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

Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 192 posts

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#41

Post by mumblemumble »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #17

Amazon sells so many counterfeit Nike products that I've been using Nike and Adidas' online stores for quite awhile. Amazon is so bad when it comes to counterfeits that there are only two conditions that will lead me to purchase an item there anymore: - Either the item is listed as being sold by its original manufacturer and fulfilled by Amazon - Or I just need something and don't care if it's cheap Chinese crap I'm…

> - Either the item is listed as being sold by its original manufacturer and fulfilled by Amazon

I wouldn't trust that one. Since Amazon co-mingles inventory, stuff that's sold by the original manufacturer but FBA could still get mixed up with counterfeit product.

What you'd really want to do to make sure that it's coming from the original manufacturer is look for stuff that is sold by the original manufacturer and not fulfilled by Amazon.

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#43

Post by throwaway35784 »

izzydata wrote: post #21
throwaway35784 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your suggestions are what give that icky feeling. It's creepy. People don't like creepy. You are losing costumers.

Is your spelling of "customers" as "costumers" intentional? It feels like some inside joke I am missing.

It was a swypo I thought was funny so I left it because it fit. The joke was only in my head, but I really love when the autocorrections pick something insightful.

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#44

Post by logfromblammo »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #31
jolmg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, you want to present the same price to all customers.

Yeah, I don't know why you'd do what they're prescribing. It's just misleading and seems more like a dark pattern. As if "free shipping" will manipulate them to make the purchase. People already understand the price of an object vs the cost of sending that object somewhere in the world. Everyone understands $100 shoes with a shipping fee, not $105-$130 shoes that shape-shift depending on where the person lives that o…

You can certainly present the same price of the good to every user, while also automatically calculating the cost to ship to their postal code--if they specify it, or the postal code most likely for their IP address if not. Then apply a "combined shipping discount" calculation when they go to view the contents of their shopping cart, for everything that can fit in a single box shipped from a single warehouse.

Then allow the user to sort on base retail price or price plus shipping, as they prefer.

Being transparent about goods versus shipping makes the customer feel better about not getting manipulated and/or ripped off.

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#45

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #39
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But seeing $100 shoes then seeing $5 shipping fees tacked on separately will make people feel cheated, and abandon the purchase. They made a decision to spend $100, and now you're trying to make them make another decision to spend $105 instead. Disclosing the shipping fees up front helps a bit, but not completely.

That's what I'm saying. I don't think people feel cheated seeing $100 + $5 S/H. I mean, speak for yourself: do you really feel cheated by the transparency? And if people do feel cheated (I'm unconvinced), I still don't believe they need to be manipulated into thinking that shipping doesn't have cost. These kinds of reality-distortion practices are all too common in tech and ecommerce. It's like Verizon manipulating p…

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't change that seeing additional fees after an initial decision seriously puts me off. Note that I'm from Europe, i.e. if the sticker on the shelf says something is 5.99, it's 5.99, not 6.47.

I also often do feel cheated because the shipping fees often match or exceed non-discounted consumer postage fees, and many stores just use it to advertise deceptively low prices. The argument here is "handling cost", but a grocery store also has handling costs - and how would you feel if a "check-out fee" was added at the end?

When I'm on a shopping site to buy an individual item, I want to know "how much do I have to pay to have this item in my hand". I don't care if you charge $5 for the item and $10 for shipping, or $15 with free shipping.

If the shipping fee is clearly advertised (i.e. in legible, discoverable font right next to the price) and is reasonable, it's one thing. But patterns I often see and always hate:

- ridiculous shipping fees used to advertise lower prices than others when the actual price is higher (sucks if the platform you're using sorts by price, not total cost - like Amazon does!)

- charging 9.99 for shipping for something that comes in a barely padded envelope with 1.50 worth of postage on it

- shipping costs well hidden, so you have to spend time before you know what the actual price you'll pay is

I consider "free shipping" not "manipulating me into thinking that shipping doesn't have cost". I consider it a promise that what I see is what I pay (i.e. I consider that transparency). Without it, if you see $19.99 on a web site, it could mean $19.99, or $39.98, and you often can't easily tell.

