| General > General Technical Chat |
| Amazon: the shittiest, most ghastly company on earth |
| << < (10/15) > >> |
| CatalinaWOW:
Several on here have mentioned doing proper market research to prevent overbuilding of product. If that worked you wouldn't have such things as TP shortages or bouncing prices of petroleum products. Even if you could correctly understand market demand you would also have to have a complete understanding of all suppliers so you would know how much product your competitors were planning to make. It is really easy when you only buy things to oversimplify the problems of those who produce them. One of the big drivers of these problems is Amazon's instant delivery model. When you promise people extremely fast delivery you must have stock to support all potential customers. If everyone would accept delivery in one year or more, manufacturers could build on purchase and there would be little waste. People don't seem to be lining up for longer delivery times, at least partly because we have trouble predicting our needs that far out. Here in the US product liability laws are one of the reasons product is dumped rather than given away. If someone runs with a free pair of scissors and injures themselves there are legions of lawyers ready to sue the vendor and/or manufacturer because the points weren't rounded or the handles weren't padded or the danger wasn't clearly explained on the package or any number of other potential defects. The extra exposure with no revenue to compensate just isn't an attractive proposition. Similar issues have occurred with food products. Grocers don't discard them until they are unfit for sale. Which some homeless advocates have interpreted as demeaning or unfit for distribution to homeless (other homeless advocates disagree vehemently). Trashing the items avoids getting in the middle of the argument. Bottom line, this waste is the lubricant that allows our society to perform at the level it does. While some tweaking of the process can and should occur there are only two solutions - accept waste or dramatically reduce the material standards we have become accustomed to. Well, there is a third, dramatically reducing world population, but there is no way for that to happen in a comfortable, equable way. |
| Raj:
--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 05, 2021, 02:54:19 pm ---Several on here have mentioned doing proper market research to prevent overbuilding of product. If that worked you wouldn't have such things as TP shortages or bouncing prices of petroleum products. Even if you could correctly understand market demand you would also have to have a complete understanding of all suppliers so you would know how much product your competitors were planning to make. It is really easy when you only buy things to oversimplify the problems of those who produce them. One of the big drivers of these problems is Amazon's instant delivery model. When you promise people extremely fast delivery you must have stock to support all potential customers. If everyone would accept delivery in one year or more, manufacturers could build on purchase and there would be little waste. People don't seem to be lining up for longer delivery times, at least partly because we have trouble predicting our needs that far out. Here in the US product liability laws are one of the reasons product is dumped rather than given away. If someone runs with a free pair of scissors and injures themselves there are legions of lawyers ready to sue the vendor and/or manufacturer because the points weren't rounded or the handles weren't padded or the danger wasn't clearly explained on the package or any number of other potential defects. The extra exposure with no revenue to compensate just isn't an attractive proposition. Similar issues have occurred with food products. Grocers don't discard them until they are unfit for sale. Which some homeless advocates have interpreted as demeaning or unfit for distribution to homeless (other homeless advocates disagree vehemently). Trashing the items avoids getting in the middle of the argument. Bottom line, this waste is the lubricant that allows our society to perform at the level it does. While some tweaking of the process can and should occur there are only two solutions - accept waste or dramatically reduce the material standards we have become accustomed to. Well, there is a third, dramatically reducing world population, but there is no way for that to happen in a comfortable, equable way. --- End quote --- Yeah, people are being made too comfortable on the expense of environment. Like little kids, people want useless stuff and they want it now. Some product categories simply exist to serve no meaningful purpose at all like make up. What's funny is, make up products always seem to show up in the list of chemicals harming the body and environment (since they are full of stuff like "forever chemicals, hormones and what not"). There's also still no end to endless usage of single use plastic packaging. If someone could find a way to use those for something profitable, he might become richer than Apple. |
| sokoloff:
--- Quote from: Raj on July 05, 2021, 03:02:53 pm ---Some product categories simply exist to serve no meaningful purpose at all like make up. What's funny is, make up products always seem to show up in the list of chemicals harming the body and environment (since they are full of stuff like "forever chemicals, hormones and what not"). There's also still no end to endless usage of single use plastic packaging. If someone could find a way to use those for something profitable, he might become richer than Apple. --- End quote --- Numbers 2 and 10 (right now) on the list of richest people in the world have made a fortune (in part) after finding a way to monetize single use packaging and makeup (Sephora among others, and L'Oreal, respectively) |
| nigelwright7557:
I sell quite a bit on ebay. So I tried Amazon too. I found my items were coming way down in listings despite being cheapest. I also found even when you got to my items there was no buy button ! Amazon said you have earn a buy button by selling lots. How do you sell lots if people cant buy the item ? So I cant sell on Amazon, then I dont buy either. |
| Raj:
--- Quote from: sokoloff on July 05, 2021, 04:00:45 pm --- --- Quote from: Raj on July 05, 2021, 03:02:53 pm ---Some product categories simply exist to serve no meaningful purpose at all like make up. What's funny is, make up products always seem to show up in the list of chemicals harming the body and environment (since they are full of stuff like "forever chemicals, hormones and what not"). There's also still no end to endless usage of single use plastic packaging. If someone could find a way to use those for something profitable, he might become richer than Apple. --- End quote --- Numbers 2 and 10 (right now) on the list of richest people in the world have made a fortune (in part) after finding a way to monetize single use packaging and makeup (Sephora among others, and L'Oreal, respectively) --- End quote --- If people buy em while ignoring the negatives it, there's a demand for it,hence it will sell. --- Quote from: nigelwright7557 on July 05, 2021, 04:56:40 pm ---I sell quite a bit on ebay. So I tried Amazon too. I found my items were coming way down in listings despite being cheapest. I also found even when you got to my items there was no buy button ! Amazon said you have earn a buy button by selling lots. How do you sell lots if people cant buy the item ? So I cant sell on Amazon, then I dont buy either. --- End quote --- I'm guessing that those were electronics...Yeah the Chinese people have ways to mess with the algorithm. (I don't remember the name of the documentary buy it was about a guy selling amber colored anti glare glasses and complaining about fake reviewers) |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |