Amazon Increases the Price of Prime To $139 Per Year (cnbc.com) 305
Amazon is raising the price of its annual Prime membership to $139 from $119, the company announced on Thursday as part of its fourth-quarter earnings results. From a report: Amazon last hiked the price of Prime in 2018, when it increased to $119 from $99. Four years before that, it raised the subscription fee to $99 from $79. Amazon's annual increase amounts to about a 17% rise in price. Amazon also raised the monthly price of a Prime membership from $12.99 to $14.99, the company said. New members will see the increased prices on Feb. 18, and current members will be billed at the higher rate after March 25. Launched in 2005, Amazon Prime gives members access to free two-day shipping, as well as access to exclusive movies and TV shows, among other perks. As of last April, the service had more than 200 million subscribers worldwide.
Great! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not worth it (Score:5, Interesting)
Prime Video seems like such a scam to me. My girlfriend has Prime, and it seems like more than half the stuff on Prime Video isn't included with the Prime membership, so you have to pay for it anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not worth it (Score:5, Informative)
Prime Video seems like such a scam to me. My girlfriend has Prime, and it seems like more than half the stuff on Prime Video isn't included with the Prime membership, so you have to pay for it anyways.
That's not really the case. All the pay for stuff has the same pricing and availability whether you have Prime or not. In other words, none of that stuff that they show you that requires further payment is part of your Prime membership in any way, shape, or form. Really what's happening is when you're browsing your Prime video stuff you're getting ads for their pay for content unless you hit the "free to me" filter in which case you cant use any of their other filters.
Annoying? Absolutely. This is why I prefer Netflix. Everything that comes free with Prime comes free with Prime though.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I have never had a use for prime. There are very few things that I actually need in under two days that is not a case of "i need it right now".
I just looked at my amazon orders for the last 3 years. How many times did I pay for 2 day shipping? Never, I have never actually needed to pay for it. When you place a large order, 2 day shipping is usually free.
Prime used to be $50 something 15 years ago. Did not seem useful at the time. Still not seem useful today.
Now, I could see people having different
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not worth it (Score:2)
Still a bargain (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'll get flamed or be a bootlicker, but it would pay for itself for me if even $300 / year. And sorry Target, we used to stop by ~3 times / week. Now it's once every three weeks.
Value depends on usage (Score:3)
It all comes down to how much you use the services that come with Prime. For you it sounds like you use it quite a bit and so there's a ton of value there and that's great.
For me on the other hand I probably only order things off Amazon a dozen times a year and only on a few of those occasions is Prime shipping ever been something that I've considered valuable (most of the time as long as the package shows up in 2 weeks I'd be fine). While I can easily afford $139 a year them adding an extra $20 to the base
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see this as a death spiral for this business model.
Given how big and profitable amazon already is I imagine they spend a lot of time and money on deciding what the appropriate rate is. Basically, I imagine that they're pretty sure they will make more money with this then they will lose due to canceled subscriptions so no death spiral here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is the convivence. Every type of product being on one site is nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Something a Monopoly Would Do (Score:2)
Prime delivery times (Score:2)
When it was $99/year I used to receive all Prime items the next day. It shot up to $119 and most Prime items take 2+ days now. And they started doing sketchy shit like: Item price increased significantly after you ordered it ? Oh ... your package is "lost in transit" (tracking previously said it reached the nearby warehouse) "please click here to get refunded and then order again" (at the new price)
Re: (Score:2)
Cost of prime has nothing to do with how fast things are shipped. It goes up because they want to shovel more content into their video/music/game/book/blah blah "not shipping" sections of prime.
And I live about 2-3 hours (depending on traffic) from an Amazon warehouse and get everything I order the next day and sometimes the same day. So I think that is more important than the cost of prime.
They must be starving! Lets support them! (Score:2)
Naa, just kidding. They just want even more profit and think they can get away with this.
