How Bad Amazon Review Destroyed a Mom-and-Pop Business (bloomberg.com) 117
A small business selling washable swim diapers on Amazon is facing financial difficulties following a one-star review claiming they received a used, stained product. Paul and Rachelle Baron, owners of Beau & Belle Littles, say their once-thriving business has been severely impacted by the review, which remains on the site despite their appeals.
The incident, described in detail in a Bloomberg story, highlights ongoing concerns about Amazon's handling of returned items. While the company claims to inspect returns before resale, former employees suggest time constraints may lead to oversights. The Barons report being $600,000 in debt and unable to make a living from their business since the review. Amazon has not removed the review, despite the couple's repeated requests.
The incident, described in detail in a Bloomberg story, highlights ongoing concerns about Amazon's handling of returned items. While the company claims to inspect returns before resale, former employees suggest time constraints may lead to oversights. The Barons report being $600,000 in debt and unable to make a living from their business since the review. Amazon has not removed the review, despite the couple's repeated requests.
Anyone have a non-paywalled link? (Score:2)
Bloomberg is paywalled. Can't read the story.
Re:Anyone have a non-paywalled link? (Score:5, Informative)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://github.com/bpc-clone/b... [github.com]
https://github.com/bpc-clone/b... [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative title might be "We sunk all our equity and savings, along with my brother-in-law Ralph's settlement from being hit by a drunk driver, into waterproof diapers, and now we're fucked."
Re: (Score:2)
It is what it is (Score:3)
Everyone is pro business until the business screws them over doesn't have good regulation of its actions.
Re: (Score:1)
And this is pretty gross.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be a hilarious court case to follow. Lawers would be fighting over the definition of "gross" in relation to relevant contract clauses to determine if it is limited to meaning "major", or also covers "disgusting".
Because this is a minor (in terms of contractual obligation to handle warehousing) but very disgusting (in terms of what it is) error.
Re: (Score:2)
Gross also means 144.
Re:It is what it is (Score:5, Interesting)
They also wouldn't have a business without Amazon. The made a company bet on using Amazon, knowing they would have zero control over this kind of an issue. Would it be better for them if Amazon could deal with this better, yes. That might also mean that, all third parties selling through them will have to accept higher fees to support better return handling.
Selling returned items as new is one part of the issue, IMHO. Amazon has no idea about the actual condition of the item and as TFA linked points out, return inspections are often "Yup, looks good;" which is not surprising given Amazon's focus on data and productivity at all costs. The other is Amazon has nothing to lose if a seller's rep is destroyed because Amazon shipped a returned item as new and there was an issue. One thing I don't understand is who thought shipping a returned diaper, used or not, as new? Sellers should be able to say "Do not resell a returned item, destroy it" and simply eat the cost of the item rather than risk a scenario like the one in TFA. Maybe buyers should hide little notes, in places not likely to be inspected, in returned items saying "I returned this on xx date. Don't blame the seller, blame Amazon for selling a returned item as new"
Re:It is what it is (Score:5, Interesting)
Sellers should be able to say "Do not resell a returned item, destroy it" and simply eat the cost of the item rather than risk a scenario like the one in TFA
13 year Amazon seller here
We do have the ability to set our Amazon-fulfilled operations to automatically "discard" but Amazon can still take the product and sell it themselves. In that case, the scenario of the OP still occurs because no matter the seller, and who's inventory, the reviews are about the product itself.
Even when you do intentional removal orders, or when FBA inventory gets "lost", you sometimes catch your products being sold by Amazon Warehouse Deals. It's clearly some extra profit for them to take product that was destined for the dumpster and sell it themselves. 90% of the time, it works 70% of the time. Joking aside it probably works out for them. In this case, cautious customers simply go to a competing product on Amazon. Amazon always wins, for now.
Anyway, I'm fully with you on this one - Amazon carries the blame.
Re:It is what it is (Score:5, Interesting)
To echo some of your comments.
I once experimented with buying a book or two from Amazon's Warehouse Deals program. Lucky for me those books were covered by Amazon's own return policy because their "inspectors" so poorly misjudged the quality - actually, the lack of quality as the books were physically damaged and written over/underlined/cross-out in many inside pages that a "Used - Fair" rating at most would be more truthful than the "Used - Very Good" rating that they were given.
