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

The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#61

Post by gamblor956 »

x0x0 wrote: post #30
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they be per-unit shipped/sold on Amazon? Does the brand need to use the same unique code system in, for example, their own brick & mortar location?

Yes, because Amazon days you can't stop resellers from selling your x on Amazon (per my reading). Thus you must tag all units.

No, Amazon can easily stop resellers from selling X on Amazon. It's a private platform.

Manufacturers don't need to tag all units unless they sell the same SKU across multiple channels. If they create Amazon-specific SKUs then any non-Amazon SKU would be presumed counterfeit under the new system.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#62

Post by mrandish »

dragontamer wrote: post #35
papreclip wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I fully understand your perspective. Aside from simply offering a marketplace on which people may sell various products, what has Amazon done to encourage abuse?

> what has Amazon done to encourage abuse? Co-mingling of products at the warehouse. When you buy from Amazon, you don't actually know which "seller" is supplying the goods. They all were comingled at the Warehouse. Even "Sold by Amazon" and "Fufilled by Amazon" products are comingled. Leading to: https://twitter.com/billpollock/status/1183094406573748225 Amazon, instead of fixing the comingling problem, has decided…

Yes, as a heavy user of Amazon and (I think) a pretty savvy consumer of their site, commingling of different seller's offerings under one ASIN number causes big issues for me.

Almost as bad is Amazon allowing resellers to combine "similar" products into the same listing. While this makes sense for functionally equivalent products such as color differences, it's now used all the time for products that are substantially different. For example, mixing the ratings of a Micro-USB wall charger with a USB-C Power Delivery-capable wall charger is not only useless but misleading. They look different, work differently and use completely different parts internally.

I really wish Amazon would stop this.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#63

Post by x0x0 »

sdinsn wrote: post #43
me_me_me wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's not go into whataboutism. Amazon is the biggest player so of course it has to be scrutinized the most.

It's not whataboutism to state that Amazon is the only one actually trying to fix things.

the point is things == the problem they specifically caused

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#64

Post by chance_state »

Nasrudith wrote: post #49
chance_state wrote: post #5

So not only does Amazon co-mingle inventory to cause this problem in the first place, but then they turn around and charge brands if they want to enter this anti-counterfeit program. Incredible.

That is quite the inversion of burden of proof there. Amazon is a marketplace in the first place as opposed to a portal of stores. They sell by product. They have no obligation to do otherwise or to bar all secondary sellers. It is a privledge in the first place and they are entitled to demand that it not be used to shut out secondary markets.

>They have no obligation to do otherwise or to bar all secondary sellers.

Even secondary sellers of counterfeit goods? Of course they are.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#66

Post by xemdetia »

cgriswald wrote: post #44
tidepod12 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Amazon has done little if anything to combat counterfeiting. This article is entirely about Amazon doing something to combat counterfeiting...

Yes, finally. And they’re putting the cost on the manufacturers, even though it’s a problem they created. In effect, manufacturers are now paying for commingling and Amazon is reaping the benefits.

Putting the cost on manufacturers and potentially breaking legitimate resellers just feels straight out of the Walmart strongarm playbook. It feels like it should be against some FTC regulation somewhere that a transferrer of a good has the responsibility to not allow this to happen. The only historical equivalent I can think of is the movements of crude oil through pipelines where if you sell one type of oil and get a different oil on the buyers end the pipeline owner doesn't get to wash their hands of the affair and say 'its just oil, buyer beware.'

Amazon should be subsidizing 100% of this program if they can't take care of their own mess.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#67

Post by thephyber »

ProZsolt wrote: post #41
sdinsn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange how you attack specifically Amazon for this, while every e-commerce platform that allows 3rd party sellers has this problem. Amazon is the only one doing something about it; they should be applauded.

Amazon caused the problem by mixing inventory. You are a legit seller who sells product A and there is another seller who sells a counterfeit product A. Even if a customer buys from you it can receive a counterfeit product.

I'm having a hard time grokking how Amazon is somehow culpable for the fraud of "another seller" claiming that their wares are "product A" (by self-describing it by the same SKU).

If this happened on eBay (user buys/wins auction of "product A" as sold by "another seller", but described the product sold by "a legit seller"), who is culpable? I'm sure the reputation of the "another seller" should take a hit -- the only question is should the marketplace's reputation?

Perhaps if the "fulfilled my Amazon" is used, that might make more sense, but I think they just add the "distributor" role to their transaction role.

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#68

Post by dragonsngoblins »

thephyber wrote: post #67
ProZsolt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon caused the problem by mixing inventory. You are a legit seller who sells product A and there is another seller who sells a counterfeit product A. Even if a customer buys from you it can receive a counterfeit product.

I'm having a hard time grokking how Amazon is somehow culpable for the fraud of "another seller" claiming that their wares are "product A" (by self-describing it by the same SKU). If this happened on eBay (user buys/wins auction of "product A" as sold by "another seller", but described the product sold by "a legit seller"), who is culpable? I'm sure the reputation of the "another seller" should take a hit -- the only…

Because it isn't transparent to the purchaser that the stock comes from an illegitimate seller.

So as a hypothetical example: Rolex makes Subarmariner watches and sells them on Amazon, and KnockOffWatchCo makes counterfeit Submariners and sells them as genuine ones on Amazon. I order a Submariner watch from Rolex through Amazon. However when Amazon sends it to me it grabs a watch from a bucket that contains intermixed submariners supplied by Rolex and counterfeit submariners supplied by KnockOffWatchCo, even though I purchased it from the legitimate seller.

This is because Amazon treats items with the same SKU regardless of the origin of those items.

This leads to two problems: the first is legitimate sellers being blamed for selling counterfeit goods. The other is the damage to brand perception. "Oh wow my Rolex watch sure keeps terrible time, I guess they've gone down hill".

So in the case of eBay if the seller sold me a fake product and I could identify that it is fake I could dispute that I received the advertised goods.

With Amazon I could do that too, but I would not buy through that seller again even though they weren't actually the ones who provided the item.

Does that make more sense?

Re: The Amazon Transparency Program Is a Counterfeiter's Worst Nightmare

#69

Post by true_religion »

dragonsngoblins wrote: post #68
thephyber wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having a hard time grokking how Amazon is somehow culpable for the fraud of "another seller" claiming that their wares are "product A" (by self-describing it by the same SKU). If this happened on eBay (user buys/wins auction of "product A" as sold by "another seller", but described the product sold by "a legit seller"), who is culpable? I'm sure the reputation of the "another seller" should take a hit -- the only…

Because it isn't transparent to the purchaser that the stock comes from an illegitimate seller. So as a hypothetical example: Rolex makes Subarmariner watches and sells them on Amazon, and KnockOffWatchCo makes counterfeit Submariners and sells them as genuine ones on Amazon. I order a Submariner watch from Rolex through Amazon. However when Amazon sends it to me it grabs a watch from a bucket that contains intermixe…

I was under the impression that suppliers could choose not to allow SKU mixing but many do not because mixing leads to lower delivery times.

Is that not true?

Post reply on HN