tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19111384.post8522323059075122237..comments2024-03-24T17:06:47.135-04:00Comments on Story Bones: Linkee-poo knows it's all run by a big eastern syndicateSteve Buchheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12999709767641212586noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19111384.post-17044421677441863692011-12-15T21:01:56.325-05:002011-12-15T21:01:56.325-05:00In this case, Amazon is denying the opposition a c...In this case, Amazon is denying the opposition a chance to respond in kind. I guess I see it more of an escalation that will mean unpleasant complications for the consumer (after the initial freedom). Sort of like what happens to local economies after Wal-Mart devastates the competition. Suddenly people realize that Wal-Mart isn't the low-price wonder they thought is was.<br /><br />On the plus side, once Amazon controls a larger slice of the economy, the USPS might become solvent again.Steve Buchheithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999709767641212586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19111384.post-46359211917549663722011-12-15T20:22:36.537-05:002011-12-15T20:22:36.537-05:00What's to stop Amazon from saying, "input...<i>What's to stop Amazon from saying, "input the price in the store" and then individually adjusting the price of that item to be just slightly lower than the store's?</i><br /><br />Yeah, but there's a "f'r'instance" of what I'm talking about right there: stores have done that forever, in the form of "Bring in proof a competitor sells an item we carry for a lower price and we'll beat it" promotions. All Amazon is doing here is adding a high-tech spin to it, which feels a little queasy on first impression but I still don't think there's logic to the distinctions being made. The brick'n'mortar equivalent you hypothesize practically exists, already.<br /><br />I don't especially want to be stuck in the position of defending Amazon, a retailer that I have mixed feelings about already. (On the one hand, I still do quite a lot of shopping there; on the other hand, I'd kind of prefer not to because of dubious ethical practices like running sweatshops and not collecting state sales taxes.) But I still think this particular issue is a dog that won't hunt: what Amazon is doing is analogous to established business practices, the real onus (if any) is on the consumer who is voluntarily electing to take advantage of a service, and the "injured" parties are frankly retail businesses whose ongoing survival may (for better or worse, and perhaps sorrowfully, regardless) be analogous to displaced buggy-whip manufacturers during the early years of the automotive era. (Yes, I may be sorry to see my local bookstores close, but I'm not sure I can save them; and the other major player complaining is Best Buy, an abysmal chain store that has driven better indie tech stores out of business and probably <i>deserves</i> to go belly-up._Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19111384.post-22326493072236938262011-12-15T10:24:50.337-05:002011-12-15T10:24:50.337-05:00In truth, Eric, there's been apps like this fo...In truth, Eric, there's been apps like this for a while (scan in bar code, see comparison prices online). But all those were form companies whose business model is to do comparison shopping (aggregate data). And I agree that price shopping has a long and inglorious history (note my comment of I am also guilty of doing that). But it is different when it's run by a retailer who has a history of adjusting prices to individuals (stopped after exposed) and of unfair trade practices (selling below cost points to drive out competition). What's to stop Amazon from saying, "input the price in the store" and then individually adjusting the price of that item to be just slightly lower than the store's?<br /><br />A brick and mortar equivalent would be if Wal-Mart also had such an app, encouraged their shoppers to go into other stores and scan their products, offering "bonus coupons" (at Wal-Mart) for doing only that, but then also selling their product for at least $1 less, and letting the customer know there's a Wal-Mart 2 blocks away that has their product in stock, and if they click "yes" it'll be waiting for them by the door. <br /><br />At least for me, there's a line crossed. It virtually allows the competiting retailer to advertise within their competitor's stores. <br /><br />I don't see much wrong with using your phone, in a store, to see if you can get a better price elsewhere. Free market, fair game. But to have that function enabled by another retailer (and here I'll say, you'll only see Amazon's price, better to get one of those other apps to see everybody's price), who will then give you a discount for just using their app in their competition's stores, I think that goes too far.<br /><br />And what will happen? It's not like the stores are defenseless in this. There are commercially available cell phone jammers (mostly used for the entertainment business). Or, it could push the development of location based marketing (ie. you walk into a store and your cell phone beeps, oh, look, it's the store calling you and giving you a coupon, telling you there's a blue light special in aisle 6, or blanketing your cell line with their own advertising). Which, IMHO, is an evil we should all wish to avoid. Build a better sword and someone will build a better shield.Steve Buchheithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999709767641212586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19111384.post-13061505464520727402011-12-14T13:29:59.964-05:002011-12-14T13:29:59.964-05:00I'm not buying the criticism of Amazon on this...I'm not buying the criticism of Amazon on this one. There's a lot to legitimately criticize Amazon for, frankly (<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5841948/is-amazon-running-a-sweatshop-in-pennsylvania" rel="nofollow">running sweatshops, f'r'instance</a>) and I'm conflicted between my need to be budget-conscious and social anxieties about meatworld shopping on the one hand and my desire not to do evil on the other.<br /><br />But what Amazon is doing really <i>isn't</i> that different from the old days when you'd see something at one store, decide there was a probability you could get it cheaper elsewhere, and going to another store. Indeed, at some shopping malls in the golden age of malls, one might well alternate one's book-buying between the Waldenbooks at one end of the mall and the local indie chain at the other. Nor is what Amazon is doing <i>very</i> different from comparison shopping on one's cellphone while inside the store: there was never anything stopping me from checking for sales and promotions on my smartphone inside a store already. All Amazon is doing is (a) making it really, really easy and (b) offering a gift inducement to push anyone teetering at the edge of whether or not to buy online.<br /><br />Let's be honest: any moral onus is on the <i>buyer</i> here, not the seller. There is nobody forcing a consumer to accept an Amazon gift credit or to buy online. A consumer is still entitled to consider his options and decide to purchase locally from the brick-and-mortar because he wants to support his local store. (Incidentally and related, it's also the consumer who still has the obligation to pay any use taxes applicable under state law even if Amazon doesn't collect sales tax.) There's just not a logical way to say that this is the fault of Amazon for offering a seemingly-better deal nor is there a logical way to say that it's the local retailer's fault for not being able to compete with Amazon. The consumer is making a choice how and where he wants to spend his money and under what criterion.<br /><br />I think this would be obvious if Amazon wasn't making it seem so lazy. If it were 1947 and Macy's was offering to match Gimbels' price and throw in a gift certificate, nobody would be shaking a fist at Macy's. Of course, the high-tech of 1947 was the four-color newspaper insert and the telephone, is the key thing, and you'd have to do more traveling to go back and forth between the stores. The transparency and convenience is what's triggering an irrational response, here.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.com