Today we’re going to talk about everyone’s nemesis and nobody’s friend, Amazon. In the words of Gracchus “If a criminal has what you want you do business with him”. Beyond that axiom I can’t think of a single reason for doing business with them. Aside from the complaints of poor working conditions they inflict on employees and the obscene profits made by Mr. Bezos, here are a few of the things I don’t like about how they do business:
1). Sorting. Did you know that if you re-sort search results you sometimes get different results? Not the same results in a different order; different results. Try it and see. This is beyond sense as well as beyond logic. They must figure that if you choose “price: lowest to highest” you’re some kind of cheapskate who should only be offered the poorest quality merchandise. It’s bad enough that no matter how specific the criteria you enter you get results relating to any one or more of the keywords and not the whole, even when using their sidebar categorizations.
Sometimes it is the third-party sellers that are to blame: they like to put their junk under many different categories, related or not, so that they show up no matter what you’re looking for. You never know when someone looking at camera equipment might suddenly decide that what they really need is a new pair of socks.
2). Price-Pong. They play this game two or three different ways. Since we’re never told what the rules are it’s hard for us to understand, much less win. In one version (related to the above complaint about third-party sellers) items are listed with stupidly low prices to get first place in the sorting order, and then the rest of the cost is made up as “shipping charges”. Okay so this item costs $0.01, but the shipping is $19.98. Yeah, I’ll buy that one – instead of the one that’s $14.99 with free shipping. I may have been born at night, but not last night.
Similarly, the price sort may list a higher price first because the listing is by the ‘new’ offer and the sort has been done on a basis of ‘used’ offers. So the $18.99 version of an item shows up before the $15.99 version because someone has a used edition of the first version for $13.99. Did you follow that? No? Good: you’re not supposed to be able to.
Mainly Price-Pong is played by raising or lowering the price of any item you’ve shown any interest in until they find the point where you will buy. This includes taking it down to your “trigger point”, and also sometimes raising it up so you think you’d better grab it before it gets too expensive. What’s really inexplicable is how an item can be $13.66 one day, when not “on sale”, and then suddenly $28.44 the next. Or $9.99 and then $24.67, to quote prices of both the DVDs I was looking at recently. The joke’s on them: instead of buying either, I bought neither. Unlike so many of their customers I do not feel obligated to spend money with them. I suspect part of this is a ploy to justify their over-priced and not very valuable “Prime” service, which would allow you to buy with “free” shipping at any time you think the price is right. Well I don’t need to spend money on that either; I tried it, and it was pretty much worthless. On the whole buying from Amazon is more like stock market speculating than retail purchasing.
3). Here today, gone tomorrow. I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen items offered by the company itself just vanish from availability overnight. This seems a little odd. Usually when something is going off there is some warning; a price reduction commiserate with a clearance for example. In the case of used goods … well if there is only one and it sells that makes sense. You kind of have to wonder about “Only 3 left in stock! More on the way!” as well.
4). It’s ‘Walmart’ spelled with an ‘A’. Always low prices? Well “low” is a relative term, not an absolute like “lowest”. You should keep that in mind when shopping anywhere. Retailers always want you to think they have the lowest prices, when in fact none of them could guarantee such a thing. Not even with “price matching” (which has many caveats allowing them an “out”). If you price clothing at the Big A you can laugh yourself silly. Seriously; nobody buys that obviously low-quality rubbish for those pseudo-designer prices, do they? Would anyone expect the stuff to even fit? I doubt there is such impetuous optimism in the world these days. And woe unto us all if there is.
5). Setting a bad example. Because of what they do, other on-line retailers are doing it too. Everyone wants to be Amazon now, and they include “marketplace seller” listings in with their own. Well if I wanted to buy from some other web site, guess what; I’d go to that web site myself. At least some of them allow you to filter out the non-host listings. Big A doesn’t do that: you have to look at individual listings to see who is offering the item.
