating consequences if it can be proven that you broke them?

Two more ideas

* More juries, and maybe something jury like for civil suits.

* Simplify the law and legal proceedings to the point where the extra time preparing won’t lead to better outcomes.

> * More juries, and maybe something jury like for civil suits.

Juries are available for civil suits, but most parties prefer not to have them because jury results have high variability. I'm following a case, currently pending appeal, where the jury found against the defendants for breach of contract, but awarded $0 in damages, so there's no actual relief regarding the breach.

Even simpler idea, Let the jury know the legal expenses of either party

Loser pays legal fees would be one small step in roughly the right direction (though it has its own set of problems too).

We have that in the UK, but its at the discretion of judges, and the loser can ask the court to look at the other sides costs and only award a reasonable amount rather than full costs (to deter people from running up costs to intimidate the other side).

it works reasonably well.

Simple, just make it public. You don't bring a lawyer, a lawyer is appointed.

This way everyone is on equal footing. Doesn't matter if you're a homeless bum or Jeff Bezos. Both just get an appointed lawyer.

If a suit is found frivolous, you are on the hook for the costs, as long as it's reasonable it's paid for by the state and if a party is found at fault they may also be required to cover the costs.

This is why Andy Jassy was a big supporter of BLM in the Biden era and is now funding the Melania documentary in the Trump era. Amazon bribes each administration to avoid the law. Many companies do this though, not just them. Companies worth more than a trillion shouldn’t exist, yet here they are corrupting our entire system.

On the one hand, this is good to see. On the other hand, like basically every such thing, it's too late and way, way, too little. It is pointless to try to chip away at Amazon by saying "oh you did this, oh you did that, oh you harmed people this way, oh you cheated this other way". It's like if a house is on fire and you try to stop it from spreading to nearby houses by catching each flying ember individually. You need to put the fire out.

Companies with as much market power as Amazon simply cannot be allowed to exist. It was a mistake to ever allow it and every response that is not aimed at a total shattering of the company is another mistake. No retail business of any kind can ever be safe when companies like Amazon exist. (And although this article is about Amazon, the same is true of many other companies as well, like Walmart.)

Antitrust laws exist for a reason, when judges and goverment stopped enforcing them it created the age of mega-corporations. AT&T did not had the level of control of the economy that modern tech companies have, and yet got split to make room for competition and a healthy economy.

The world knows how to fix this problem the rich pay to not allow it.

This is pretty much exactly what Lina Khan would say, I'm still mad Harris sidelined her instead of putting her front and center, drilling that message into people's tick skulls.

> sued Amazon for prohibiting vendors that sold on its website from offering discounts outside of Amazon... to make sure that sellers can’t sell through a different store or even through their own site with a lower price...

First, this is not new. It's been stated policy for years.

Second, manufacturers get around it in a clever way. They always list their items on their own site at the same price as at Amazon... but then magically almost always seem to have a 20% or 25%-off sitewide coupon available, whether it's for first-time customers, or "spinning the wheel" that pops up, etc.

So I don't know how much this is really raising actual prices in the end.

Otherwise, I'm not sure how to feel about it, because pricing contracts are common on both ends. Manufacturers frequently only sell to retailers who promise they won't charge less than the MSRP, and large retailers similarly often require "most-favored-nation" pricing, so they can always claim they have the lowest prices. If you want to end these practices, then it's only fair to have a law prohibiting it across the board, rather than singling out Amazon.

They raise prices by 30 percent to offset Amazon's taxes and then offer a 25 percent discount on their own site. How does this not raise prizes?

...because you can buy it on the other site for the actual lowest price in the end.

The exact percentages here are just examples, the point is the retailer is selling it on their own site for the same low price in the end.

It prevents other sellers from competing with Amazon.

> First, this is not new. It's been stated policy for years.

This is irrelevant.

It's relevant because a lot of people here might think this is news.

I.e. this lawsuit isn't taking place because it was just discovered. So a question becomes, why only take action now? Is this actually a case that has a chance of winning, or is it a political stunt?

That's why it's relevant.

Cancelled my Prime subscription last month after the past year of worsening experiences with Amazon:

Received several orders that were returned items, with broken open packaging and sometimes the item was something else entirely, purely put there for weight by whoever returned it.

When I went to return some things at a major Amazon distribution center, the return area was closed for the week for some sort of construction or renovation, with no indication of that anywhere on the site. The only messaging was a piece of paper in the window once you got there.

At another separate major distribution center, the return area was a small room with pieces of paper taped to a door with an arrow pointing to the Amazon lockers where the returns are accepted.

Orders are now often so delayed that it makes the Prime subscription pointless. Have had multiple orders over the past year that didn't ship for 3 or 4 days.

Amazon listings are almost half Sponsored listings now, and there are unrelated ads on the side of listings.

Half of the listings are some random made-up brand name, like XIJGNU, which is just a Chinese seller selling low-quality products, and when the reviews get bad enough, they re-list the product under another made-up brand name.

Fake reviews were already rampant before LLMs, but now reviews are effectively useless because they are so easy to fake.