$6.99 a month. Aussie dollars. (Score:2)
I pay A$6.99 a month for Prime, including video, music and free delivery over A$50, and I get some benefits from Twitch as well (in the one game I play regularly).
I did originally have US Amazon (not Prime, I think?) at US$7.99/month as I wanted to watch The Grand Tour, which I've done, but Amazon emailed me, pointing out that I could get more (Prime music and faster and/or free delivery) and offering to charge me less, so obviously I accepted their generous offer.
I'm quite happy with the service at the pri
Re: (Score:2)
free delivery over A$50
Oof, guess that's a downside to living in AU - in the US, amazon typically offers free delivery for orders over $25 to everyone and free 2-day delivery for Prime subscribers for orders of any amount
Re: (Score:2)
I'm paying E2.99. For the same things you have, which is roughly equivalent to your 7 Dollaridoos I think?
Bezos needs another yacht (Score:2)
Pay up, plebs.
Prime stopped adding value (Score:2)
Prime used to come with good reliable shipping and video as a bonus.
Now most of the free video on prime is commercial filled (except their in house content) and shipping is terrible and free in most cases without prime.
I moved to walmart+ and get most of my shit in less than 3 days or the same day. Plus the prices are often cheaper and in the rare event I need to go to a Walmart I can scan as I shop and get out faster.
I think prime as run it's course. I won't be renewing.
Shipping was never free (Score:2)
You just paid the amortized cost of shipping in a lump sum.
Amazon is not a charity. If you're getting a good deal from Amazon, it's because someone else is getting squeezed. And don't for a moment think this will mean warehouse workers get paid better - that's not how business works.
Whether you're ok with that or not, I suppose, is a matter of your own conscience, because Amazon sure doesn't have one.
Re: (Score:3)
No shit? You say that as if it's some big revelation. Next you'll be telling me that the unlimited breadsticks actually have a limit!
Re: (Score:2)
BOO! (Score:2)
Not worth the constant Rug Pulling (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, Amazon Prime has free shipping (nope, now any product that is eligible for Prime shipping is marked up in price)
Hey, now Amazon Prime includes a huge music library (nope, now that's additional if you want to listen to most things).
Hey, now Amazon Prime includes free Whole Foods delivery (nope, now that's extra)
On top of it all, Amazon, who used to have competitive prices is no longer the first place to shop for most things. They're too big to worry about value and they've been that way for too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no charge for the Whole Foods part if your order is over $35 and you don't want to tip the gig worker who will deliver it (I do).
This wasn't available in my area at all until recently, and as someone who can't drive having another option for grocery delivery has been well worth it (they also have some items which are not available elsewhere).
I don't care about the video/music, I never use it, my wife does though. Twitch is digital cancer and I hope it dies. You're right about some of the Prime th
Amazon wins even if you try to stop (Score:2)
I have been trying to order less from Amazon and part of that process is working eBay into the mix more since even if eBay is a megacorp most of the sellers are small/medium businesses. Try and give them a fair shake right?
Well when I order something and then an Amazon delivery worker still drops it off in an Amazon box kinda makes me feel a but silly about the whole thing. This has happened on 4 of the last 10 eBay orders I have made.
I know we're all supposed to be upset about this (Score:5, Informative)
...but in my business (logistics):
- My warehouses are increasing rates 12-20% (the ones that aren't kicking us out because we might be a B- or C-customer, and they're culling back to only A-tier accounts)
- trucking is easily 30%+ more expensive
- port, or rail ramp detention/demurrage charges hitting obscene levels, I just signed a $47000 check for 5 containers sitting in the port, no delay due to anything my company or warehouse did, just no available drivers and the carriers having long-since adopted T&C requiring payment of such charges before containers are released. I could argue, but every day of delay would be something like $3000-$4000 additional accumulated charges that legally I have very little leg to object to ANYWAY.
- ocean freight has settled to durably 100%+ more expensive from EU, 2000% more expensive from APAC origins.
