Amazon Labels Millions of Unsold Products For Destruction, New Investigation Finds (theverge.com) 79
Amazon marks millions of unsold products for destruction each year in the UK, according to a new investigation by British television program ITV News. From a report: ITV found stacks of boxes marked "destroy" that were filled with electronics, jewelry, books, and other new or gently used items in one warehouse's "destruction zone." The news outlet caught the practice on camera while going undercover at the Dunfermline fulfillment center in Scotland. It says it tracked some of the goods to recycling centers and a landfill. About 124,000 items at Dunfermline were labeled "destroy" during a single week in April, according to an internal document obtained by ITV News. Just 28,000 items were set aside for donations during the same period. About half of all the stuff that's trashed are things that people returned, a former Amazon employee told ITV. While the other half are "unopened and still in their shrink wrap," the ex-employee said.
Ok why is this bad? (Score:1)
You cannot, for safety, pass on anything that has been returned to anyone else. You have no idea how it was tampered with.
Maybe unsold items could in theory be donated but it seems like it depends on the item, recycling (or throwing away) may be better.
Re:Ok why is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think we all could have picked up some ET cartridges. [youtu.be]
Re:Ok why is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)
No, Amazon does sell refurbished items all the time. When they get a return, they have to decide if it's worth the cost of paying someone to verify that it's complete and ready to be resold. They have to consider the wages of their employees, their cost for the product, and the likelihood of the product being in salable condition. I've heard that returned clothing is almost always destroyed, which makes sense when you consider the cost is tiny, and they don't know how sanitary the person who tried them on was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that clothing is one of the most destroyed returns, but it wasn't specifically about Amazon. I don't have solid data on Amazon, and I doubt they give out any such information.
Re: Ok why is this bad? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's YouTubers that make money [youtu.be] off returns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I once bought a refurbished Saw from Amazon, It was via a third party seller, their packaging of the product was so crappy that majorly broke in shipping. A 50lbs saw, in an oversize box, with 3 air pillows. I had returned it, and got my money back.
They do sell items. However beware.
Re: (Score:3)
I would think clothing items would be especially hard to inspect for defects that might have resulted in the return in the fist place. Lots seams that need to be carefully eyeballed, looked at under flat light for any issues with dye runs, the items are all fairly bespoke so no way to mechanize the handling or even condition the humans to do it efficiently
Re: (Score:2)
Cloth returns are usually because it does not fit.
Or the colour is not like on the picture.
Or it is an asshole that wanted to wear the cloth once for an event, and return it without paying a fee (aka as in renting it somewhere).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure many charitable organizations would be quite happy to send a truck for pick-up and launder everything.
re: clothing (Score:3)
Actually, it's a rather sad situation with used clothing items these days. There are far more clothing items people want to get rid of than any people interested in trying to re-use/recycle them.
The "fast fashion" trend really escalated this. Clothing is cranked out inexpensively and not generally made to last.
Those donation bins you see around for clothing and shoes are likely just excuses for non-profits to get big tax breaks. Many people suspect they simply empty those bins occasionally in the local dump
Re: (Score:2)
No, Amazon does sell refurbished items all the time. When they get a return, they have to decide if it's worth the cost of paying someone to verify that it's complete and ready to be resold. They have to consider the wages of their employees, their cost for the product, and the likelihood of the product being in salable condition.
And this, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with our economy. First, we take natural resources - many of which are non-renewable - and use copious quantities of greenhouse-gas-emitting energy to turn them into goods. (BTW, the market cost for the resources and materials that went into those goods is probably at least an order of magnitude too low to reflect their irreplaceability and/or the damage they do to the ecosphere). Then we decide we don't want those goods, and because their price was artificially defl
Re:Ok why is this bad? (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot, for safety, pass on anything that has been returned to anyone else. You have no idea how it was tampered with.
Amazon does sell returned items. It's called Amazon Warehouse [amazon.com], and they (supposedly) test the items before re-selling them.
What is Amazon Warehouse?