Now based on what you have posted, I suspect some other poor schmuck got stuck buying those returned books from Amazon but ended up returning them (if they were an Amazon Prime customer), assuming Amazon had not tossed my return items.
And then there are the numerous "FBA sellers" that have stellar ratings (95-100 percent), but when you study their seller feedback you see Amazon "taking the hit" for the poor quality of many items that were sold by that "FBA Seller". Right now Amazon only strikes through those negative postings, but I wonder when Amazon will start deleting those postings that are actually FBA - "F-CKED By Amazon".
I have also dealt with many sellers on Amazon that are honest in their product descriptions, but they all follow an interesting trend - they all use Amazon to process the order but the seller fulfills the order themself rather than handing their inventory over to Amazon for handling.
And now if you buy a book on Amazon your receipt WILL NOT REFLECT the seller's actual product description or quality rating; that description/rating info is GONE FOREVER from your view/account. So you better screen-shoot that info after you click "Add To Cart" from the right-hand listing. That way you have some proof of what you actually bought and what the seller actually said about their item.
Just my 2 cents worth of commentary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might also be that Amazon does not want to explain to the US Federal Government why they might be deleting/editing/altering/blocking certain types of customer reviews.
Perhaps the lawyers just said, "Let that stuff be posted and let the buyer beware. Not our job to edit what customers say about sellers."
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong size and color is still better than the 1 star reviews complaining about the delivery driver putting the package in the wrong spot, delays in transit, or them complaining about ordering the wrong model. All of which I have seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong size and color is still better than the 1 star reviews complaining about the delivery driver putting the package in the wrong spot, delays in transit, or them complaining about ordering the wrong model. All of which I have seen.
Indeed, I've had "wrong size" reviews come in handy when ordering some stuff, helped me pick the size up that would fit correctly. Especially when it comes to "T-Shirt" sizing, S, M, L, et al. can all have different meanings in different parts of the world.
However this is why we should have separate reviews for delivery and products. Though, that would be too complex for the average mouth breather. It's easier to treat reviews with a grain of salt as any idiot gets to make them.
Re: (Score:2)
However this is why we should have separate reviews for delivery and products. Though, that would be too complex for the average mouth breather. It's easier to treat reviews with a grain of salt as any idiot gets to make them.
Amazon has this. I can rate my deliveries by the driver, make specific complaints like "left my box in the rain". Save reviews of the product for like the wood chicken ladder I got recently that was covered in mold. Or the kitchenaid beater that had the shaft hole drilled too shallow to actually lock onto my mixer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe buyers should hide little notes, in places not likely to be inspected, in returned items saying "I returned this on xx date."
I leave a note explaining exactly what was wrong with the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe buyers should hide little notes, in places not likely to be inspected, in returned items saying "I returned this on xx date."
I leave a note explaining exactly what was wrong with the product.
So your the guy who left the note, in the uranium yellow cake I bought, that stated "it clearly was old because on half of it was left when you got it."
Buyer beware (Score:3)
When you order something on Amazon, it is entirely possible that you will get a used, repackaged product that someone else returned. You pay full price, you expect a new product, and what you get is used and sometimes even damaged or defective.
This has been my personal experience several times: the item arrived and had very clearly been repackaged, and was not new. And in a few cases outright defective. And in at least one case when I asked for a replacement, what I got was defective as well.
This doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
It's not much different if they had their own independent site but a bad review on Yelp over which they would have no control either.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like they genuinely don't understand what they signed up for. From the story:
>“It should be common sense,” Rachelle said. “Why would something like a diaper ever be put back into inventory to be resold?”
Because not checking a return and just reselling it for you saves on costs for the warehousing unit of amazon. The service your business offers that you as a business outsourced to amazon. And your only recourse is to switch warehousing company. Which you can't do in this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping SHIT from one place to the next is already against the law. So is selling used merchandise as new. So is billing someone for new merchandise and shipping a used item.
You have violations of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, plus violations of Federal Trade Commission regulations on the sale of fraudulent goods. Then there's the violations of the Lanham Act, bank fraud, conspiracy and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Regulations are not the issue.