- even where local municipalities haven't hiked salaries to $15/hour compelling even bottom-tier warehouses to comply to find ANYONE to do grunt warehouse jobs nobody wants to do, Amazon has done it, with the same result. And this is not even regarding market pressures and an inability to find people to work even at $17-$20/hour, to drive a flippin' forklift.
- I have a local industrial company that used to do work for us within 3-4 business days. He just let me know his lead times are now 4+ weeks because he simply cannot find any employees to work at a job running industrial machines for $18/hour with benefits.
I think we're all going to be looking at inflation rates by summer that make Amazons 17% bump a molehill in context.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a whole list of "Boohoo for us businesses now that we have to pay our workers more."
i got news for you. it's not the businesses that will paying the workers more, it's you the customer.
So happy I punted Prime long ago (Score:2)
Will have to see what others do, really .... (Score:3)
The $139 a year price is definitely more than I want to pay for Prime. But I'm someone who has a pretty extensive music collection in MP3 format on a Plex server at home (with a copy in iTunes on a Mac as well). So the music streaming they offer does nothing for me. Like practically everyone else, I buy some things from Amazon - but it seems like their delivery times have slipped as well? Instead of practically everything promised to arrive in 2 days w/Prime? Now they want you to select a "Prime day" of the week they deliver to you on and there's so much offered by third parties who don't offer any expedited shipping anyway. It's getting so I think the free shipping deals offered by competitors wind up the better value.
I'd almost buy Prime for their video service, except they have the same issue the others do; only maybe 2-3 series at a time, at most, that I want to watch. I get through them and then they have nothing else I want to waste my time watching. They pulled funding for The Expanse, which kinda pissed me off, since that was my favorite sci-fi series they produced. And others that everyone seems to love have been in limbo for far too long without a new season (such as "Upload").
Prime is More Than Free Shipping (Score:2)
I actually don't buy that much from Amazon. I subscribe to Prime for Prime Video. With the cost increase, I'm going to have to evaluate if it's still worth it for me.
I canceled already (Score:2)
Great! (Score:3)
I've always congratulated myself on not having Prime. Just look at how much money I'm saving. At this rate, I'm going to be rich in no time at all.
Slowly heating the pot, can you feel it? (Score:2)
Trust me, the crabs can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Is Amazon still paying employees... (Score:2)
Well, at least they chose a prime number (Score:3)
139 is a prime number, not divisible by anything other than 1 and itself.
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait until you see their earnings per share. This is nothing more than profiteering.
what do you expect? An artificially low price? That doesn't make any sense at all, the price will be what the market will bear. Amazon has come to the conclusion the market will bear a price of $139 and so they're adjusting accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see. I know I am canceling my membership on principle alone and I'm betting many others will too. Most normal people don't really care about "what the market will bear". That logic may make sense to an economist, but I'll wager it smacks of BS to the average American.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, it really doesn't make all that much sense to me. Why does everything keep increasing in price, while the quality is not getting any better?
Re: (Score:2)
Preach
Re: (Score:2)
$140/yr is a small price to pay for ... contractor ...pissing in a bottle.
Undinism is an extra $4.99/mo option.
Re: (Score:3)
Prime is a completely optional service. You can get literally everything you want or need shipped to you without prime (and, for the most part, without Amazon at all!). It's not like this is electricity or health care.
Amazon owns the service, and so they are free to charge whatever they like for it. Maybe the markup IS firmly rooted in greed. Well, given its completely optional nature, I have a hard time caring.
If all you really want prime for is the free shipping, well, an ounce of patience will comple
Nationalize Amazon! (Score:2, Interesting)
I know, let's nationalize Amazon — create a Federal agency to run it, its members nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Then — apply the same to all corporations, thus eliminating wasteful competition and income-disbalances. What can possibly go wrong?
You promise, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because no way they are going to lower executive bonuses down to some reasonable level to balance things out.
