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

321–330 of 351 posts

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

#321

Post by kelnos »

dylan604 wrote: post #290
ponker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could institute a restocking fee on any returns.

If the restocking fee is low enough, people would just consider it a rental fee. You'd need to make it close to 50% fee to discourage the massive returns

If the restocking fee accurately represents the cost to the store to repackage it and put it back out on the floor, and probably lower its price -- perhaps with a little left over -- then I think everyone comes out ok here. The returner gets to "rent" a TV for a weekend, and the retailer gets to pocket a little money for allowing the "rental" to happen, while covering the cost to resell the TV.

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

#322

Post by kelnos »

7952 wrote: post #92
rantwasp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah. what people don’t understand is that the return has to be processed when it comes back. in an ideal world anything like a GPS tracker would surely be discovered. there are also several issue with how the return may go. amazon may tell you to just keep the item (if the cost of shipping + processing the return is higher that the actual product price / margin on the item). they may decide that the item is in not g…

You could surely hide it easily enough in the cardboard? Just wrap it over in parcel tape. The people at the other end will just assume you went a bit overboard in packing.

I think it's safe to assume that the returned item gets taken out of the box that you ship it back to them in, which is then discarded (along with the taped-on tracking device).

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

#323

Post by [deleted] »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #88
tomarr wrote: post #8

The GPS tracker technique does not seem foolproof, basic QA on returned goods would likely be trashing the GPS trackers.

My read of that was that so little human attention is devoted to returned items that no one noticed a super-suspicious greenboard kicking around in the box.

[deleted]

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

#324

Post by rocqua »

savanaly wrote: post #225
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same detrimental effects can happen with lots of aid given to Africa. Basically, the majority of Africa is clothed with first world hand-me-downs. The result is that there is virtually no market for home-grown clothing makers in Africa. Think about it, the US has "anti-dumping" laws to protect US manufacturers, but we "dump" into other countries all the time in the form of "aid".

Isn't this just the broken window fallacy though? Creating work is not a good thing in and of itself.

It makes global economic sense to 'dump'. It just doesn't locally.

And to counter my earlier point, it makes sense globally if you value profit the same everywhere. But profit made by people in low income is worth a lot more. So are capital investments by those people.

This is the result of those people 'consuming more'. In more humane terms, this is the result of poor people having more of a need for money. But that is 2 different ways of saying the same thing.

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

#325

Post by gambiting »

emayljames wrote: post #159
gambiting wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always shocked when I read these comments on HN. I swear it must be just the American Amazon that's so shit, because I literally never had any problems nor know anyone with these problems here in UK. Just this year I'm on 108 orders and counting, every single one of them was fine, working, definitely not used, definitely not counterfeit and delivered within 1 day as promised with Prime. Last year I've had 140 ord…

Nope. In UK and I had a tablet I ordered, that was supposed to come yesterday. Says that is delivered, but I never received. None of my neighbours received, so who knows where it is. As for their own brands like thier tablets, they are probably worse quality than some counterfeits/awful brands. They have nasty cheap parts, for example the usb power port breaks in no time. I made the mistake of shopping for that non-a…

Ok, but how is this an issue with Amazon? Delivery company lost the tablet, that's it. The difference is that I can guarantee Amazon will just refund you after few days if you tell them you never got it, while another retailer(ekhm ekhm...pcworld) would just say that the item shows as delivered so you can get lost. That's where the main difference is - Amazon is willing to accept some amount of fraud to offer good experience to legitimate customers experiencing problems.

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

#326

Post by WalterBright »

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).

People may use this knowledge to defraud Amazon. For example, if it is clear that Amazon doesn't actually check the returns but sends them to the landfill, then an unscrupulous buyer may return a brick and keep the product for free.

People are very clever in figuring out ways to defraud companies, so if I was Amazon I'd be skeptical about giving out information about internal processes without a very good reason to.

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

#327

Post by Fnoord »

Scoundreller wrote: post #311
Fnoord wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Marktplaats is not an auction place, it is a market place (kind of like Craigslist). They never changed that, and eBay Netherlands has always remained a niche.

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

#328

Post by hef19898 »

kelnos wrote: post #319
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 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.

They do, even if it was outsourced. Which it isn't, at least in Europe last time I talked tpo people. Liquidators, companies buying returns graded as unsellable, are used a lot so. Whatever they do with the stuff buy wholesale from Aamzon, and others, isn#t necessarily Amazon's or anyone else problem, if you ask me.

Amazon does have all the data, downto the individual returns, about the processing, decission, reason codes and final fate (sodl as new, warehouse deal, sold as used or liquidated, donated,...). They also have every reason to not share that data publicly.

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

#329

Post by bergstromm466 »

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…

> Let's take a moment to look at how disingenuous this article is

Uhmmm do you have a vested interest you're not disclosing? I honestly do not have another explanation for your comment. You must be getting well paid for your defence of Amazon?

I just hope others here can also see through the smoke and mirrors of your arguments

The important part of the article that you seem to have 'missed' is the critique of this powerful monopolistic corporate player, Amazon:

"[Amazon] did write the playbook on free returns, says Jason Goldberg, chief commerce strategy officer at Publicis Groupe, a global marketing and advertising agency.

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."

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

#330

Post by bergstromm466 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #308
hermanradtke wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your assertion that the article is disingenuous. However, > "30-40 percent of online purchases are returned" what absolute hoopsla. I've worked in online commerce and this is off by an order of magnitude. A very few segments (e.g. shoes) may approach such return rates. In the online retail world, a 30-40% return rate is common for apparel (clothes), shoes and accessory purchases. Certain categor…

You're supporting his point: apparel is one of the segments where such return rate is plausible, but it is completely off the mark for general merchandise.

Fair enough. But it sounds like you're arguing that it's ok to waste because it's not in all the segments mentioned?

I'm missing the larger critique. Are you ok with this waste?

I guess sometimes it seems to me like the HN community nitpicks over tiny details and fails to take part in the larger systemic critiques.

Post reply on HN