Re: It is what it is (Score:2)
Yet who is prosecuting Amazon for these actions ? In what jurisdiction ?
Would the penalties be at all meaningful? And would any of them go to the seller and provide some redress?
Even if these questions had satisfactory answers, it still wouldn't address the review problem, which is likely covered under CDA section 230, and that Amazon cannot be held liable for, and thus has no incentive to delete.
In this case, I so think regulations are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
SECTION 230 IS ABOUT SPEECH. IT CANNOT PROTECT YOU FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR SHIPPING LITERAL SHIT IN THE MAIL!
No one should have to explain that to you. The same would be true if you shipped any other prohibited item in the mail. Free speech doesn't mean you are free from the liability for said speech. It just means the government, and only the government, cannot prohibit you from making said speech. You can and will be held accountable for crimes committed through
Re: It is what it is (Score:2)
You did not even read my post. There were several issues mentioned . The shipping and the review are two very distinct ones. I don't know why I'm even responding but it still needed pointing out.
Re: (Score:2)
They also wouldn't have a business without Amazon.
That's not true. In the days before Amazon, or when it was just a bookseller and not the worlds largest flea market, not everything online was sold on Amazon. there were lots of mom and pop doing business online. People didn't mind paying for shipping or waiting 2 weeks for their product.
Now basically your only choice is to let Amazon carry your product and take whatever shitty deal they offer you.
Re: (Score:2)
This was what I was trying to convey.
Re: (Score:2)
They also wouldn't have a business without Amazon.
That's not true. In the days before Amazon, or when it was just a bookseller and not the worlds largest flea market, not everything online was sold on Amazon. there were lots of mom and pop doing business online. People didn't mind paying for shipping or waiting 2 weeks for their product.
Now basically your only choice is to let Amazon carry your product and take whatever shitty deal they offer you.
It's a bit like buying airline tickets. You use the big agglomerator (booking.com for flights/accomodation, Amazon for physical goods) to find the deal, then you go to the vendor's website (the actual airline/hotel website, or the manufacturer's website) and place your order. That way you get proper buyer protection and aren't paying a middle man.
In the case of these diapers, I've also seen plenty of products sold as "independent" or "mom and pop" that are the same mass-produced crap but with a custom label
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we all took after your lead we'd still be living in a world where businesses can pay employees in company script, five year old children can be put to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and slavery was legal.
Vote Republican and we can live this dream again. Plus their Project 2025 wants to make most over-the-counter meds available only by prescription.
So, you need some Nyquil? Gotta go see a doctor and get a prescription.
Need some acne medication? Gotta go see a doctor and get a prescription.
Need anti-diarrhea meds? Gotta go see a doctor and get a prescription.
Want some Pepto Bismal? Gotta go see a doctor and get a prescription.
This is the kind of control they've been dreaming of for decades and they're very cl
What happens when your business relies on another (Score:5, Interesting)
I come across stories like this all the time. Businesses that only exist via Etsy, or EBay, or Amazon. Content creators on YouTube who have been demonetised or even worse. I feel for them, I really do, but what do you expect when your livelihood relies on the continuing support of a different profit-seeking Company, especially a huge and faceless Corporation like Amazon or Google?
Sooner or later people will surely learn that this isn't a great long-term business plan. You've mortgaged your future to somebody else who has no stake in your success. If you go down there will be many more to take your place, so these businesses really don't care and are not going to spend much time on supporting you. They'll take a percentage of your profits while you make them but hang you out to dry if those profits require any real effort on their part.
You should at best use these platforms for a short while, to help you grow enough to stand on your own feet. As soon as you can do so pivot away from reliance on these Corporate entities because sooner or later they will burn you if you don't.
If you have grown large enough to be $600,000 in debt and you are still on these platforms you have left it too late. Get out as soon as you can, even if it means a downturn in profits for a time while you build a client base seperate from them. The free advertising these provide is great for start-ups but is an addiction you really should learn to do without as soon as you can.
Re: (Score:2)
And to make matters worse, if your product is successful and you start to make real money off of it, Amazon will then come out with a competing product and undercut you until you're out of business.