Amazon Warehouse offers great deals on quality used, pre-owned, or open box products. With all the benefits of Amazon fulfilment, customer service, and returns rights, we provide discounts on used items for customer favorites: such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, home & kitchen appliances, and thousands more. For each used product we sell, we thoroughly test the condition of the item and provide detailed descriptions to make it easier for you to make a decision.
Looking for great discounts on some of your favorite items? Or prefer buying used because it is better for the environment? Discover Amazon Warehouse used offers via our storefront, search bar, or on product detail pages.
How do you evaluate a product's condition?
All of our products go through a quality check by us prior to being sold. We thoroughly test the functional and physical condition of each item and give the product a specific grade before selling it. We also inspect our products for missing accessories and packaging damage. Based on our quality check, each item will be assigned one of the four evaluations to describe its overall condition: “Like New”, “Very Good”, “Good”, and “Acceptable”.
Re:Ok why is this bad? (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon does sell returned items. It's called Amazon Warehouse [amazon.com], and they (supposedly) test the items before re-selling them.
IMO, one reason why they destroy so many of them is because their prices are insanely bad for what you get.
For example, they're selling an iPad Air 64 GB 10.9" that's "Used/Very Good" at 90% of the cost of a new one. So for only a 10% discount, you get potentially no warranty, i.e. three weeks later, it could die, and you'd have nothing. At 50% off, I'd buy one in a heartbeat, but at 10% off, it would have to come with a full factory warranty or equivalent for me to even consider buying a used product. And they don't.
For another example, a Black & Decker drill with accessory kit (LD120VA) costs $40.44 used. The same product is being offered for $39 as a Prime Day deal. So it is actually cheaper to buy one new than used. They're not even lowering the price below what they can afford to sell it for new.
So Amazon ostensibly sells their returns, but in practice, they don't lower the prices enough to make it worth the risk. So the only people who would buy them at those prices are people who can't afford the new products, and the net result is that the poor end up paying more on average by frequently having to buy the same thing twice. The way they're doing things is bad all around.
Re: (Score:2)
So for only a 10% discount, you get potentially no warranty, i.e. three weeks later, it could die, and you'd have nothing.
Warranty is given by the manufacturer, not by the seller. I'm pretty sure that is the same in the US.
An iPad I buy and sell you does not magically lose any warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
They may be some products that may no longer be safe to resell, or at least more expensive to resell than to just toss. However I think it is just that so many customers are scummy and try find hacks to more or less steal a product.
Amazon sells a good number of Low Demand Products, Lets say a $5000 table saw. One could buy the $5000 table saw, then return it, wait a week and they will see there is a Used table saw (the same model) for $3000 in which they will buy. Chances are it is going to be the one th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmm what??
My amazon search shows the products and also shows a list of the same item cheaper that is used. It show the rating of used as "still like new", "Some minor defects" etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary includes "jewelry". How exactly do you tamper with jewelry?
How do you tamper with books?
How do you tamper with a laptop or a digital camera?
Sorry, you are just lame.
I would give it my workers as extra gift. Let them figure how to use or sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Swap the gem with a less valuable fake [fox59.com]. Return a similar design made with a plated base metal. Easy.
Swap in cheaper and slower memory or storage.
You have no workers. You claim that your business isn't even registered. Are you conspiring to evade taxes Angelo?
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot, for safety, pass on anything that has been returned to anyone else. You have no idea how it was tampered with.
Bullshit.
Apparently Craigslist, Goodwill, and eBay don't exist on your planet.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Businesses write off dead inventory all the time. Always have. Some states have inventory taxes, so owning it costs you money.
Maybe they could donate more of it to various charities, but finding organizations to take it (and provide a write-off for the donation) isn't trivial for that kind of volume, and isn't necessarily going to provide the same write-off (only the accountants know for sure).
So, in the end, it must be a slow news day. Move along, nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
I once got an Amazon package that had a knock-off chia pet still in plastic wrap included in it, apparently as filler to save on packing material. I guess if it is under the density of packing material, that's one way to deal with it.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Places like Amazon are going to be a net benefit. Less need for over packaging. People driving to Walmart is inefficient. Big box stores waste electricity. We donâ(TM)t know if local branches of chains waste more or less becau
Re: (Score:2)
More than that. 100,000 items were found to be destroyed, 20,000 items found to be reused, and this is extrapolated to millions of items wasted.
