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

311–320 of 351 posts

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

#311

Post by Scoundreller »

Fnoord wrote: post #245
mcv wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost never buy from Amazon anymore. Not really because of any bad experiences, though reports about the high number of counterfeit goods that Amazon sells certainly contributes to my reluctance. Also: Amazon is just too big. I like a bit of competition in the market. Also, in Netherland, Amazon isn't all that big. In the distant past, I sometimes ordered at amazon.com, later at amazon.de. Recently I got an invita…

A lot of people in The Netherlands [1] use Bol.com (part of Ahold; Albert Heijn's parent company). However, Amazon.de (Germany) is also popular, and you can avoid S&H with Amazon Prime. The reason there is no huge Amazon.nl is the same reason there's no huge eBay.nl; there's already a large local competitor: Bol.com (and Marktplaats.nl). Because of Amazon Prime Germany being popular in NL, Amazon introduced an Amazon…

> The reason there is no huge Amazon.nl is the same reason there's no huge eBay.nl; there's already a large local competitor: Bol.com (and Marktplaats.nl).

eBay has owned marktplaats since 2004. I think they’re conceptually the same.

I’m also unsure if eBay’s modus operandi has ever been to acquire and transition local platforms to their eBay platform, which is probably for the better.

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

#312

Post by ornornor »

rkagerer wrote: post #278
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.

It happened to me many times. So much so that I quit amazon and went to brick and mortar instead (who will often price match amazon anyway)

Amazon is welcome to sell these returns instead of throwing them away that’s not the issue. The problem was that they sell something as new when it’s been opened and used. I think no one would have an issue with it if the returned items were sold as such for a discount.

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

#313

Post by DevoidSimo »

mcv wrote: post #201
gogopuppygogo wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never would have thought this till I started a relationship with a woman who buys several sizes of everything she shops for to ensure she gets the right fit. Women’s attire doesn’t have standard sizing so every brand is different. It’s a giant guessing game. Basically, the industry needs some standards to help with all this waste.

My wife also buys a lot of clothes online, and indeed it's a matter of fitting and sending back what doesn't fit. I recently did it too: ordered two pairs of pants, one was fine, the other didn't look remotely like what I ordered, so I sent it back. In shops, you can try them on. Online, I think it's unavoidable that people try them on at home and send more than half of their clothes purchases back. Standardisation i…

In Australia, we have multiple stores that advertise free returns and include a return shipping bag. The whole idea is that you can return things that don't fit.

I'd assume similar services exist in other places, and the clothes may be sent to multiple customers.

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

#314

Post by rbecker »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #307
eigenvector wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up Absolutely. > and would only benefit them to say so. Not nearly as obvious. It might have some PR benefits (this week, until later when public opinion shifts), but it also provides information about their business that they may prefer to not share (off the top of my head, it probably leaks something about defect rates and their quality controls).

> but it also provides information about their business that they may prefer to not share

On the other hand, it's probably not a good idea to be kept in the dark regarding how major sectors of the economy function, with only the word of corporate PR departments to go on that everything is fine.

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

#315

Post by kennywinker »

ummonk wrote: post #301
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.

There is a significant environmental cost to the logistics of refurbishing, storing, repackaging, and reshipping returned goods though.

Yup. That's why the most environmental move you can do is just to buy and consume less stuff.

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

#316

Post by kennywinker »

sokoloff wrote: post #100
kennywinker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, but two things are happenings: 1. It’s being hidden from consumers, who might adapt their behavior if they knew a return meant the trash. 2. Stuff is shipped back to amazon and then disposed of.

I’d they didn’t require step 2, their “return” rates would skyrocket though.

Their return policy is designed to make you buy things without thinking too hard about it or worrying about the quality - the "ah who cares, if it sucks I can just return it" mentality. That strategy means that you buy things you don't need, causing a TON of environmental externalities. So, yeah, they'd have more fraud - maybe their return policy isn't compatible with the environment. Maybe their profit margins are not compatible with the environment. Maybe... just maybe... their entire business model isn't compatible.

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

#317

Post by kennywinker »

ummonk wrote: post #302
kennywinker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, but two things are happenings: 1. It’s being hidden from consumers, who might adapt their behavior if they knew a return meant the trash. 2. Stuff is shipped back to amazon and then disposed of.

I imagine most consumers who return items would be throwing them away instead.

My thought was, if I knew it was being thrown out, I would be more careful about what I buy. I suspect a lot of people would feel the same way. It's like a mini trolley-problem, but for the guilt of throwing something perfectly good in the trash.

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

#318

Post by kennywinker »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #248
MattGaiser wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is priced in by the price of the item.

No, what's priced in is the cost of digging something up. Not the cost of creating it in the first place. Also not priced in is the environmental cost of discarding the assembled product. Edit: I might add that in the cost of digging up resources, in many cases the lives of the people doing the digging are not valued much more than the hours of the people doing the sorting of returned items. So that's something to th…

> what's priced in is the cost of digging something up

Just to add to that, without carbon pricing the cost of digging up contains the fuel cost, but not the cost of emissions associated with burning that fuel to dig + process

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

#319

Post by kelnos »

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…

> If that was true, Amazon would have the data to back it up and would only benefit them to say so.

I expect Amazon likely outsources a lot of returns handling, so they may not have that data.

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

#320

Post by kelnos »

searchableguy wrote: post #5
sokoloff wrote: post #3

> 30 to 40 per cent of all online purchases are sent back That seems almost an order of magnitude higher than I’d expect. Setting aside kids shoes (which probably do get 50% returned), I can’t imagine sending back even 5% of my online purchases, let alone 30-40%. I think I’ve sent back exactly 1 Amazon order in the last year, out of nearly 100.

Few people probably abuse the system too much. There are scamming forums and services for Amazon refunds. Scammers take 10-20% of the item cost for refunding it without giving the original. A trend I observed here among college students is buying clothes for a party or instagram selfie and then returning it. Small sellers get screwed pretty hard. You should check their forums.

> A trend I observed here among college students is buying clothes for a party or instagram selfie and then returning it.

Ok, yeah, so buying something and finding a creative way to hide the tag so you can wear it to a single event and then return it is common enough that it's a decades-old TV/movie trope, but... buying something just to take a selfie for Instagram and then return it? What has the world come to...

Post reply on HN