At least in the past the sellers branded their whitelabel products correctly. These days you get some random "brand" when you order from an alphabet soup name. It's fun when you have to install apps with it as you have to get the right "brand" app without knowing what "brand" it is as the whitelabel manufacturer has locked it down (though usually only by obfuscation).

In my experience I've received a box for a different brand than the device inside with the wrong app listed in the box for a different unrelated brand. Fun times we live in. And don't bother getting a refund as the listing and company will be gone by the time you try.

I wish they would just sell those products unbranded - then they'd actually provide some meaningful value to those of us who don't want themselves and their house to be an advertising billboard.

I complained to a seller about their obnoxious branding, and they said that was a requirement by Amazon.

I’ve been using Rakuten more recently and it’s provided some alternatives to Amazon where I’m able to get things more cheaply from other stores. If you don’t mind waiting for shipping, give it a try.

Or ask Gemini what the best deal is, it’s found some good ones.

For smaller stuff, Amazon is usually better than Target or whatever box store nearby.

Author is missing a big chunk of what selling retail product requires, which is shipment and delivery costs. For a $5.49 laundry detergent, the cost to ship it your may very well exceed the price of the product if you're small retailer.

At least by paying Amazon I can avoid dealing with all that. While I may pass the price to the consumer for Fulfilled-By-Amazon fees, which tends to be around $5.18 ~ $3.5 (quick google search), it's still a lot cheaper than using something like FedEx where it costs $10-12 per order.

The takeaway here is that Amazon has democratized fast and cheap delivery by building a monopoly. As the scale of things go up, the cost of operations can really go down. Think of meal prepping, when you cook food in bulk vs each meal separately, you're saving costs on power, gas and produce.

The only question is whether we can build a public benefit corporation, just like Amazon.

I'm not American, but I get free shipping on most products, as long as the order has a minimum cost and I wait a couple of days more?

This is true for other sellers too.

In the UK amazon has completely removed free shipping in an effort to push everyone to prime. YUou used to be able to wait 5 days for free shipping, not any more.

I think that's because in general shipping in the UK became incredibly expensive during and after COVID, and never ever went down again. Coupled with Brexit, shipping companies all pushed their prices up en masse for no apparent reason, and it's never gone down again.

I saw through the Amazon Prime scam about four years ago and canceled my membership. Counterfeit products, obviously returned/resold products, and failure to meet delivery date promises. And prices steadily rising.

I just go to Walmart now. And Walmart is no choir boy either but at least I can see what I'm buying.

A product being on a shelf at a Walmart is a better indicator of quality then anything you could post on an Amazon listing.

Funny, it's the opposite to me.

A product on the shelf, I don't have the slightest idea if it'll break in a month or have a feature that doesn't work right.

When I start browsing Amazon reviews, I feel vastly more confident I know what I'm buying.

Only exception is clothing, since it's next to impossible to judge fit and texture and often even color online.

>When I start browsing Amazon reviews, I feel vastly more confident I know what I'm buying.

I hate to break it to you, but a large majority of reviews are fake.

I hate to break it to you, but the fake reviews are mostly all positive.

But if you find a ton of negative reviews complaining that the handle breaks after 2 months... then that's probably real. That's the stuff you look for, to see if there's any consistent pattern to the negative reviews.

I can say how this worked for books. Used to be Amazon didn't enforce their pricing policy. So a bookseller could price their book's list price lower on a different site than on amazon. Amazon would discount to match, but pay the bookseller based on the list price.

It was effectively a way to get an excess commission out of amazon if you printed through their printing arm, Createspace/KDP. Not sure if this worked the same for non print on demand books but if you printed through createspace you could set a higher list price and get royalties that were about 100% of the actual sale price.

No idea if the same mechanic is in play with the FBA rules but it seems very plausible to me that the largest impact is has is closing exploits like this.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also entrench market position, raise a few prices at the margin etc but it's very easy to miss the potential for gaming rules, legally, unless you're actively in the system. If an incentive is there the market incentive will be to use it.

This is not too different from ~2012, when Apple decided to offer eBooks with the launch of the iPad, but found that they couldn't have 30% margin AND match the price of Amazon.

So Apple coordinated the major book publishers to raise their prices in order to secure their margin expectations.

They settled the lawsuit in the end.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/us-sues-apple-publishers...

I think valve does this steam too? Games can't be a lower price on other platforms?

At what levels does greed of people like Bezos, Elon, Gates or Larry comes to a halt?

When the average person stops spending money in ways that enrich them.

Individualizing systemic failures to regulate businesses is counterproductive. Meaningful change will only come by regulation.

Give me one example, where consumer behavior really changed anything. Usually what follows from large boycotts is political action or the company succumbing to pressure.

Just stopping to spend your money there might make you feel good but don't kid yourself, it barely does anything if you're not turning it into an organized action.

How do you turn it into an organized action?

Why should the desire to own more and more of the world ever come to a halt?

It doesn’t. They’re sociopaths. They get to where they are because they’re willing to do things others are too nice to do. Otherwise they’re no better than many other talented business people.

Willing to do things others are too nice to do? Such as accepting returns without a fuzz? Delivering quickly and being transparent about shipping costs?