And there's another thought to consider:
Do they mark stuff to destroy as it comes in, or does it pile up and get processed all at once? Perhaps they did their survey the day before a month's worth of stuff was processed.
Wal mart has 10,000 stores. If each throws out 10 returns every day that is 40 million items a year.
And I will guarantee you that the average Walmart tosses a lot more than 10 items a day.
Re: What's the big deal? (Score:1)
Re: What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to change Amazon's way of handling dead stock, you have to start with changing the tax structure between destroying it and donating it (or whatever you want to have happen to it). Blaming Amazon for doing business the way everybody else does actually masks the real issue.
Re: What's the big deal? (Score:2)
When you see this sort of story it's because it's cheaper to throw stuff away, and the Tax Laws are usually a big part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some places where you have to collect (and turnover) Sales Tax to the government, and when someone returns an item you don't get that back.
That's not true at all. When you file the sales tax paperwork, you indicate you issued the refund, or, if the return comes back and you already filed, you file an amended sales tax form. It's not rocket surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly the case in California, which is as strict about sales tax (and extremely aggressive in collecting it) as anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. Per California Department of Tax and Fee Administration [ca.gov], "Refund or credit of the entire amount is deemed to be given when the purchase price, less rehandling and restocking costs, is refunded or credited to the customer." The company I work for gets credit for issuing sales tax refunds on the returns in CA just like every other state we collect sales tax for.
Re: (Score:2)
You misread me. You say
No, it's not.
And then agree with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you see this sort of story it's because it's cheaper to throw stuff away, and the Tax Laws are usually a big part of that.
While you're wrong on the first part for any tax district I've ever seen, this is 100% correct. Sales tax law, income tax law, tax laws regarding donations, etc. There's a reason that accounting jobs require a college degree, and why CPAs require continuous ongoing education to keep their skill set current.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in the end, it must be a slow news day. Move along, nothing to see here.
Just because something is business as usual doesn't mean it needs to be written off as slow news day. It nonetheless remains important for even common practices which are bad to be reported on repeatedly so that people remember this pointless shit goes on. Only then do we stand an even remote chance of actually doing something about it.
Also writing this off as "nothing to see here" is asinine. Most businesses do not have the sheer volume of shit that goes through them as Amazon does. The peddler of cheap shit with guilt free returns should be held accountable for what they do with their unwanted goods, otherwise they are just externalising the cost of environmentally unfriendly business practices no differently than a coal power plant not paying for pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't about business as usual for dead stock and defective returns. It was about Amazon's handling of such, and written specifically to make it look unusual, not routine. Walmart is still (for now, at least) the biggest retailer in the world, and almost certainly destroys more dead and defective merchandise than Amazon, but the story is about Amazon.
And by making it sound like Amazon is unusual, it actually hides that it's a near universal practice at all retailers.
It was a hit piece against a huge
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the waste.
Amazon has rev
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly never worked in retail, and have no idea how many returns most places get, or how they handle them.
This is all business as usual. It's vaguely noteworthy because it's a lot more concentrated than even big chains with megastores like Walmart. I suspect the average Amazon warehouse pumps more business through it than a hundred average Walmart stores.
Depending on the time frame in which those 120,000 items accumulated (and there's no indication of that), they are quite possibly destroying less t
Re: (Score:2)
The big deal is the huge quantity that they're writing off, and the fact that they're sending it to landfill, not somewhere useful.
Reuse, reduce, recycle. In that order.
In this case, we maybe get recycle, if we're lucky. It doesn't matter if other businesses do it or not, Amazon absolutely *can* do much much better at this. They absolutely could sell this stuff, and if it's too costly to them, they absolutely could donate it in bulk rather than filling landfills.
Re: (Score:2)
The big deal is the huge quantity that they're writing off, and the fact that they're sending it to landfill, not somewhere useful.