I still love Amazon.
Re:What happens when your business relies on anoth (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always found items on eBay to be cheaper than Amazon. Usually with free shipping.
One advantage for resellers of eBay is that returns go directly to the reseller, not to some Amazon warehouse where they don't have control of the product.
I don't buy from Amazon any more. Always cheaper on eBay.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I may have seen this. A number of booksellers might all charge $3.99 S/H to send me an item directly from their shop/location (no Amazon warehouse in the loop), but the USPS shipping label shows the actual shipping price was higher than $3.99.
The S/H costs add up - pulling & sorting the orders from your Amazon seller account; the inventory picking can take time for a bookseller; wrapping the book in plastic or bubblewrap (few do, most do not); packing with receipt (most do, a few do not); printing &
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be talking about business to consumer transactions. The point I'm making above is that these are not the same as B2B transactions, which is what story is about.
It's a fundamentally different kind of a relationship. It even has completely different legal framework under which it occurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen some booksellers that do charge a bit more for their listing on Amazon compared to the exact same item listed on their own website. Usually the shipping charges are the same between the 2 sites which makes my choice simple - Avoid Amazon and buy directly with the bookseller via their own website.
The level of service is about the same, but by buying direct from various booksellers I have established working relationships that are "mutually beneficial" in various ways that Amazon cannot match. I w
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, if you're selling on Amazon and AREN'T using those orders to steer people to your direct webpage, you're doing it wrong. Use Amazon to help build your business but don't be solely reliant on them. They aren't your friend. They'll purposefully screw you over tomorrow if they think they can make a buck. They'll accidentally screw you over tomorrow if their automated systems break down and good luck getting an empowered human on the phone when that happens....
Good advice. I have no idea why so many businesses seem to forget this.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Amazon Logistics.
With Amazon Logistics, you don't need expensive things like warehouses, inventory control systems and transport (especially the every-so-tricky last-mile delivery). There are a lot of very good reasons to keep a business on Amazon. Unfortunately, every single point you raise is also valid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This should be where Governments come in. It should be Government providing this infrastructure, not a Private Company. This shoud ensure that this infrastructure is then supplied fairly, without the problems using a profit-seeking Company to do this causes. Unfortunately neoliberalism stepped in and prevented Governments providing this, thereby opening the door to the likes of Amazon. In the UK, Royal Mail would ensure you had a delivery method that treated every user of it equally with no favouritism. Oth
Re: (Score:2)
Do they not have a public postal system where you live?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just the shipping, which the USPS certainly can do and does. It is the warehousing of the items you are selling until someone buys one, the picking and packing, addressing, getting into the hands of the shipper, etc. as well. Add in the website, the payment processing, dealing with all the different sales taxes across states,
positions in search results. Now add in dealing with returns, etc (which is what it seems the folks in this story opted to have them do)
I'm good with a government service f
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was just the shipping, it was the reply to me that focused on shipping. It would be fine if all the other stuff were delivered privately, but it should at least be subject to solid regulation to ensure that everyone is treated equally, and any mistakes or problems are dealth with quickly and fairly, with compensation paid out where due. The problem with these huge Corporations, Amazon especially, is that they are too powerful to be properly regulated and so they abuse their position.
If there
Re: (Score:2)
>This should be where Governments come in. It should be
>Government providing this infrastructure, not a Private Company.
From each according to its resources, and to each according to its shipping needs?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely we can agree that it is a Government's purpose to provide the infrastructure and the security necessary for it's Citizens to thrive, or to ensure that this infrastructure is provided, no matter what your particular politics? Political discourse should be about the best way to achieve that. In the current economic system we use, and with our current level of applied technology, providing the infrastructure to allow small businesses to compete with larger players is a part of that. If you choose to lea
Re: (Score:2)
No, they pump massive amounts of it into completely useless stuff, like paying massively over the odds for Twitter, or freezing their bodies after death, or building bunkers, or funding dodgy politicians. And even more of it into stuff like super-yachts and luxury hotels. Sure, building this stuff provides a couple of jobs but not many. This money is not being usefully used. It's like the old Monarchs, sitting at their table which is bulging with food, most of which goes uneaten, while the peasants go hungr
Re: (Score:2)
USPS can easily handle that "last mile" issue. Even Amazon relies on USPS to deliver to places where an Amazon delivery truck does not travel, like the wide open stretches of the Western US.