6). They should change the name to “Yangtze”. Although the extremely poor translations of the Chinese descriptions on many items are good for a laugh, there is an apparent dearth of goods made anywhere else. Furthermore, listing of country of origin is more than a little bit spotty. There are few things I will side with politicians on, but the over-dependence on Chinese goods is one of them. We should never have let it get this far out of hand, and not for any simplistic, bigoted reason. I certainly don’t agree with certain current efforts to curtail this phenomenon by merely taxing imported goods, as this does nothing to elicit an alternative source. We still need the stuff, and we’ll still buy it. It’s the same stuff, with the same supporting of corrupt and uncaring government with their horrible human rights abuses and abysmal environmental damage, but now it’s more expensive stuff due to ineffective additional tariffs. If we could see where the products came from ourselves perhaps we could make our own choices about whether or not to buy, for our own reasons.
7). Here’s a suggestion for you. At best the suggestions Amazon makes are humourous. Okay, they’re laughable. The ultra-simplistic artificial intelligence seems to have the reasoning of a three-year-old: if you bought a DVD, you must like all DVDs. Subtleties such as “this one is a good movie, that one isn’t” don’t enter into it. True, you can’t really expect them to rate all the movies, but they could build a more accurate assessment of your interests given the large amount of data they collect. Of course that would involve more advanced programming, and hence a further expense.
At worst the suggestions are just a waste of space on the page, or an annoyance in your e-mail. Their grasp of “related items” is as tenuous as their grasp of sorting relevance. Maybe they should just leave off their pretended evaluations and stop wasting time and space with what amount to little more than wild guesses. And yes I admit I look at things I’m not interested in, then delete the items from browsing history, just to mess with their metric. To be fair, I also look at and then delete items I am interested in. I do this usually because the price has gone up before I decide to buy. Too bad for them.
While we’re at it, let’s question the “Amazon’s Choice” designation. Choice based on what? Surely not any objective evaluation of the offering. Most likely another AI analysis indicating something that makes the most profit for the company, either by margin or volume.
8). Now you tell me! Ever look something up on Amazon and think you’ve found a deal, only to be told at the ‘check out’ stage “this item can not be shipped to your location”? Never an explanation as to why, they just ain’t gonna. Okay, so don’t show it to me then. They know where you are, so if they can’t get it there (for whatever unspecified reason) they shouldn’t offer the item to you. Sheesh! You’d think you were trying to mail-order cocaine or something. No, that they’d probably allow.
9). It’s all the same to me. “New for you”, “Recommendations for you”, “Related to items you’ve viewed”, and “Explore more items” amount to identical algorithm analysis output, just redundantly displayed in four locations. Never mind “Recommended items customers often buy again”; I’m just sure that having bought one 55-250mm Canon EF-S lens people naturally go back and buy a dozen more. And while we’re at it …
10). The site is a frigging mess. I consider it a prime (pun intended) example of how not to organize a web site. Superfluous listings, redundant links, illogical organization, and nonsensical categorization. If a digital tornado blew through their servers it could only improve things. True again some of the problem is third-party, but the host sets the rules and can make users keep in line. They simply don’t want to. In a way, every botched listing by a third-party seller is a promo for any more accurate listing by the host itself, so where’s their incentive to correct wrong images or confused descriptions? People listing with Amazon need to understand: they aren’t your friend, they’re your competition.
All these things could be improved on, and indeed they do ask for suggestions on improving things. Although to actually undertake such changes would mean they’d have to spend some of their ill-gotten gains on self-policing, reprogramming, and policy changes. Since we can readily see their over-all attitude is one of “meh, we’re making money anyway” any change is unlikely to happen. Except perhaps for the worse, if they discover a means of upping profits at the expense of degrading service. Heaven forfend anyone should take pride in their work, right? The problem starts at the top: Mr. Bezos’s motto would appear to be “I’m rich; nothing beyond that matters”.
Caveat: everything is subject to change without notice, including the web site and my observations on it.