They're following the same business practices as everybody else does that is of any size. Do you really believe they haven't done a careful - and accurate - analysis of what costs them the least? If it's cheaper to destroy it than to recycle it, of course they're going to destroy it - just like all other businesses do. And it almost certainly is cheaper. On that scale, they would have a difficult time even finding a recycler to take it all, and the odds of finding someone who would do so without charging them is even less likely.
(All that aside from the fact that most recycling is pork barrel subsidies the taxpayer has to charge for.)
If you want to encourage more recycling (and, since we're talking mostly about unopened, new product, selling in bulk to liquidators - most of whom, with that kind of volume, will try to sell it on . . . Amazon, until they're ready to write off and destroy the remainder, too), change the tax structures that make destroying it more economical for the business.
And when you write an article about it, address the real problem, rather than blaming Amazon, and only Amazon, for a business practice all retailers (and everybody else) uses, and has for decades.
This was nothing more than a hit piece on a slow news day. Whether there's news or not, there's always advertising to sell.
Re: (Score:1)
Every other business does the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Every business destroys unwanted, unsellable, or spoiled stock. Every restaurant throws out food that is still perfectly edible. It's the cost of doing business.
"Oh, but why doesn't Amazon donate these items instead of throw them away?", some might ask. Because Amazon would still find themselves liable for any injuries or damages incurred by those donated products.
Amazon understands their logistics better than anyone else. If stock becomes a liability instead of an asset, out it goes. This story is only notable because it is Amazon doing it, and hating Amazon is the trendy thing nowadays.
Re:Every other business does the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Every other business does the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. It's a natural consequence of having a production surplus.
Reducing wastage is a laudable goal, and there's certainly room to improve it. But you can only take it so far. At a high level, no one will ever be able to predict product demand with 100%; so you're always going to need some kind of buffer to accommodate variability in consumer demand.
Meanwhile, at a more core level, surplus is society's insurance against disaster; drought, a warehouse fire, etc. You need some kind of a surplus in normal times in order to ensure you don't run out of goods in a time of stress/disaster.
But more than anything else, surplus is what allows for consumer choice. It's why you can pick the pork or the beef, instead of taking what you can get. Overproducing on these things creates waste, but consumers are more than happy to eat the resulting cost on most goods simply to be able to pick and choose what they want and when.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't stop the liquidation companies. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like there isn't one single solution that's the prefect approach for all goods. You know, like maybe "some stuff is more profitable to resell, some stuff is more profitable to donate and write off, and some stuff isn't worth the trouble and costs the least to just destroy."
Nah, it couldn't be that.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be laws that exempt the donator from safety lawsuits if the customer didn't report defects, but simply returned the item due to unliked features, non-body-fit, etc. And maybe give tax-breaks for donating items to the poor as an incentive. (Republicans are more likely to back a bill with tax-breaks.)
Certain fashion and luxury items have high value because they are
Re: (Score:2)
You could simply demand that they are given away for a third of the price to small shops that reuse the parts for repairs, or refurbish the whole thing and sell it for 2/3rd.
But alas, the second part would be unwanted competition.
You could actually auction it in closed circles for refurbishes, if fixed prices cuts are against your feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
Every business destroys unwanted, unsellable, or spoiled stock. Every restaurant throws out food that is still perfectly edible. It's the cost of doing business.
Every restaurant? No.
Many? Unfortunately, yes.
A few restaurants, bakeries, and a pizzeria around me donate their leftovers to the local food pantries and homeless shelters.
One pizzeria (now closed) that I used to frequent during my high school and college years handed out any leftovers at the end of the night to the homeless people who'd stop by right at closing time.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that cooked pies/slices or did that include other unused stuff like toppings etc.
I find the idea an restaurant to could operate without any unsold inventory being in a state where it was also unfit for donation in some way pretty remarkable. Even a pizza shop.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh, but why doesn't Amazon donate these items instead of throw them away?", some might ask. Because Amazon would still find themselves liable for any injuries or damages incurred by those donated products.
