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

691–700 of 731 posts

Re: The Amazon tax

#691

Post by aeturnum »

its_ethan wrote: post #456
aeturnum wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha - then I think you are misreading my 2nd post - directing consumers away from psudo-scam products is "reversing" the understanding. Not assuming everyone wants one perfect product, but realizing that almost everyone wants to avoid known bad products. A bare bones $100 air fryer is good value. > I really don't know where you think I implied that When you said "What you perceive to be "good value" might be "over…

It's possible we're not on the same page on what you meant, but after your clarifying, it still requires defining what a "bad product" is, and that's not as easy as it feels like you're suggesting. A cheap product can be both good value and a bad product, depending on the type of product/intended use/customer expectations/etc. But it's up to the customer to decide that. The main point I'm trying to make there is that…

> This is true everywhere, like at a grocery store - it would be a silly article if it complained about more expensive or store-brand products being placed at eye-level when a "better deal" might be 3 shelves down

Ok, let's look at this example to refocus. I agree with you that OP is mistaken in their analysis - that you can't jump from the most popular item to knowing that item is best for everyone. But I think we have switched onto talking about other things the vendor could do.

Both Amazon and the grocery store both keep records on why people return things (and general complaints) and they would be able to track items that people dislike. Amazon already warns you when an item is returned often, for instance. So I'm saying that Amazon can know when someone buys ads for a product that has higher than normal returns and they may have a responsibility there. In general retailers can be held liable for selling defective products even if people want to buy them so I think there's a framework for warning consumers.

Re: The Amazon tax

#692

Post by prepend »

Brendinooo wrote: post #455

>If you’re searching for an air fryer, Amazon already knows quite a bit. They know the best-reviewed, least-returned, best-priced model. The only purpose of the ads is to get you to pick an air fryer that isn’t that one (or for the best air fryer, to keep you on track to buy the one you wanted in the first place). What if I made a new air fryer that hasn't received a lot of reviews and costs a little more because of…

Think about 20 years ago. People didn’t learn about air fryers by browsing the walmart aisle.

Develop demand outside of amazon and people will deep link and google into your product page.

Amazon search sucks and if your product is good you don’t need it.

Re: The Amazon tax

#693

Post by exolymph »

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…

Red Queen's race. It comes up a lot in marketing.

Re: The Amazon tax

#694

Post by prepend »

xyzelement wrote: post #512

I don't love (but use...) Amazon but I think if done properly, ads can be relevant even when searching for a specific thing. Let's use a Google Example: I search for Toyota RAV4 and get an ad for Mazda cx-50. Obviously Toyota hates that but as a consumer it has a chance of making me aware of something I didn't know but would want to know, especially as a part of a purchase decision. That's why Mazda pays for that ad…

Do you work in ads? In what world is this true?

Maybe if I searched “rav4 vs”

Cynically, this seems like the blargh Google says about how ads make our lives better. I think that’s BS and think ads are noise I have to push through to do whatever I’m trying to do.

Re: The Amazon tax

#695

Post by prepend »

asr wrote: post #595
nashashmi wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s pay to spam. Letting advertisers determine relevance of their product to a keyword is not exactly a user enhancing experience. When searching for rav4, i give you the ad for taylor swift concert, obviously understanding you can pay for it. This is spamming. “Relevant” ads should be determined by content producers

Would you, while shopping for a car, decide to buy very expensive concert tickets? Neither would I. So this campaign would have very low CTR and would perform poorly. It would only perform well if you identified some actual source of latent demand. For example, maybe many people searching for Taylor Swift concert tickets would actually be happy with movie tickets to see a simulcast. At which point, you are providing…

Or if you confused people and made them make mistakes.

Or exploited some addiction.

Maybe hurricane care insurance would have a high CTR even though it sucks. Maybe impulse purchases would have high CTR.

People choose to do lots of anti-user things (eg, sugar sodas and diabetes, cigarettes, 9 year car loans at 14%, etc). Enabling bad things is a bad thing.

Re: The Amazon tax

#696

Post by prepend »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #586
xyzelement wrote: post #512

I don't love (but use...) Amazon but I think if done properly, ads can be relevant even when searching for a specific thing. Let's use a Google Example: I search for Toyota RAV4 and get an ad for Mazda cx-50. Obviously Toyota hates that but as a consumer it has a chance of making me aware of something I didn't know but would want to know, especially as a part of a purchase decision. That's why Mazda pays for that ad…

In any retail webstore, or even on Spotify, YouTube, etc. all the searches are infuriating today. If I search for specific terms then I get a menu of slop to choose from. Search isn't built to serve the searcher at all. Search is meant to surface things that are promoted, hyped, advertised, or paid for in some way. So you search Amazon for stuff and a lot of crap added on to it. Any retail site's filters are useless…

What physical attributes did you use.

When it comes to funny or successful female comedians, I don’t think Amy Shumer would be in the top 7.

Also, maybe you’re hitting an equity filter that purposely doesn’t compare race, sex, weight, etc. Recently chatgpt said it couldn’t estimate the race and age of a person in a photo because it would violate ethical norms. The photo was of me and then I tried again with a friend of mine.

Re: The Amazon tax

#697

Post by volkl48 »

shimman wrote: post #446
TaLiTr wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a strange and pretentious comment. They're not mutually exclusive, two things can be had at the same time.

Not only are they mutually exclusive, the current neoliberal regime has dismantling the welfare state as its explicit goal. Wish to live in your reality tho, where I can buy a dozen different brands of hot dogs while visiting the doctor for elevated blood pressure without needing to take out a payment plan on klarna.

They aren't mutually exclusive in the least.

The ease of buying things that the prior poster referred to is basically just three things:

- A massive common market with few to no internal trade barriers/complications. The EU is still nowhere near as integrated and has all sorts of odd hidden complications to actually moving + selling things.

- Hell, just this week I've seen that one of the indie record labels I pay attention to will no longer sell merch within the EU other than to the country they're based in, because the new EU packaging regulations make it infeasibly expensive to comply with for every country for the small volumes they move.

- A common language that ~92% of the population speak fluently.

- Relatively efficient logistics.

None of this has anything to do with "dismantling the welfare state" and has only a little to do with differences in workers rights/benefits - giving delivery workers in the US better wages/job security would not make the "Amazon" logistics model infeasible.

Re: The Amazon tax

#698

Post by bubblegumcrisis »

gyulai wrote: post #665
Frieren wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No regulations -> fraud and scams Expecting that the rich will do the right thing out of their good hearts is not just naive but actively damaging for society.

You forget a third option. A monopolist doing the right thing from their good heart? Not gonna work. Legislators micromanaging every last aspect of every last thing through regulations? Not gonna work. Legislators squashing monopolies and making rules to keep competition intact and put meaningful choice into consumers' hands: Might work.

Huh.. That is an interesting idea. I like it.

You have a company, it is worth below X dollars? You do what you want. Above X dollars, now you get government minder for every decision.

All of the "buying to shutdown competitors"- not possible - you don't have enough cash! Well I mean, it would be possible, but it would also carry huge risk. (As you don't have infinite cash reserves)

Keep your companies small and agile, stay focused on your primary initiative, distribute profits to your employees, build infrastructure, contribute back --- I like this.

Re: The Amazon tax

#699

Post by xyzelement »

ryukoposting wrote: post #530
xyzelement wrote: post #512

I don't love (but use...) Amazon but I think if done properly, ads can be relevant even when searching for a specific thing. Let's use a Google Example: I search for Toyota RAV4 and get an ad for Mazda cx-50. Obviously Toyota hates that but as a consumer it has a chance of making me aware of something I didn't know but would want to know, especially as a part of a purchase decision. That's why Mazda pays for that ad…

No. If I search "Toyota RAV4" what I mean is Toyota RAV4. If I meant Mazda CX-50 I would have typed "Mazda CX-50." If I wanted information about various mid-size SUVs, rather than one in particular, I'd have searched "midsize SUVs." The number of times I have searched something, got back something I did not ask for, and found that helpful, rounds down to zero. It's actively destructive to the platforms that allow thi…

I agree that this is true for you and probably even for me.

But think about normal human conversation - when a friend tells me they are going to buy a rav-4 that weekend,I am 100% going to tell that then I had a rental CX-50 last week and would recommend they take a look at it.

In other words: putting a new concept on someone's radar that they hadn't thought about but is relevant to them is hugely valuable.

Think about it like this: - lots of people searched Rav 4 - some of them clicked the ad for cx-50 - some of them ended up test driving the cx-50 - some of them bought it

For the people that clicked / test drive / bought - there's clearly something important that happened as a result (whether it changed the final outcome or not)

Though yes personally I would be like "compact suvs 2026 reviews" as my starting point so that would never be me - but not everyone is me.

Re: The Amazon tax

#700

Post by DANmode »

dannyw wrote: post #678
gz5 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fraud and/or trademark infringement. i only play a laywer on HN but seems categorically different than the safe harbor dmca which protects youtube etc since google has full control? same for the amazon case. amazon for fraud and/or tm infringement. the buyer of the ads as well in both cases but of course those are smaller pockets to empty. it needs to be done legally but i will say that ads can benefit startups and s…

There's no inherent fraud or trademark infringement in advertising/bidding for search terms of your competitors. A classic example is Dominos bidding for 'Pizza Hut', and vice versa. There may be trademark infringement when you use another company's trademarks. There are some exceptions, for example copy like 'Compatible with $X' or 'Learn why users are switching from $X to ' are generally fine. The line has been dra…

> There's no inherent fraud

Why do I feel like that’s reasonable regulation to enact, making obvious tactics for tricking my mom into buying the wrong pizza place a crime?

Post reply on HN