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#46

Post by ducster620 »

lotyrin wrote: post #29
mikece wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be ideal but every piece of data they capture is a component for a future sales funnel. The smart way to do this would be to have some boilerplate language about respecting user's privacy and having a minimum number of required fields and then baiting you to provide more info for discounts, insider info, and whatever else they are willing to give as digital tchotchkes in exchange for more and more marketin…

I buy the number of shoes per year that I'm going to buy and I'm going to buy them first based on a value calculation that considers things like their price and my expectation of their longevity and secondly based on whether or not I'm contributing to business practices that externalize costs of my purchase to others. I will forever opt out and unsubscribe from anything I can, and furiously report spam for the remain…

I would say runners might be in this category. I often get emails from Altra, RunningWarehouse and a host of other shoe companies and I will open them up and take a look. I think it was about a month ago that I received an email from RunningWarehouse about some shoes I hadn't thought of at a good deal and I went ahead and bought them even though I didn't need another pair. Another time about 3 months ago Altra sent over a email about a special edition pair which again didn't need already have 5 pairs of shoes but I bought them anyway.

The reason I go through and buy them is because I know I will eventually need another pair and I would much rather buy a pair on sale then need a pair and have to pay more.

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#47

Post by jolmg »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #37
hombre_fatal wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't know why you'd do what they're prescribing. It's just misleading and seems more like a dark pattern. As if "free shipping" will manipulate them to make the purchase. People already understand the price of an object vs the cost of sending that object somewhere in the world. Everyone understands $100 shoes with a shipping fee, not $105-$130 shoes that shape-shift depending on where the person lives that o…

But seeing $100 shoes then seeing $5 shipping fees tacked on separately will make people feel cheated, and abandon the purchase. They made a decision to spend $100, and now you're trying to make them make another decision to spend $105 instead. Disclosing the shipping fees up front helps a bit, but not completely.

Wouldn't they feel more cheated if they find out that the price given to them is, with no justification, more costly than the price given to friends and family in other locations?

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#48

Post by gfo »

davidhyde wrote: post #3

People don't mind buying from a vendor's site directly but the vendor should do their best to reduce the admin / pain of doing so. Some tips I wish vendors would follow: 1. Don't capture more information than is absolutely necessary for the transaction. 2. Don't force the user to sign up or join anything if they just want to buy something. 3. Don't automatically add the user to your newsletter and send their details…

It surprises me the large shipping companies (UPS, Fedex) haven't pushed fulfillment to the level Amazon has. Frankly, I would be shopping directly through retailers more if I could get everything for free two-day shipping.

I get part of that is funded through the Prime annual fee and Amazon's cut of the proceeds but given their large distribution networks I would think they could come to Amazon's level (but this also probably depends on the volume of other packages they handle which AREN'T retail).

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#49

Post by CharlesColeman »

bambax wrote: post #11
davidhyde wrote: post #3

People don't mind buying from a vendor's site directly but the vendor should do their best to reduce the admin / pain of doing so. Some tips I wish vendors would follow: 1. Don't capture more information than is absolutely necessary for the transaction. 2. Don't force the user to sign up or join anything if they just want to buy something. 3. Don't automatically add the user to your newsletter and send their details…

4: Whenever possible (which is, in most cases except for huge and/or super cheap items), incorporate shipping costs into the cost of the product. Then you can say: "Free shipping!"

> 4: Whenever possible (which is, in most cases except for huge and/or super cheap items), incorporate shipping costs into the cost of the product. Then you can say: "Free shipping!"

But won't that typically be a worst-case estimate? I actually kinda like itemized shipping charges. Then I know if I'm buying two items then I'm not being double-charged for shipping.

Re: Nike won’t sell directly to Amazon anymore

#50

Post by bliblah »

davidhyde wrote: post #3

People don't mind buying from a vendor's site directly but the vendor should do their best to reduce the admin / pain of doing so. Some tips I wish vendors would follow: 1. Don't capture more information than is absolutely necessary for the transaction. 2. Don't force the user to sign up or join anything if they just want to buy something. 3. Don't automatically add the user to your newsletter and send their details…

The issue is that Amazon and other 3rd party vendors actually offer deals.

I was in the market for some headphones and had a specific brand and make in mind and when I looked in their site they were more than $100 more than Amazon. This has held true for me for a lot of items and even when using price tracker it is pretty much no contest to just buy off any reputable vendor most of the time.

I think it's just that the people who make the goods often have no market sense and rely on outsourcing it for 90% of their sales.

Post reply on HN