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't.
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately a lot of companies are actually not allowed to do that. Literally.
A lot of IPOs explicitly mention maximizing profit, and a lot of shareholders will keep a company to that maximized profit clause. So 'making less profit' for a reason that's not in the company's or shareholders' best interest, will have repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Interesting)
In some European countries McDonalds workers get paid over $20/hour and the Big Macs are actually slightly cheaper than they are in the US.
It's interesting how you blame the minimum wage for the price increase, when Bezos is buying super yachts and taking jaunts into space. It couldn't possibly be because of him.
Re: (Score:3)
In some European countries McDonalds workers get paid over $20/hour and the Big Macs are actually slightly cheaper than they are in the US.
It's interesting how you blame the minimum wage for the price increase, when Bezos is buying super yachts and taking jaunts into space. It couldn't possibly be because of him.
Also remember that the European wages typically come with employer-side payments for health-insurance, accident-insurance, retirement fund and unemployment insurance. I guess McDonalds in the US is just less efficient or employer greed is significantly higher. Of course somebody could still reach the original conclusion if they ignore the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:4, Interesting)
One possible explanation: those countries also have government subsidized health care, so the business doesn't have to pay for that. I have a feeling that if we had single-payer health care in the US (Medicare for all, etc.) that companies would be a little more willing to raise wages if they aren't mandated to pay ever-rising health care insurance premiums.
Those higher wages also have a much higher chunk taken out for taxes, so it probably comes out about even in the end, except the employee has health care.
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Informative)
Taxes are progressive so the tax on McDonalds workers will be relatively low. According to this calculator someone working full time on $20/hour in Norway would pay 21.3% tax on their income.
https://no.talent.com/en/tax-c... [talent.com]
Obviously most McDonalds workers are part time so probably pay much less than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Norway is in the EEA, which means that all EU citizens enjoy freedom of movement and can relocate to Norway (with certain limitations - basically they must be self sufficient).
Beyond that Norway's immigration policy is fairly normal, e.g. it's not a big issue to bring your spouse over.
Re: I guess this is the result... (Score:2)
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. For example in Germany, the maximum Tax is 42% and that only applies if you earn more than 57.918 Euro/Year. Well, there is a 45% rate if you have more than 274.612 EUR/Year.
It is pretty difficult to get there at $20/h = 17.50EUR/h, in particular as these limits are _after_ health and unemployment insurance and pension plan are paid for. But the point still is that the employer pays significantly more per hour and the product is significantly cheaper per item at the same quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep moving those goalposts and your arms are gonna get real tired.
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you mean to use a comma instead of a decimal?
I'm guessing the answer to that is "no." The thousands separator in Germany is a period, and the decimal separator is a comma. In the case above, the correct way to write it would be 57.918,00. There is no error or misleading here.
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Informative)
And that $20/hr is taxed at what, 50%? More? Try telling the whole truth for a change.
Talking of telling the truth, you might want to mention the fact that the tax (which I don't believe is 50% for anyone on that wage) pays for completely free health care, 20-30 days paid annual leave, as many paid sick days as you want and in most countries free education through to masters level.
Re: (Score:2)
And that $20/hr is taxed at what, 50%? More? Try telling the whole truth for a change.
a) No. Probably more like 15%.
and
b) They'll have healthcare, pension and all sorts of other benefits by default.
Remind us again: How much does a McDonalds employee pay for healthcare in the USA? Do they even have any?
Re: (Score:3)
Burger flipping is not a career...it is a starter job.
And most kids doing this would still be on their parents' medical coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all jobs are meant to make a living on, much less support a family.
Burger flipping is not a career...it is a starter job.
And most kids doing this would still be on their parents' medical coverage.
So... would you then be in favor of laws stipulating a maximum age, say 25, for jobs that pay less than the area's poverty rate? How do you think that would work out? You think that maybe all of these jobs that pay actual living wages would finally get filled and the US can get back to prospering?
