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

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#91

Post by dimator »

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!

The question is, if you wanted to start a cheaper, good-enough battery company, even cheaper than AmazonBasics, could you sell and compete on Amazon? Or would they still outposition you by hand holding customers directly to theirs?

I'm fairly sure it's the latter.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#92

Post by tpm »

akvadrako wrote: post #51
tpm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure but who needs those?

You may not need them, but often enough you will have to pay the duty and VAT before the customs release your package, thus erasing the price difference. As for the warranty, customers usually do need it.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#93

Post by snom380 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #74
DanCarvajal wrote: post #70

As someone who almost always buys generic brand from wherever I shop I'm pretty aloof to these complaints. Target, Walmart, and Costco all have in house brands. The Amazon brand "Goodthreads" Oxfords I wear to the office are very impressively well made for the price. Compared to the Target "Goodfellow & Co" ones at the same price there's a higher level of quality and finish. They're better than the Banana Republic on…

I always do that with toilet paper, soap, etc. If Amazon kills brands, that is a great thing. If you need to wear expensive clothing to show how rich you are, donate 10k to the top ranked give well charity, buy a five dollar t-shirt and I will sew your reciept on it. Much more efficent than throwing more money on Raulph Lauren.

I wear expensive clothing (without any visible branding) because I'm paying a company that pays fair wages to their workers and are working on reducing environmental footprint. Now that company isn't on Amazon, and I don't have a problem with Amazon selling their own brands, but if they end up making it more difficult for smaller companies to thrive, I consider it a negative.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#94

Post by mmt »

jasongill wrote: post #44
traek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it’s not an option for brands, which is the more relevant comparison here.

How would commingled inventory have anything to do with brands? Brands can already protect their listings from 3rd party seller issues using Brand Registry / Brand Gating

Possibly this option is too new or too poorly publicized to have had enough of an effect yet.

It certainly hasn't been well-publicized as to how it works in practice, especially for a large brand. Do they opt-in or opt-out the sellers? Do they have to choose just one of those two models?

For large brands, this brings up yet another antitrust concern. If they suppress the grey market (or even create too much friction for their authorized resellers), big brand manufacturers run the risk of running afoul of even the modern, more lenient antitrust law interpretation by pushing up consumer prices.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#95

Post by mmt »

Zak wrote: post #68
discreditable wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for the pricing to work out unless you know you'll use them for a while. A 48-pack of Amazon AAs is $13.29 [1]. A 16-pack of Amazon rechargable AAs is $24.99 [2]. Ignoring the cost of a charger, the rechargables won't pay for themselves unless you go through 4 recharge cycles. If you add the $14.99 charger [3] for your first order, then you need 5 cycles on all of the batteries (80 cycles total) for it to b…

I would be surprised if most people don't still have a use for AA and AAA batteries in a decade. A relatively light user should manage a charge cycle every couple of years, and NiMH batteries have a useful life longer than 10 years.

I think that something you're forgetting is that, though, as you mention, self-discharge has come a long way (as has charger technology, which I'm not sure has been mentioned), that doesn't mean every single product on the market actually benefits from these advances.

A consumer need only be "burned" once to form or strengthen the perception that rechargeables are an inferior good.

Oh, and where are we on the capacity front?

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#96

Post by saagarjha »

ams6110 wrote: post #78
Zak wrote: post #60

I'm a little surprised so many people still buy large numbers of alkaline batteries. NiMH rechargeables are readily available, have a fairly low cost to get started with a battery/charger bundle, save a significant amount of money over time and have vastly better performance in higher-drain devices like cameras and flashlights.

I've tried using rechargeables a few times and it never works out over the long-term. They get thrown away by people who don't realize they are rechargeable, you end up with one less than you need, you forget to charge them, it's just a pain compared to having a supply of disposable batteries that have a good shelf life and are always ready to use

> you forget to charge them

Just keep a couple extra charged and ready around the house that you can swap in if necessary.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#97

Post by mmt »

Zak wrote: post #67
moogly wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many devices can't deal with the lower voltage (1.2V vs 1.5V). About half of my AA/AAA devices don't work at all.

Those devices must have very short runtimes on alkalines. Even a 0.2A load on an alkaline AA puts it under 1.2V for most of its discharge capacity[0]. That's not an especially high load; it's the amount that will drain it in 11 hours of use, but if the device quits at 1.2V, it will only run for 4.5 hours. It would not surprise me to learn that the designers of a consumer electronic device did a bad job, but I'd descr…

> it will only run for 4.5 hours

That seems plenty long for something like a TV remote, if "run" includes the amount of time that buttons are depressed.

> It would not surprise me

This is inconsistent with your original comment that claims "a little surprise".

Consumer behavior responds to actual products, not someone's standard of engineering design.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#98

Post by ikeboy »

something2 wrote: post #72
mmt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Amazon also has something called Brand Registry. Essentially, if you can prove you own a brand, you can prevent other sellers from selling the same item. That's how most larger brands protect their listings.

This is false, speaking from direct experience. Brand registry does NOT let you gate the brand.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#99

Post by ikeboy »

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

They don't actually honor it though. I know plenty of sellers who have gotten back inventory they didn't send in even though they do not choose commingling.

Re: Amazon, the Brand Buster

#100

Post by ikeboy »

civilitty wrote: post #87
abandonliberty wrote: post #82

Amazon picks successful high margin items and knocks them off. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazonbasics-house-bra... https://www.amazon.com/Rain-Design-mStand-Laptop-Patented/dp... https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-DSN-01750-SL-Laptop-Stan... Interestingly though, the amazonbasics version doesn't hit the first page for laptop stands while the Rain version still does.

> Interestingly though, the amazonbasics version doesn't hit the first page for laptop stands while the Rain version still does. I'm curious, does this mean that Amazon doesn't prioritize their own products in the search algorithm? I've felt that in the past Amazon is usually ahead of the game on legal issues - like when they started collecting state sales taxes across the board, years before the Supreme Court ruling…

They absolutely favor their own brands, often having an entire line called "our brands" with prominent placement.
Post reply on HN