You are right about the warehousing & inventory questions, especially if you deal in bulky and-or high volume and-or high-value items.
Transport to USPS can be a hassle if you have large items or lots of items to ship, unless you arrange for USPS to pick up at your location (not sure if that costs $$); that's part of
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly that! When you do business on their platform you are a margin. They allow you to exist. Until they decide that you're "making too much". Or they want your customers / marketshare. Or they just don't want to pay you any more.
Sorry mom and pop retailer, Amazon has decided they want to sell their own repackaged shit diapers now.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, Amazon is huge. It has the exposure you need. There are plenty of people who simply won't bug a product unless it's on Amazon.
And mom and pop businesses can be $600K in debt - it's not hard. There are restaurants in that much debt on the verge of closing, and these aren't chain restaurants. (Just watch a few episodes of Restaurant Impossible and you'll find plenty of small independent restaurants with multi hundred thousand dollar debts).
Yes, Amazon is expensive, but it's also the first plac
Re: (Score:2)
>you can get free Prime shipping done in 2 days through Amazon,
amazon went through a lot of work and expense to get people to accept this.
And now it seems that it is the exception, rather than the rule, for their shipping.
A single bad review? (Score:4, Interesting)
My brother and his wife operate their own tailor shop. They get mostly 5-star reviews, but once in a while someone becomes disgruntled and gives them a bad review, often including outright lies. They quickly learned that the way to deal with this was first, to respond kindly to bad reviews, and second, to convince other happy customers to submit reviews, overwhelming the few bad ones.
Bad reviews happen. If you have a small business, you need to be prepared for this and act, not whine. Or act *and* whine.
Re:A single bad review? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's unfortunate. However, you CAN still encourage your happy customers to add their positive reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree with their approach. Just be honest. Encourage your happy customers to leave positive reviews. Don't allow deceitful customers to bait you.
I always leave Amazon seller feedback. I try hard to be completely truthful at all times, but sometimes I have to call out a seller for their "bad behavior" (like giving me a BS answer in reply to an honest query). And I only leave a bad trashy review once I get Amazon involved to prod the seller for a better explanation. If I don't get any further explan
Pretty sure they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Put a "returned as defective" post-it note inside your return. Or mislabeled or whatever the problem is.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I've had to return something that was obviously a prior return, I always take a sharpie and write "BROKEN" or something similar, in big letters, on the packaging. I figure that should keep them from trying to just send it out again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pretty sure they don't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another issue is Amazon will sometimes show a lower "used" price in the buy box or if buyers click through to the other offers and are not paying attention to condition, just price, they can end up with a used item from Amazon Warehouse. Those are really a crap-shoot (pu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just didn't read the disclaimer: "Some shit may remain the the diaper. This is normal from rigorous Quality Control testing from the factory.".
Re: (Score:2)
They will think honestly that the manufacturer shipped pre-shitted diapers rather than thinking that there might be a mistake.
Or maybe they got something poor and had only one place to vent, the only review system offered to them. I don't think on Amazon there is an option to leave a review of Amazon shipping return policy itself.
As others have pointed out, there is a modicum of limited control from sellers who can label items for destruction on return. As others have pointed out the blame lies with Amazon here on inspection of returns.
But why is this up to the user to care? Received something shitty (in this case literally), retu
Re: (Score:2)
Or worse, a bobcat [xkcd.com]
Darth Bezos strikes again (Score:2)
"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
Amazon's leadership only "cared" for as long as it took them to ride the backs of these third parties to market dominance. Now they couldn't care less, because what are these businesses going to do?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always had this conundrum, when Darth Vader tells you to pray, who exactly does one pray to?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's legit, it shouldn't be removed (Score:4, Interesting)
The full article is account-walled (fuck that) so I can't dig in further, but if there's no indication that the review is fraudulent then why should Amazon remove it? Yeah, sucks for them, but 1) tying yourself to Amazon has horror-story after horror-story (either they knew the risk and went ahead, or failed to do research); and, 2) if there's a risk of receiving a pre-used diaper (even a reusable one) I would absolutely go elsewhere.