I'm going to go on a longshot here, but perhaps it's the case that far too many of the available jobs in the US pay below a living wage for those employed to only be "kids doing this".
Re: (Score:2)
There was a movie called "Crazy People" set in an asylum. One of the characters was obsessed with Saabs (the car) and someone at one point said to him "they don't even start half the time" (anecdotally, my friend's father when I was young had a Saab and it did indeed have a lot of starting problems). His reply was "They weren't meant to start _all_ the time!". This is appears to roughly be Cayenne8's mindset on livable wages. That not _all_ jobs are supposed to pay livable wages. It doesn't matter that the
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, not all jobs are supposed to pay a living wage.
I made some good money around ages 9-14 mowing lawns, tutoring, and babysitting. If it had been illegal to pay me less than a person needs to live on, none of that could have happened.
Some people who don't need to support themselves still want to work and earn some money. If they're willing to do it for less than a living wage, then that makes mathematical sense. Banning that would actually stop a lot of productive economic activity.
Someone else wanting to
Re: (Score:2)
Burger flipping is not a career...it is a starter job
So if I wanted to get a burger at a time when the kids are in class, I'd be out of luck, right?
If not, who is working there, and how much are they getting paid?
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to this chart. https://www.statista.com/chart... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh get off it, this has absolutely nothing to do with wages and 100% to do with capitalism requiring constant growth.
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism doesn't require constant growth, the stock market does.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because these workers only handle packages sent to prime members, and without prime members Amazon would be in the red.
Re:I guess this is the result... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what companies charge is based on what the market will bear, not their costs.
Now that Amazon has cemented their near monopoly in online retailing, they can emerge from decades of losses and start collecting the profits commensurate with their dominant position. This is where the vast majority of the extra money is going, not the wallets of a few warehouse workers.
If your theory was true, they would be dropping the cost of Prime since they shifted most of their deliveries from expensive professionals at UPS, FedEx and USPS to their own cheap amateur gig workers. The results certainly show: We've experienced more lost shipments from them in the last 6 months than in the previous 20 years combined, and the odds of actually receiving a Prime order within two days have dropped to near nil. Will customers put up with this? Yes, because if someone tries to compete, Amazon will switch back to loss leader mode until the threat is eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
The results certainly show: We've experienced more lost shipments from them in the last 6 months than in the previous 20 years combined, and the odds of actually receiving a Prime order within two days have dropped to near nil. Will customers put up with this? Yes, because if someone tries to compete, Amazon will switch back to loss leader mode until the threat is eliminated.
To be fair that is likely 100% related to covid labor shortages and the over worked workers that follow. Amazon is far and away not the only company having issues like this. I know the few things I order myself in the context of my job are subject to all sorts of delays right now and that's even after a delivery ETA twice that of prior years.
Re: (Score:2)
We've experienced more lost shipments from them in the last 6 months than in the previous 20 years combined, and the odds of actually receiving a Prime order within two days have dropped to near nil.
Who are "we"? I have never experienced a lost shipment from Amazon, and I routinely receive orders either the next day or in two days; occasionally, the same day. My family buys from Amazon frequently; we also use Prime Video and Prime Music. For us, $139/year is a good deal. Maybe you have a porch pirate problem?/p
Re: (Score:2)
It's not porch pirates. They never even claim to deliver the packages; eventually the tracking says "we're having a problem". Usually the package was last seen somewhere on the North American continent midway between their warehouse and my location. Then they leave it up to you to decide whether you want to cancel or take a chance to see if it ever turns up. When I finally cancel it after waiting over a week after they lost it, the tracking immediately changes to "package was refused by customer", acting as
Re: (Score:2)
> ...of giving warehouse workers $15+/hr.
> At some point, prices have to rise as salaries do.
> I may keep it with at $139....that's really pushing my limits right now.
I think you are nearly there realizing that the price, here, has to do with what you're willing to pay, rather than their costs.