Horseshit. Amazon doesn't consider itself liable even when their product directly burns a paying customer's house down.
https://www.ecommercebytes.com... [ecommercebytes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon understands their logistics better than anyone else. If stock becomes a liability instead of an asset, out it goes. This story is only notable because it is Amazon doing it, and hating Amazon is the trendy thing nowadays.
You are mixing something up, at the moment Apple hate is en vouge.
Regarding throwing stuff away: I doubt any old schol european company is doing that.
Because: it makes no sense.
And sooner or later black Fridays will be lack weeks: this week we boycott company X for throwing away com
Similar to toy warehouses. (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at a facility that warehouses and ships toys all over the country, and they were extremely paranoid about black mold liability. If any product packaging got wet, the whole item had to be destroyed. Most returns showed no signs of having gotten wet, but it only took one suspicious mark for an item to be sent to the shredder.
Re: (Score:3)
Most returns showed no signs of having gotten wet, but it only took one suspicious mark for an item to be sent to the shredder.
That's so cruel!
In my day, we were kind enough to send them to the Island of Misfit Toys so they could at least live out their lives.
It is their business practice (Score:2)
Anyone else besides me have the experience of returning something to Amazon and having them tell you to just throw it away and they'll post a refund?
Several times here. It seems unlikely they do that for everyone. I can understand that the cost of shipping return and repackaging might be more than it is worth, but I don't see how they make money doing this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just theirs, it's a common practice in distance sales. This is usually done for clearly defective items that probably won't be salvageable profitably by the sellers, and shipping it back will cost them even more money than the junk is actually worth.
That's not the issue here though - Amazon is doing this for underlying reasons like gifting particularly valuable items tarnishing their image, or because the cost of recycling or keeping them is high. There may even be cases where having a particular l
Compare to other companies (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be interested in a news story comparing how many products Amazon disposes of compared to similar companies like Walmart, but this story doesn't appear to provide anything of value. Every company disposes of excess inventory. I get no sense from this article of whether Amazon is doing something extraordinarily bad or if this is just complaining about the poor level of recycling and donation industry wide.
Re: (Score:2)
It's complaining that people should get be getting this stuff for free because...well, just because.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, they're destroying less than a lot of companies do, based on these numbers. The only thing remotely unusual about it is that the warehouses are huge compared to most retail stores (even big ones like Walmart), and the handling is centralized.
I work for a national chain that sell a lot of stuff with their brand on it. If an item is defective, we don't send it back. We just notify them it's defective to get a credit, and destroy it. No questions asked. As someone else pointed out, if Walmart stor
Re: (Score:2)
Not every company runs a guilt free returns system while peddling cheap barely functioning garbage. Until dollar stores take their businesses online you're going to find Amazon has a significantly higher rate of wastage than any other online retailer in the west, though I suspect they are likely dwarfed by the likes of Alibaba.
Old News (Score:4, Informative)
This is old news. We've known about this practice for many years.
Many Amazon Returns Are Just Destroyed or Sent to Landfills [slashdot.org]
Amazon Slammed for Destroying As-New and Returned Goods [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but we need to be reminded every now and then to be angry about it.
so what? (Score:1)
Off site destruction services (Score:2)
Feel free to make use of my low-cost off-site destruction services... I'll guarantee that the products are 'destroyed'.
Skipping the middle-man (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Melt them all down and make his next house from giant Duplo blocks made from the material.
Single fact conclusions. (Score:2)
Were they counterfeit?
Were they known to have a defect and recalled to the manufacturer?
Do they have a contract with the supplier which says Amazon can't sell them on after they have been returned?
As far as I can see, everyone is making judgements based on a single fact and not bothering to look deeper. It is why most people are fucking idiots and don't deserve nice things.
outrage, outrage (Score:2)
I am so outraged. Why? Um, um, I forget why, there must be something I was outraged by. Oh, wait, I remember, it's Amazon throwing stuff away because it's cheaper to do that than to do anything else with it.
Yes, we need to make the economy less efficient, so I won't be outraged about Amazon saving money. Then I can be outraged by Amazon wasting money on saving stuff that should be thrown out.