Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#91

Post by laurent92 » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:25 AM UTC

anakaine wrote: post #66

discordance wrote: post #59

Amazon in Australia is not very good (yet). It's nothing like America or Japan, which have huge inventories and same or next day delivery. This is a really really bad look for Amazon, which is in the process of expanding in Australia. Retailers are already nervous about their expansion plans here and this does further bad for their brand.

I hope they fail here in Aus. Something something tall poppy syndrome. Local retail first.

Retail prices are very high in Australia. I specifically remember only finding mountaineering carabineers, at $35 AUD at the time (23 EUR at the time) when they’re 8 euros in France. Same goes shoes, tshirts or kettles. Maybe the absence of large-chain competitors plays a role in cost of life being quite high.

Then again, as a country, Australia would be free in deciding that it should only be affordable to people who have the means to support their life, to maintain a high quality standard and retails.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#92

Post by cameldrv » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:27 AM UTC

I read the article with a more skeptical eye. It could be that he didn't request the items back in time because they were fake and not worth the price of the return shipping. Amazon's response was interesting:

"The spokeswoman said Amazon repeatedly asked Govani to provide evidence that the products sold were authentic but that the invoices he sent were either illegible or didn't match the records of the brand owners."

So he's got (by his own admission old), and by Amazon's telling, illegible, or the brand disclaims them. It made me think of that scene in Fargo where the car dealer is faxing forms with illegible VINs repeatedly to General Motors to keep his scam going.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#93

Post by nickpp » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:29 AM UTC

Areading314 wrote: post #58

bgorman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Amazon a monopoly when customers can easily purchase an item from eBay, Walmart, Target, Aliexpress, and many others. Amazon is often the most expensive option for me.

Its not a monopoly over all ecommerce. However there are certain markets where the sellers, for example book publishers, are totally at the mercy of amazon because they have become the only de facto distribution channel for certain products like e-books (there are others as well). So its great for customers but it still has severe negative consequences for authors and publishers. Technically this is known as a "monop…

So I guess any company becomes a "monopoly" if you reduce enough the definition of its field?!

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#94

Post by athrun » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:32 AM UTC

discordance wrote: post #59

Amazon in Australia is not very good (yet). It's nothing like America or Japan, which have huge inventories and same or next day delivery. This is a really really bad look for Amazon, which is in the process of expanding in Australia. Retailers are already nervous about their expansion plans here and this does further bad for their brand.

While the delivery times are not great yet because a lot of items come from abroad, their inventory is now pretty extensive.

In these COVID times, I've been buying quite a bit of bicycle gear & parts and in many cases I could find stuff on Amazon at lower prices than AU specialist online shops. It certainly was not the case just a couple months ago.

I reckon Prime Membership in AU is now very worth it as you get free international shipping for orders over $49, in addition to free expedited domestic shipping and Prime video access.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#95

Post by fredophile » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:37 AM UTC

xondono wrote: post #82

rossjudson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the end of the path here for Amazon is destruction of the inventory in question, I guess we'll never really know what's real or not. There's nothing to be inspected...which seems rather problematic, right? In criminal cases people don't run around destroying evidence. That's viewed rather negatively by judges. So here we have Amazon destroying the inventory in question. No way to have even a partial sample of…

In any case it could be very hard to prove that the items are fake by inspection, it’s mostly a fight about distribution and the supply channel.

If you can't tell they're fake by inspection how did the complaining customers identify them as fake?

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#96

Post by a254613e » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:38 AM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #32

hevelvarik wrote: post #7

This is a case for the courts. The article is completely one sided, and there’s no way to know whether or not some or much or most of the merchandise was counterfeit. He does admit to ignoring up to 11 notices that his inventory would be destroyed if left unclaimed. He mentions conflicting dates for the notices but we’ve no way of knowing to make of that. I don’t know what to say other that I read the piece with some…

He tried to remove the inventory and wasn't allowed to. >When he tried to submit an inventory removal order through Amazon's web portal, it wouldn't let him.

That sentence is so important, yet lacking so many details.

Did he try to submit the removal order, like one day before, or way earlier? Did he try it only once? Did he communicate this to amazon? He was obviously in contact with them for a longer period, did he mention that he can't get the removal order submitted?

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#97

Post by bigmattystyles » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:39 AM UTC

Areading314 wrote: post #64

bredren wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart was long known for its strong arming of its suppliers. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there glad to see Amazon beating them. https://www.fastcompany.com/47593/wal-mart-you-dont-know

Yes Walmart is the textbook example of a monopsonist being able to extract steady profits while creating a race-to-the-bottom for prices among their suppliers. Great for end customers, but harmful nonetheless.

Great for end customers at first, but then what are you left with.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#98

Post by senojretep356 » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:40 AM UTC

analogdreams wrote: post #67

I fully believe this, and feel terrible for this seller, having had a similar experience. For nearly a decade I ran a successful side hustle on Amazon from something that was just making beer money to making more than my day job (grew to $6.5 million/yr in sales at it's peak) and ran into the same thing earlier this summer. Competitors attacking listings with false claims to try and shut your account, or listing down…

No idea if they're any good but the junglescout marketplace has Seller Suspension services. Might be worth seeing if they can help with your inventory?

Another one I've heard of is Thompson & Holt - again not a recommendation but they may be able to help.

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#99

Post by bawolff » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

haasted wrote: post #74

bawolff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im ok with the onus being on the seller to prove they are selling real goods.

Quite the attack vector for competitors, though.

If you're not shady its pretty easy to prove your legit. Real offline bussinesses have to keep records too, and the same attack can happen in the real world since selling counterfeit goods is a crime (harder to get away with false report though in the physical world)

Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless

#100

Post by redis_mlc » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:45 AM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #57

alliao wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have always wanted to know, how watertight are those clauses? surely legal recourse is some sort of right that'd trump a lot of these type of boiler plate contracts?

Courts have consistently held up Amazon's arbitration clause for sellers.

US courts treat commercial litigation and consumer/personal differently. Commercial is "letter of the contract" (you should have talked to your lawyer before signing), whereas consumer has to be reasonable to the non-expert public in the long run, and is also subject to tons of social justice goals.