As for their costs, Amazon is profitable and they still wanted to do business with $15/hr.
I'm not sure why people are more interested in big company's profits over lots of employees like you and me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's the result of paying workers a living wage and not the result of the richest man in the world building a private fleet of rocket ships and a super yacht so big he had to pay to dismantle a historic bridge. [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How's that foot taste.
Re: I guess this is the result... (Score:2)
This was obvious, when you double salaries the price goes up triple. I rather get paid half my salary if the price of everything drops 3x. However most people rather increase their wage even if you show them all the modeling indicating it will result in everything getting more unaffordable.
Sub-living wage is just corporate welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone wants fair pay, but no one wants to pay with it via their wallets.
Except you do pay out of your own wallet. Every company that doesn't pay a living wage is just collecting government welfare. When your employees need food stamps or Medicaid, who do you think pays for it? So yeah, you're paying a fuckton to WalMart and McDonald's in corporate welfare...in the form of sub-living-wages in which corporations and Republicans, for some reason, fight so hard to make sure the minimum wage is a poverty wage...and pretend it's a virtue.
Many countries in Europe force large corporations to pay closer to a living wage and do just fine and really are doing better than us in most metrics. If your life sucks, I promise you, it's not because of what workers are earning, but because of what executives and shareholders are. There's really no comparison in nearly all businesses between what goes to the core business vs what goes to shareholders and executives.
Re:Sub-living wage is just corporate welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh great, once again the conservative myth of the "it's not a real job, it's a starter job so it doesnt matter what they make". I've got news for you, as someone whose worked for minimum wage in the service industry there are plenty of people where that's just their career.
There's no such thing as "starter jobs" and there never has been. They are all just jobs.
Re:Sub-living wage is just corporate welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha, then you'll have fun paying for all the extra cops and incarcerations that follow from all the extra crime you'll get in your little dream world.
Either way you'll be paying and it's a hell of a lot cheaper for us all to pay a bit more for a reasonable minimum wage then it is to pay for all those extra prisoners.
It's always amusing to me when apparent fiscal conservatives claim that they shouldn't have to pay for something when paying for something is actually cheaper than the alternative. Poverty costs our nation shit tons of money
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, I have no interest in addressing your genuinely stupid and off topic defund the police link as that doesnt relate to this conversation at all.
After that, how do you think you're illustrating anything with those numbers? There's nothing they're even being compared to and are meaningless on their own. Is one too high relative to other? How would we know that based off your post.
I will say though that your one trillion in aid poor Americans receive is the perfect justification for a proper minimu
Re:Left cunt cannot count (Score:4, Interesting)
As if that's the only cost of crime.
And as if there's no cost to society of letting the poor starve.
Re:Sub-living wage is just corporate welfare (Score:4, Insightful)
My kids had trouble getting "starter jobs" when they were younger because of ridiculous minimum wage rules that included teenage workers (instead of making an exemption based on age or hours worked or something like that). One local small-time retailer was willing to give one of my kids a shot at staffing a farmer's market booth on weekends, but by the time mandatory breaks were factored in (more break time for the younger worker), they simply could not justify hiring a teenager at all, never mind hiring a teenager over hiring an adult.
I know, it sucks that children can't be exploited as cheap labor, what kind of world is this when even *children* have to be paid reasonable wages, and even have extra concessions due to their age.
Re: (Score:3)
So given the choice between taking a job which doesn't pay them enough to live on, and having no job and nothing at all to live on (no "foodstamps and other handouts", right?), you think employees would choose to sit on the street and die?
Why? Who would continue working in such conditions? We don't have slavery — employees are selecting an employer freely.
Can you substantiate your gloomy fears with real-life examples?
I'll substantiate my claims when you tell me what choice people have when presented with a choice between a job that pays too
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, no, it's all supposed to be paid for by the 1%. I guess you didn't get the memo.