Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Patents Bad Service For Bad Customers

mikesd81 writes "Techdirt reports that Amazon has been awarded a patent for Generating Current Order Fulfillment Plans Based on Expected Future Orders. Essentially, if Amazon deems that you won't be a long time customer or ordering again soon, your order will take longer to be expedited."

15 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Waitaminute by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This could be a blessing in disguise!

    If another retailer takes forever and a day to ship your stuff, they open themselves up to a patent infringement suit!

    This could be a boon for internet shoppers everywhere...
    =Smidge=

    1. Re:Waitaminute by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be curious to learn why you were modded funny rather than insightful or interesting.

      The reality is that this is a good thing for consumers if the patent makes it through its paces. As consumers we would all know that Amazon provides bad service on purpose, and other retailers would have to pay in order to provide deliberately bad service.

      Seems like a win-win to me.

    2. Re:Waitaminute by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was a joke. Amazon didn't patent "treating customers like crap" no matter what the summary or linked article say.

      What Amazon patented is a predictive model used to optimize inventory handling and shipping.

      In other words, they start to figure out the best way to ship you the crap on your "recommended items" list before you even order it. That way, should you actually buy any of that, they will already have figured out the best warehouse to ship it from and the best carrier to use. They also try to predict when you might buy those things, so they can figure in anticipated shipping costs, inventory levels and operating capacity of their various distribution centers. They want to avoid things like inventory shortages and overloading their packaging lines.

      The patent says NOTHING about penalizing "bad" customers, or even giving "good" customers a specific advantage. The name of the game is to anticipate orders and optimize the order fulfillment process ahead of time. The only reason a "good" customer would benefit more is because there is more history to build the predictive model with, and thus it will be more accurate.
      =Smidge=

  2. In other words ... by Aetuneo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I said when this was posted on Techdirt, this system could encourage customers not to shop at amazon, because when you start shopping there the shipping takes longer. Appeasing a small group of users who make up the majority of purchases and irritating a larger group who make only occasional purchases is not the way to go.

    --
    Everything is subjective.
    1. Re:In other words ... by base3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better hurry--and be sure it says "on the Internet" so it's patentable.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:In other words ... by zarqman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As I said when this was posted on Techdirt, this system could encourage customers not to shop at amazon, because when you start shopping there the shipping takes longer. Appeasing a small group of users who make up the majority of purchases and irritating a larger group who make only occasional purchases is not the way to go. amazon has already implemented their picking system to discourage customers from buying direct from them. i can't tell if this is another way to discourage customers or if it's merely the formal patent for the existing implementation.

      to take advantage of amazon's free shipping, you have to be willing to let amazon sit on your order for a while before actually picking it. in my experience, across many orders, this results in about a one week (!) delay. then it's another week or so for ground shipping to deliver it to you.

      amusingly, amazon's own marketplace sellers typically ship right away, so it's generally faster to order from one of them than amazon directly. those, of course, don't ship for free. but they do typically ship for less than amazon charges (at least for what i tend to buy).

      i'd buy at least twice as much from amazon if they'd just pick the orders within a day or so. i often order from their competitors just for this reason.

      if this is a new plan to cause certain shoppers even more delays in shipping, it may cost them even more business. not smart.
      --
      geek friendly VPS's and free API enabled DNS : zerigo.com
  3. Great idea... not. by Coopjust · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not only a dumb thing to patent, but also something that is a dumb idea in general.

    A) How are you going to prove that another company delayed an order for that reason? How would you be able to prove anything in a court of law, so your patent wouldn't be infringed on?
    B) Why, oh why, would anyone use this idea? Delaying the orders of non-longtime customers or customers that are not extremely active is the wrong way to do things. First impressions count, and one of the reasons that I am such a Newegg fanatic is because my first order came overnight via UPS ground, extremely well packaged to boot.

    If Amazon implements something like this, I'm not going to shop there out of principle.