Amazon is gigantic because they give customers a better experience and people feel safe buying from them without having touched the product.

What's interesting is how their recommendation algorithm plays into this. I've been digging into how these systems work (Netflix's specifically), and there's a pattern: the algorithm doesn't optimize for what you'd rate highest, it optimizes for what keeps you engaged.

Amazon does something similar but with pricing layered on top. Their rec system pushes higher-margin products, sellers notice which items get promoted, then they raise prices knowing Amazon will keep showing them anyway. So it's not just "algorithm adjusts prices" - it's more like the recommendation layer creates conditions where sellers can safely jack up prices without losing visibility.

Basically the algorithm creates artificial scarcity by only showing certain products, which gives sellers pricing power they wouldn't have otherwise.

Amazon better watch their step or they might get fined a single-digit percentage of the profits they made off this scheme. That'll show 'em.

[flagged]

Markov chain?

I thought those would be dead now with LLMs.

Lina Khan is now in Mamdani's cabinet. Maybe NY state and California can team up on this.

The article cites Amazon prohibiting sellers from selling their products for less on other platforms as anticompetitive behavior. I don’t doubt that this is happening, nor that it’s anticompetitive.

That being said, anyone who’s operated a two-sided marketplace knows that one of the biggest problems is consumers using your site as an index, and then seeking to dodge your fee by meeting with the seller on another platform, where they don’t have to pay it. This was a big problem for my startup.

This is a negative externality, because they’re extracting value from your platform (the list of sellers, products, prices, ratings, etc.), without paying for that value. If left unchecked, this could make running the platform financially unviable. One way to prevent this is to paywall your platform, but not every consumer wants to pay a subscription.

I think it’d be fair for Amazon to prohibit sellers advertising other platforms on its own, but prohibiting them from offering lower prices outside of Amazon outright definitely seems anticompetitive.

> That being said, anyone who’s operated a two-sided marketplace knows that one of the biggest problems is consumers using your site as an index, and then seeking to dodge your fee by meeting with the seller on another platform, where they don’t have to pay it.

There is a company that operates an index where people can search for things and doesn't charge the site or the customer for things that rank well in organic search results. I think they're called Google. From what I understand they make quite a bit of money by selling ads next to the listings.

That model seems like it would work pretty well for such a platform, unless there was some major company preventing anyone from offering a lower price than they have on their own site so that everybody goes to their site instead of using a price search engine to find a site with a lower price.

I mean come on. If they're really using your site just to find a product, you think that's a problem?

Meanwhile a platform's fee should be going to things like payment processing, warehousing and shipping, and then if you're offering a competitive price for those services they should want to be paying you because they need those things and can't get a better deal on them somewhere else. If they can get a better deal on them and are only using your site because you're forcing them to with a dirty trick, maybe they're right to object?

> If left unchecked, this could make running the platform financially unviable.

Sounds great to me!

The problem is this is all rent seeking and the leverage of moats like capital and network effects. It’s not actually valuable to society to defend. For a time it was new - now it’s not, and is just damaging fair competition. Amazon and other megacorp need to be taxed a lot more and broken up.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/REDAC...

The fact that California is pushing this gives me some hope.

Walmart and Pepsi engaged in a blatant decade-long price fixing scheme designed to raised prices and punish small local competitors and were sued for it by Lina Khan's FTC, but - surprise - the case was thrown out the minute Trump took office.

Oligopoly gonna ...

Enough is enough. Executives need to do jail time, no bullshit slap on the wrist nonsense.

[flagged]

> Vendors, cowed by Amazon’s overwhelming bargaining leverage and fearing punishment, comply—agreeing to raise prices on competitors’ websites (often with the awareness and cooperation of the competing retailer) or to remove products from competing websites altogether

Amazon has been openly doing this for years. They scrape other competitor websites, even though it’s against their terms of service, and if you sell for less elsewhere they find out and punish you. It’s blatantly anti competitive.

This process can actually be exploited to work against amazon itself.

How? It seems constructed so that despite the high costs of doing business on Amazon (seller fees), you have to not charge more there. If you raise prices everywhere, your sales elsewhere drop. What’s the loophole?

How?

By giving their scrapers false signals using dummy ecomemrce stores with artificial/dummy prices. If done constantly, it might render their scrapers useless or less reliable for buy-box algorithms.

tbh I thought it was explicitly stated somewhere. literally every seller I've talked to has mentioned it at some point.

I just don't believe this is the case. Bonta acknowledges in his press release that Amazon's prices intuitively seem to be cheap, and the concrete examples of alleged price fixing are all so redacted that it's impossible to process them. Like, this is the complete available text of example 2:

> Amazon, vendor [...] fixed prices on [...] This is also an example of Breaking the Price Match, but here, Amazon [...] The plan was memorialized in an email from [...] In other words [...] In response, Amazon insisted on [...] The plan was realized [...] The result of Amazon, [...] price fixing agreement was to increase the retail prices

I don't know how you could even understand what's being alleged without seeing the unredacted version.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

Once upon a time Amazon would pressure book sellers to sell for _less_... now they're actually causing prices to go up... Sad fall from grace.