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

Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#21

Post by vivekd »

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers.

This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control.

The only thing I can think of here is FTC is trying to make a weak case that Amazon is a monopoly by claiming look they had the power to show crappy ads. Which is a weak argument.

Maybe Amazon is too big and too dominant in the market. I don't know. But this article and this aspect of the case looks weak.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#22

Post by frankfrank13 »

thrill wrote: post #11

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.

If you can both downgrade the quality of your product and boost profits, you may be a monopoly. If Amazon can charge for worse ads, use that data and learnings to undercut its sellers by better positioning its own/preferred products, and therefore make more money you can almost certainly argue it is a monopoly, which is what the FTC is trying to do.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#23

Post by m463 »

Honestly, any advertisements during/after shopping degrades the customer experience.

advertisements during search, before viewing products, upsells before or during the shopping cart, popups when buying or afterwards, and all of the above when receiving/"activating"/using your product.

I feel there is a "respectful" business model/opportunity that people will pay for, but I don't think business people stand up for things, or if they do they sell out and the monetization begins.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#25

Post by karmakaze »

eschneider wrote: post #2

I'm sure that if making the site less shitty would boost profit, Amazon would have done that.

It probably works both ways so can continue indefinitely, perhaps with diminishing returns. Much like bundling or unbundling can boost profits.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#26

Post by Gibbon1 »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #14
thrill wrote: post #11

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.

That’s just one of their duties. They are also supposed to make sure they obey any rules, regulations and laws.

The government allows corporations to shield their shareholders from the companies malfeasance. If I own shares in Exxon Mobil no ones going to sue me personally for damages or put me on trial because the company did something illegal. That can absolutely happen in a general partnership.

The government has every right to attach strings.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#28

Post by azzthrooww »

bogomipz wrote: post #16
ssss11 wrote: post #3

When profitability, not customers, is your focus… then of course they did.

Which is in interesting because Amazon's "Leadership Principles" a are well-known and well-publicized part of Amazon's culture. Number 1 on that list is of course "Customer Obsession", which states: >"Customer Obsession: Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers."[1] It's probably…

It really isn't a meme. It's taken pretty seriously at the company, often gets cited in meetings as a reason to do (or not do) something, and is almost always referenced in large strategic projects/planning docs. It's even sometimes included in criteria for determining performance/promotions.

The problem lies in the fact that there's no one single definition of who "the customer" is, and no one single definition of what the best thing for that customer is. One team might see customer obsession as making sure only the best ads are shown, but there's probably another team who thinks that being obsessed about customers means showing the _most_ ads, while a third team sees _the ad companies_ as "the customer" and thinks that being customer obsessed means making them as happy as possible.

There's a weird side effect about being so serious about customer obsession. Like I mentioned earlier, it's often used as a promotion criteria, so people will come up with weird stuff and then spin it as "customer obsessed" so they can get promoted, even if it's something like showing more ads or constantly reminding people to buy something (which probably gets spun as "helping the customer to not miss out on a good deal" or something like that).

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#29

Post by makeitdouble »

vivekd wrote: post #21

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is…

This also affected ad buyers, as they had to compete with the junk and pay more to get an effect.

Ad buyers are also Amazon consumers that got harmed, which matters if we go by the traditional benchmarks for antitrust.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#30

Post by wlesieutre »

vivekd wrote: post #21

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is…

“Made site shittier to boost profit” describes nearly 100% of online advertising
Post reply on HN