Amazon Doles Out Freebies To Juice Sales of Its Own Brands (bloomberg.com) 37
An anonymous reader shares a report: Amazon cracked down on fake reviews two years ago by prohibiting shoppers from getting free products directly from merchants in exchange for writing reviews. It was a major turning point for the world's largest online retailer, which had previously seen "incentivized reviews" as a key way for consumers to discover new products. Amazon changed course because it realized some merchants were using such reviews to game its search algorithm, undermining faith in the customer feedback that helps drive e-commerce.
Amazon instead used its "Vine" program, in which Amazon serves as a middleman between prolific Amazon reviewers and vendors eager for exposure. Amazon would still allow freebies in exchange for feedback so long as there was no direct contact between its retail partners and reviewers, theoretically lessening the chance of quid-pro-quo. Amazon would select shoppers eligible for the program, and Amazon vendors would pay a fee and provide free products to participate. But there was an important group excluded from the Vine program: independent merchants who supply about half the goods sold on the site.
Now those excluded merchants and review watchdogs are alleging Amazon is guilty of the review manipulation the company said it was trying to prevent. Amazon uses Vine extensively to promote a fast-growing assortment of its own private-label products, distributing free samples to quickly accumulate the reviews needed to rise in search results and boost shopper faith in making a purchase. It gives Amazon a big advantage when introducing its own brands over third-party merchants who are more vulnerable to Amazon's private-label competition than prominent brands already in stores.
Amazon instead used its "Vine" program, in which Amazon serves as a middleman between prolific Amazon reviewers and vendors eager for exposure. Amazon would still allow freebies in exchange for feedback so long as there was no direct contact between its retail partners and reviewers, theoretically lessening the chance of quid-pro-quo. Amazon would select shoppers eligible for the program, and Amazon vendors would pay a fee and provide free products to participate. But there was an important group excluded from the Vine program: independent merchants who supply about half the goods sold on the site.
Now those excluded merchants and review watchdogs are alleging Amazon is guilty of the review manipulation the company said it was trying to prevent. Amazon uses Vine extensively to promote a fast-growing assortment of its own private-label products, distributing free samples to quickly accumulate the reviews needed to rise in search results and boost shopper faith in making a purchase. It gives Amazon a big advantage when introducing its own brands over third-party merchants who are more vulnerable to Amazon's private-label competition than prominent brands already in stores.
Bezos is a theif (Score:1)
Bezos is keeping all the good stuff for himself and selling it on fleabay.
Re: (Score:2)
i before e,
except after c,
or when sounded as "a,"
as in neighbor and weigh
Their
Science
Re: (Score:2)
Sheila O'Neill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd love to see them broke up like AT&T.
Amazon has 4% of the retail market. For online retail, they have 30%.
They are no where near a monopoly. Almost anything Amazon sells, you can buy elsewhere.
Comparing Amazon to AT&T is silly.
Re: (Score:1)
What's it like to be an insane psychopath?
They're not a monopoly.
You don't like their practices. Got it.
Wishing for someone to be kidnapped by "crazies" tells me you're pretty fucking crazy yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they are serious, if it is satirical ie likening working at Amazon to being kidnapped by crazies and having to ransom yourself out by forced labour, then kind of funny. Does Bezos come off as infinitely greedy, yeah, kinda. Needs to do much more to look after the people making him his fortune, unlikely to happen. Probably a lot of his staff would be content to see Bezos kidnapped by crazies and never return, to be replaced by an employer that realises, their employees make the companies money.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking out for their own interests (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, a company is putting its own interests ahead of other companies? Is anyone surprised by this? They aren't a public service that is required to treat each company that sells through their site equal treatment, they are a corporation doing what corporations do - making money. Next up, we'll discuss the OUTRAGE of water that is wet.
Re:Looking out for their own interests (Score:4)
Well the reviews are supposed to be neutral, so people can trust what they are buying. Amazon is betraying that trust in the reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
In their defense, they do at least mark the Vine reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
In their defense, they do at least mark the Vine reviews.
Quite prominently, unless that has changed.
The first time I saw it, it was so prominent that I of course checked out what it was (they provided a link), and from then on I took those with the appropriate grain of salt.
Seemed reasonable enough.
review integrity (Score:5, Interesting)
Allowing people to edit reviews after the fact is probably just as bad in terms of having a trustworthy platform.
Case in point:
I bought a cheap xbox 360 compatible controller from some rando Chinese company. It of course, was a total piece of shit. (battery terminals had a faulty contact, thumb-stick's were lacking in sensitivity. poor battery life etc) -- it was just materially inferior in every way to a proper model.
So I post a scathing review; stating these facts. A few days later I get a message from the company offering to refund my purchase entirely (and let me keep the item) If i'd change the review to at least 4 stars, and list something positive about it.
I'm assuming this is a pretty common practice. And a consumer lacking scruples might just go ahead and take the bait.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing people to edit reviews after the fact is probably just as bad in terms of having a trustworthy platform.
Case in point: I bought a cheap xbox 360 compatible controller from some rando Chinese company. It of course, was a total piece of shit. (battery terminals had a faulty contact, thumb-stick's were lacking in sensitivity. poor battery life etc) -- it was just materially inferior in every way to a proper model.
So I post a scathing review; stating these facts. A few days later I get a message from the company offering to refund my purchase entirely (and let me keep the item) If i'd change the review to at least 4 stars, and list something positive about it.
I'm assuming this is a pretty common practice. And a consumer lacking scruples might just go ahead and take the bait.
I don't know if it's common, but I had it happen once. I simply forwarded their request to Amazon and left the review as it was.
On the flip side I've also had a company respond to a bad review (which had more to do with the stupid rounded edges phones MUST have now rather than the screen protector I was applying). They offered me an early version that they were about to release specifically to address my complaint. Had I accepted I would guess that they would have appreciated an update, but there was no ask
Re:review integrity (Score:4)
I had the buffet in Cosmopolitan Las Vegas do the same thing. "We'll allow you to have a second dinner, no charge, if you remove your review from Yelp." It makes me wonder if this is common practice.
Re: (Score:1)
That's when you change the review to 4 stars and accept the refund. Then, once you get the refund, change it back to 1 star and describe exactly what happened in your review.
FYI: In the book world, this is accepted practice (Score:3)
Publishers Weekly (for bookstores) and Library Journal (for libraries), as well as other reviewing platforms, such as Kirkus Reviews, commonly receive advanced copies to send out for review. The deal is that the reviewer gets to keep the book. In the case of galleys, which are often printed on newsprint, or other 'advanced copy' formats, the publisher is obligated to send a final bound copy to the reviewer when it is available. It's one of the best ways publishers can advertise their books without a huge advertising budget, which is reserved for bestselling authors where the return is greater. This seen as 'fair payment' for a review and never considered as somehow unfair or unethical.
I would be happy to accept (Score:2)
an 82 inch television, and a years worth of free food to clean up some of my previous reviews.
Ok, is this a pun? (Score:2)