If they want to fix this without abandoning Amazon, they should take down the original listing and then put up two new ones: One that is for selling only new-in-box diapers (what a phrase), and another for discounted, returned diapers. Those who want to "gamble" can then buy the latter, which includes all sorts of language/caveats (and the offer to replace any "soiled" ones that slip through with a NiB version), those who don't want to risk it can buy the former. The change also gives them a perfect opportunity to raise the price of the new ones...
Re: (Score:2)
Same problem with the paywall, so speculating, but I think the issue, is because the return that was the problem, was handled by Amazon, not by the seller. I think your suggested solution just highlights the problem though. That is not an option for them, they don't have any control over how returns are handled. They can't tell Amazon to take their returned items and list them as a separate product.
The real reason I think the article is interesting though, is in considering Amazon's status as a monopoly. I
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, that makes more sense and, in that case, I think the mom-and-pop is right to ask for a take-down. When I read "While the company claims to inspect returns before resale" from the blurb, I thought "the company" referred to Beau & Belle, not Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
This link [bloomberg.com] should let you view the article until next Monday.
There's another possibility: commingled inventory [prepitpackitshipit.com]. By default, multiple sellers selling the same item will have their inventory combined. When a third-party seller "sells" the product, Amazon just grabs one from that pile and ships it. There's rampant abuse there (fakes, not-quite-the-same products, etc.). It's a horrible practice, and sellers should always opt-out (despite the added expense) IMNSHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! Yeah, reading it now, the problem is how Amazon does returns and restocks. The article does say that Amazon recently implemented an option for third-parties to disallow reselling returns (why is this recent??) but the review is apparently from four years ago so that means nothing in this context.
Unsurprisingly, this article boils down to "Amazon is shit" (pun unintended), thus my OP was based on misunderstanding and not knowing the details. Too bad I can't delete it or attach a note to correct it, s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but in this case the review included photos which gives far more credibility. And, very unique to this case, Bloomberg also contacted the reviewer and confirmed she left it. (When they called, she said she was contacted by the mom-and-pop quickly who sent out a free, new replacement; she meant to update her review to mention this, but didn't get around to it. I assume it's too late to do so now, four years later...)
probably an inside job (Score:1)
Like they say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ship Happens /s
I will see myself out
Wait - what? (Score:2)
Miss me with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Its not a new or innovative product. This is why there are large ecoli outbreaks near beaches.
Polio used to be commonly spread via public swimming pools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It turns out it was easier to spend decades of time and millions of dollars on a vaccine for polio than just getting people to stop shitting in the pool. There is a lesson in there somewhere about human society.
Re: (Score:2)
Got news for you: I'm pretty sure they didn't invent that type of a product, and most of the times you see a baby in a swimming pool, they're wearing something similar. I knew people who used swim diapers 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Got news for you: I'm pretty sure they didn't invent that type of a product, and most of the times you see a baby in a swimming pool, they're wearing something similar. I knew people who used swim diapers 20 years ago.
News or not, it is not unreasonable to desire to swim in a pool that isn't part fecal matter.
Here is the full review... (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Why is this an issue? (Score:2)
Looking at Beau & Belle Littles reusable swim diapers on Amazon shows a bunch of products, all with 4+ star average reviews. All products have bad reviews, but most buyers that bother to read reviews usually read more than just one review to get a broad view of what to expect. Did sales really tank due to just a single bad review among a sea of thousands of very positive reviews? If so, then the problem is that consumers are not very smart.
The other thing is that the business proprietors were able to
Normal Amazon crap (Score:2)
I canceled my Prime account that day, and I'll do everything that I can for the rest of my life to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No. You don't have to. I built my own castle. On my own land. My new store can do anything Amazon can, including a few things Amazon can't.
Like actually sell books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. A better aphorism: don't put your logo on someone else's castle.
Amazon is the seller, you're just supplying them them product. Put your logo on that product maybe, but make sure the name and logo on the Amazon "store" is something you don't care about.