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

The Amazon tax

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 731 posts

Re: The Amazon tax

#541

Post by ggm »

Not identical problem, but similar. If I have just read "Dombey & Son" and want to read more Dickens, I search "Dickens" and get Monica Dickens? ok, more fool me. But if I search "Charles Dickens" and get "in the style of charles dickens" or "based on charles dickens" then I am very unhappy, especially if that "search" was actually clicking the blue highlight link under the specific volume of dickens I just read.

I asked an Amazonian about this once, and they said the algo worked for them in sales, because enough people go to the "in the style of" or actually want that and so I am SOL.

You would think there could be a search setting "specific author name == author, no extras" or something, if they wanted to maximise utility and choice.

Re: The Amazon tax

#542

Post by projektfu »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #256
ndiddy wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of an analogy I read a while ago in an article critiquing keyword based online advertising (can't find the article unfortunately). A restaurant wants to drum up new business, so the owner tasks three employees with handing out flyers with coupons attached. The coupons are marked to identify which employee passed them out, and each week the owner gives a bonus to the employee whose coupons get redeemed t…

You raise a good point. This phenomenon is well-documented for at least two decades now on Google search. It is common for brands to buy keywords for their own product. Why? If not, competitors will by the same keywords to direct customers away . As I understand, this has existed for more than 20 years and Google has never been sued for it (that I know). Maybe this is just part of a highly competitive online search m…

I don't know how it is for large businesses, but if you're a small business, and you put your own business name as a search keyword for your ad buys, fully half or more of your ad spend will be your existing customers looking for your website, phone number or address. If you stop spending on it, they will still find you, but a competitor will probably show up above you. I am not sure this matters.

Re: The Amazon tax

#543

Post by qiqitori »

IIRC this was talked about in Cory Doctorow's Enshittification book. Here's my bookmarklet to get rid of sponsored results, it's survived a couple years:

    javascript:document.querySelectorAll(".s-result-item:has(.puis-sponsored-label-text)").forEach(function(e){ e.remove()})

Re: The Amazon tax

#544

Post by projektfu »

vostrocity wrote: post #497
alex43578 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess for things like clothes or generic homegoods, I've seen this deluge of random China goods. But shopping for other things, like electronics, it does a really good job of surfacing what I'm actually looking for, whether that be name brand or generic. If I'm buying a curtain rod, the MUDLRHK brand is effectively indistinguishable from a "name brand" or house brand. They're basically all coming from the same fact…

Surprisingly, their "Alexa for Shopping" feature has been quite good for finding products that contain a specific set of desired features. I was looking for a device that plugs into my car's 12V cigarette lighter outlet, connects with my phone's Bluetooth, outputs the audio to 3.5mm aux (my car has aux input but no Bluetooth), has no battery, automatically turns on with my car, has next and previous track buttons, an…

I went through that same search a couple times. I felt that this was such an obvious thing that I was amazed that it didn't exist on Amazon, Aliexpress, or anything else.

Re: The Amazon tax

#546

Post by bvc_fuji »

I think the point of this piece is that advertising ruins platforms. Maybe so but Amazon is hardly the first platform to be ruined by it. The same logic applies to other platforms - like subway platforms or television or even restaurant menus.

Subway platforms are filled with ads and force us to think about upcoming sales and broadway shows.

Television is full of ads and makes us think about all kinds of things we don't care about.

Restaurant menus advertise the items at the top of the menu to the detriment of the items in small print down below.

Memes of all kinds live or die by their attention fitness. If a book, play, or video game fails to get enough attention it dies, goes out of print, never makes it to broadway, and never gets ported to the new system. So if there is a way to cheat the attention system by paying a little money to push the thing in front of a few more eyeballs, makers and publishers are gonna do it.

Advertising is fundamentally un democratic because it assumes an imbalance of power - the power of those who control the publishing, the power those who can pay more.

Re: The Amazon tax

#547

Post by css_apologist »

bvc_fuji wrote: post #546

I think the point of this piece is that advertising ruins platforms. Maybe so but Amazon is hardly the first platform to be ruined by it. The same logic applies to other platforms - like subway platforms or television or even restaurant menus. Subway platforms are filled with ads and force us to think about upcoming sales and broadway shows. Television is full of ads and makes us think about all kinds of things we do…

> The same logic applies to other platforms - like subway platforms or television or even restaurant menus.

this is really bad comparison

a subway platform ad doesn't dictate the way consumers use the subway.

a restaurant does not monitor the effectiveness of the ads in their menus, analyse their industry and rip off their product with an in-house brand (amazon basics)

amazon is not a marketplace, it is a surveillance platform built to allow amazon to take ownership of more and more markets

to say this is just a problem with ads is defeatist instead getting real tangible change

Re: The Amazon tax

#548

Post by thisislife2 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #256
ndiddy wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of an analogy I read a while ago in an article critiquing keyword based online advertising (can't find the article unfortunately). A restaurant wants to drum up new business, so the owner tasks three employees with handing out flyers with coupons attached. The coupons are marked to identify which employee passed them out, and each week the owner gives a bonus to the employee whose coupons get redeemed t…

You raise a good point. This phenomenon is well-documented for at least two decades now on Google search. It is common for brands to buy keywords for their own product. Why? If not, competitors will by the same keywords to direct customers away . As I understand, this has existed for more than 20 years and Google has never been sued for it (that I know). Maybe this is just part of a highly competitive online search m…

Google has been sued for displaying ads on trademarked keywords though.

Re: The Amazon tax

#549

Post by zmmmmm »

amluto wrote: post #208

> The highest-yielding ad my publisher has tested so far is the search “Seth Godin The Knot“ I think it would be interesting to see legal action here. I’m not a lawyer, but I feel like there should be at least three ways to go after this: 1. Trademark infringement. If Amazon is using someone’s search that is clearly searching for a specific product, possibly trademarked, it seems inappropriate for them to serve up an…

I don't want any of your arguments to be supported in law.

The day someone can sue me because they searched for something on my web site and what they expected didn't come up, my web site is effectively legally prevented from having a search box.

The action needed here is anti-trust style / monopoly action. If there were viable competitors it wouldn't matter what Amazon's search box does. The fact the US government is in denial about the whole principle of the need for robust anti-trust / competition enforcement that is the core issue here.

Post reply on HN