Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon, the Brand Buster

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#31

Post by mmt »

jasongill wrote: post #9
mmt wrote: post #2

Notably absent in the anti-trust speculation is how the AmazonBasics brand does or doesn't get treated differently from other brands with respect to counterfeits (and other undesirable non-Amazon seller behavior, such as used items as new). AFAIK, Amazon prohibits third-party merchants from selling AmazonBasics, which would mean that the inventory-mingling problem, which has been discussed on other threads, wouldn't…

Commingled inventory is an option for FBA sellers. You can disable it easily from your FBA account; I think at this point the "problem" is only for beginning sellers who aren't aware that it's on by default

As sibling comments pointed out, the main problem is for the manufacturer/brand and for the buyer.

An unscrupulous seller (of, for example, couterfeits) would benefit significantly and so would not disable the option.

That Amazon themselves don't disable this option (for "shipped and sold by Amazon.com"), except, effectively, for their own brand, is the suspect anti-competitive practice.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#32

Post by abtinf »

subpixel wrote: post #11
dmoy wrote: post #8

I don't get this argument. I just went to CVS and bought their white labeled lotion and some band aids, that were nearly identical in ingredients to the branded stuff sitting right next to it on the shelf. My soap at home is similarly target's in house stuff. Half the things I buy from Costco are Kirkland. Why do I do it? Because it's like half the price. Just like buying say AmazonBasics batteries vs Energizer.

The argument isn't that Amazon is making things hard on consumers. It's that they are killing brands on a battlefield they control absolutely. Think of it from the brand perspective. CVS pays you to stock their product on their shelves, so while they compete with you, they also send you money every month regardless. On the other hand, you have to pay Amazon to include your products in their catalog. So while they com…

> CVS pays you to stock their product on their shelves

Most retail works exactly the opposite - the manufacturer pays the retailer significant fees for shelf space.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#33

Post by Theodores »

tempay wrote: post #28
p1mrx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real ripoff is that none of the alkaline batteries have a mAh (or mWh) rating. They literally sell energetic cylinders without telling you how much energy's in them; how is this still a thing?

Giving alkaline batteries a mAh rating is difficult as it is highly variable depending on the environment and load characteristics. You can find data sheets for the major manufactures on their websites for example: http://data.energizer.com/pdfs/en91.pdf

This could be solved much like how automobile 'miles per gallon' figures are given, there is the 'urban' cycle for city driving and the figures for 'highway' driving and then there is the 'combined cycle'.

Everyone knows that in a month of Sundays you aren't going to get anything near that '54 mpg combined' figure shown on the sticker for that Prius but you will get more miles per gallon in that car rather than that GM dinosaur advertising '14 mpg combined'.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#34

Post by icebraining »

autokad wrote: post #23
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the example given with Alexa voice purchases ("Buy batteries" only results in AmazomBasics batteries being purchased) is a pretty major difference that makes the in-store comparison not really a great analogy. Every CVS I've been to always has the CVS brand pretty much right next to the major label brand - they're equally accessible. If I ask a store worker where the shampoo is, he'll point me to the shampoo…

IN healthcare, when I order a prescription they default the knock off brands. I honestly dont have a problem with Alexa defaulting to the cheapest option with near equal quality

Does it always default to the cheapest, or always to theirs?

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#35

Post by lozenge »

petepete wrote: post #22
dmoy wrote: post #8

I don't get this argument. I just went to CVS and bought their white labeled lotion and some band aids, that were nearly identical in ingredients to the branded stuff sitting right next to it on the shelf. My soap at home is similarly target's in house stuff. Half the things I buy from Costco are Kirkland. Why do I do it? Because it's like half the price. Just like buying say AmazonBasics batteries vs Energizer.

A side note, the AmazonBasics rechargeable batteries are excellent. I believe they are rebranded (or something very similar to) Panasonic Eneloops.

That's funny, my AmazonBasics USB power bank was recalled. And I bought it to avoid all the knock-off crap you see on Amazon...

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#37

Post by graton »

pietroglyph wrote: post #5

I think this illustrates the unfair advantage pretty well: https://www.amazon.com/s/&field-keywords=batteries

On a somewhat related note:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/demand-for-batteries-is-shrinki...

I was able to read it via a google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=duracell+energizer+high+pric...

From the article:

Shoppers are paying more for disposable batteries even though the proliferation of toys and consumer electronics powered by built-in rechargeable batteries has reduced U.S. demand.

That is because the two biggest disposable-battery brands, Duracell and Energizer, control over three-quarters of the market. As both focus on profits, they are no longer offering deep discounts as they did when they were racing for market share.

Batteries on average cost 8.2% more than a year ago, while prices in the overall household-care segment rose only 1.8%, according to Nielsen. At a time when prices are stagnating on everything from toilet paper to diapers, such pricing power for a product that is increasingly obsolete has confounded shoppers.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#38

Post by tpm »

akvadrako wrote: post #30
bshepard wrote: post #4

How much do consumers pay in Bezos tax for goods on Amazon? i.e, if the site simply let consumers buy from Chinese manufacturers (which, in the end, is what much of Amazon is) without the fee to the owners of the marketplace (i.e, "Bezos Tax), how much cheaper would it be?

Often I comparison shop between aliexpress.com and amazon.de. When the "brand" or equivalent quality product is on both, AliExpress is almost always cheaper, sometimes up to 50%. I would say on average 25% less and with free shipping even for small orders.

Yes, but the prices on aliexpress don't include European warranty, customs and VAT.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#39

Post by mgiannopoulos »

andyidsinga wrote: post #19

the referenced article from Yale Law Journal is very interesting - and discuss amazon in context of anti-trust laws, what is wrong with those laws and some solutions. snip snip ( https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... ) "in some ways, the story of Amazon’s sustained and growing dominance is also the story of changes in our antitrust laws. Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the…

This makes me want to buy some Amazon stock. :)

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#40

Post by Spooky23 »

nicodjimenez wrote: post #14

I think this article is a little misguided. Sure, commodity products such as Duracell or cheap clothing companies might be in trouble, but such companies were weak brands in the first place. Their main appeal was low cost, good enough, and Amazon is just doing the whole low cost, good enough thing better than anyone. But high end brands like Apple, Nike, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, are not going anywhere, that's for sure!

I would disagree. White label alkaline batteries are notoriously inconsistent in terms of capacity.

AmazonBasics isn’t a white label, it’s a brand in of itself, with consistent quality.

Post reply on HN