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

Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 351 posts

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#271

Post by inopinatus »

eigenvector wrote: post #268
inopinatus wrote: post #265

Let's take a moment to look at how disingenuous this article is: * Out of twelve returned trackers, one of them went to landfill. The article focuses on that item and does not itemise the fate of the others. * Adding a tracking device to a returned new product is tantamount to damage. If such a device is detected during returns processing, anyone with half a brain should immediately presume a malicious actor and have…

I completely agree that their methodology is not robust. But Amazon also refused to state what fraction of items go to landfill, despite making subjective claims that it's "on occasion" and the "vast majority" are liquidated or resold. If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up and would only benefit them to say so. If we want to know the actual number of items that go to landfill, we don't need to se…

That is a very reasonable public policy idea. Let's add to that list of failures: the article has no discussion of reasonable policy ideas (despite quoting researchers whose life's work is in producing them).

NB: don't assume that there's no downside to any given retailer unilaterally disclosing their return rates, because returns are a measurable factor in marginal cost & revenue assessment and partially describe both the elasticity of demand and overall customer sentiment. Every retailer of scale would be interested in obtaining the return statistics (especially segmented) of their competitors; and, as the tone of the article illustrates, there are any number of hacks poised to scribble out mendacious venom on the basis of such data, so no corporate PR lackey worth their communications degree will willingly start that conversation.

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#272

Post by jf »

frereubu wrote: post #7
jf wrote: post #2

To save you the trouble of loading the page: the Amazon returns they tracked for this article ended up in a landfill.

I'm not sure you actually read the article. They bought 12 items and one went to landfill (which Amazon said was because it arrived damaged). What they describe is pretty egregious, but not all returns go to landfill - some are resold, some are sold in bulk, and some go to landfill.

Wow. You’re right. Thank you for correcting me!

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#273

Post by kjs3 »

nextos wrote: post #63
jjoonathan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends a lot on category. What you said about kids clothing is spot on, but I'd expect similar dynamics for women's clothing (tighter fits = lower tolerance, also lower tolerance for color mismatch etc) and there are a couple of categories that I've outright stopped buying on Amazon because of the enormous problem rate, namely whitelabeled consumer electronics. In 2020 I've returned ~5%: markers that were…

I've also stopped buying at Amazon after 15 years. Even consumables and small items are problematic. Just in the last year, I encountered many issues including: * Showerhead that came without box, and clearly used. It still had a lot of water inside! * Underwear from a brand that sells items inside a sealed bag and discards returns came used, without bag (yuck!) * A module of Samsung RAM had visible wear signs and di…

I see comments like this often, and I'm not sure if I'm wildly luck or others are tragically unlucky. We (as a household) probably order a couple of things from Amazon a week. We've had a couple of things not live up to expectations, and a handful of returns, but nothing like used underwear. I do tend to stick to the Prime vendors and not wander off into the dark corners of Amazon. Maybe that's why I've not (knowingly) been bitten by counterfeits or returns.

I know it's a caveat emptor environment, but it's worked for me. It's eBay that I have to watch like a hawk (just assume if you buy an electronic component, you have at best a 50-50 chance of it not being crap). I'm curious as to the wide variety of experiences I see from others.

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#276

Post by rkagerer »

cwoolfe wrote: post #258

Why not have the customer hold onto the return item until another customer buys it as used on amazon, and the return label ships directly to the new customer? Sure people could send unacceptable returns, but couldn't that be mitigated by losing the privilege to return in that way with amazon? It still seems better than the alternatives of throwing it away.

If you were just dealing with commodity items and trustworthy customers you might be able to get this to work. But I think in the real world it would break down quickly.

First problem: When do you credit the refund?

If you credit it right away, what happens if the customer subsequently loses the item? Even assuming you can simply rebill them, you've still pissed off the new purchaser who was expecting that item to be available.

If you don't issue the refund until the new buyer confirms receipt (which aligns some incentives of your returner) then what happens if it takes months to sell? Defer too long and you've pissed off the old customer and effectively reneged on your return policy (not to mention forced them to store your item without compensation).

Next problem: How do you apportion blame if old customer says they sent it in good condition and new customer says it arrived damaged? You have no way of knowing who's right. Do you just write it off?

My gut says you'll run into more issues as you flesh this out. e.g. The "speediness" of your brand will tarnish when customers drag their heels to ship things out (sorry, I'm on vacation, will have to wait until i get back). Human nature will tempt people to "borrow" the item while they're holding onto it for you. If you thought inventory control was hard with a bunch of warehouses fully under your control, imagine what it'll be like after you crowdsource it out to a bunch of consumers.

Amazon already let's you just keep low-value items that cost more to ship back than they're worth. The upside of your idea to Amazon seems small, and I see so much opportunity for abuse.

If you think you can solve the challenges, maybe you can launch a decentralized inventory startup. Would be worth a ton if you do manage to get it to work.

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#277

Post by savanaly »

kennywinker wrote: post #42
whoisjuan wrote: post #39

While this may seem shocking, logistically it makes sense. It’s potentially easier to destroy or dump a returned product than re-preparing it for sale. I went out on a date with a program manager for one of Amazon’s return programs and she told me her job was basically finding out ways to repurpose returns as cheaply as possible. Apparently destroying and dumping it’s the easiest and least resource consuming way to d…

> Apparently destroying and dumping it’s the easiest and less resource consuming way to deal with returns. Not the least resource consuming - the least costly to amazon . There is a massive environmental cost to the practice - it's just externalized. If the companies involved (amazon, the manufacturer) had to bare the full environmental cost, the calculation would often come out different.

What about the dumping is not internalized? Do companies not pay for landfill? I know that historically companies would take their trucks up the river and dump it in and hope nobody noticed but I sort of doubt that Amazon does that today.

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#278

Post by rkagerer »

inopinatus wrote: post #265

Let's take a moment to look at how disingenuous this article is: * Out of twelve returned trackers, one of them went to landfill. The article focuses on that item and does not itemise the fate of the others. * Adding a tracking device to a returned new product is tantamount to damage. If such a device is detected during returns processing, anyone with half a brain should immediately presume a malicious actor and have…

I agree their methodology is far from rigorous, although I still found it an interesting read.

I've seen a lot of people on HN complain after receiving counterfeit items or "new" goods that were obviously someone else's returns. I wonder what the Venn diagram would look like of those individuals and the ones who are outraged now.

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#279

Post by citizenpaul »

crazygringo wrote: post #4

> The tactic of enticing customers to buy more than they need and return what they don't want "has had tragic repercussions for the environment and business," he says. That's disingenuous. I've never purchased "more than I need" from Amazon. But probably about 10% of items purchased for the first time simply aren't as advertised -- not Amazon's fault, but the manufacturer's. They don't meet the needs you bought them…

> idiosyncratic definitions of S/M/L

Its called vanity sizing. Basically people buy more clothes if they don't feel like they are buying fat/anorexic size clothes.

Re: Cameras and secret trackers reveal where Amazon returns end up

#280

Post by throwaway2048 »

savanaly wrote: post #277
kennywinker wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently destroying and dumping it’s the easiest and less resource consuming way to deal with returns. Not the least resource consuming - the least costly to amazon . There is a massive environmental cost to the practice - it's just externalized. If the companies involved (amazon, the manufacturer) had to bare the full environmental cost, the calculation would often come out different.

What about the dumping is not internalized? Do companies not pay for landfill? I know that historically companies would take their trucks up the river and dump it in and hope nobody noticed but I sort of doubt that Amazon does that today.

The cost of the landfill is a pittance compared to the ultimate full remediation cost, and damage to the environment.

Likewise the cost of pollution from all the shipping and manufacturing of the old and new items and returns is (almost) completely not bourne by Amazon.

Post reply on HN