    1. Re:Great idea... not. by Protonk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      this is a GOOD idea, and not that far removed from the Newegg concept. Newegg spends money and charges more in order to push items out the door faster. You can pay MORE in order to get something tomorrow. Partially what allows them to do this IS an ordering system that prioritizes orders from one source over anothers. That is what allows them to fill boxes and get them to UPS faster.

      In the case of Amazon.com, you are talking about getting this service without paying for it. If you buy things from Amazon that indicate that you will buy fancy stuff in the future, your order will get pushed out the door faster. If you only buy used books from allied used retailers, then you're order will get fewer CPU cycles devoted to it.

      It's just interrupt priority for shipping, basically.

  4. The patent is the only thing by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is this different than any other enterprise? Bigger customers generally get preferential treatment. If two customers call me and have network issues, and I have billed one of them $50,000 in the past year, while the other one bought one compact flash card from me two years ago, which one am I going to take care of first?

    Now, as to why they thought that patenting it was a good idea, I don't have a clue.

  5. Slow service does not make customers repeat! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "Essentially, if Amazon deems that you won't be a long time customer or ordering again soon, your order will take longer to be expedited."

    And slow service will make me want to be a repeat customer?

  6. Re:Purpose of patents.. by Protonk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your idea of 'good' or 'bad' ideas doesn't really factor in to what patents are or aren't supposed to protect. They protect novel ideas.

  7. Pareto Optimization by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's a form of Pareto optimization, in which a reallocation of resources is expected to improve the utility for a subgroup without decreasing the utility of others. In this case, users who are not regular Amazon consumers will not have pre-set expectations of service. So fulfilling their orders in a slightly less rushed fashion will not be noticeable to them. By applying the resources freed from servicing new customers to improved service of old customers, the old customers will sense that Amazon just keeps getting better and better for them, further cementing their loyalty.


    Amazon wishes to patent this as a form of obstructive competition. (Which seems to be the only use for software and process patents). If they hold a monopoly, nobody else in the commercial optimization space can offer software or business process design that includes this particular expression of Pareto optimization without fear of Amazon's lawyers. It is ugly, but because our government rewards this sort of behavior, it would be against the shareholder's best interests NOT to pursue such patents. Now, if the consuming public provide a massive negative reaction to this behavior, then the shareholders would be rightfully demanding that Amazon and other companies not play the patent game. But we all know how thoughtful most consumers are.

  8. Nothing to with customers by acvh · · Score: 5, Informative

    As it seems that no one has read the damned patent - here is the concise version:

    This has nothing to do with Amazon deciding that Joe Smith projects to be a lousy customer so lets not care about the order he just placed.

    This is all about trying to determine the most profitable way to fill orders from multiple distribution centers, using projected future orders for those centers.

    Of course, it's much cooler to be a sheep and follow the herd, isn't it?

  9. Read, you lemmings! by eaglej · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody who actually read that patent (obligatory of course not, this is slashdot) can see that the article has it totally wrong. First of all, Amazon -would- be stupid to patent what the article claims. It would be very bad for business, and whatever you may think of Amazon, they are extremely good at business. This patent describes a system for determining how to fulfill an order (not just in terms of when to ship, but also, where to ship from, how to ship, etc) based on a multitude of factors. These factors include future orders, but those future orders refer to the expectation of future orders for all customers. Statistics 101 (Amazon surely knows this): the future orders of one specific customer are very hard to model, but the future orders of all customers are pretty easy to model. The point is to optimize the fulfillment process for all customers. Yes, it -could- be possible for them to use these techniques to target specific customers, but I would think it much more likely that they would use this in the favor of new customers they are trying to hook, rather than older established customers. Netflix, anyone?

    How can anybody here think they deserve to waste space by posting an opinion on something they haven't even taken the time to check out?

  10. Oversimplified, I think. by baboo_jackal · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you (and most other posters) missed the point by oversimplifying it. I don't think this is a system that gives more frequent customers better treatment, and less-frequent ones worse. Here's why I think that - take a look at this:

    Sample table from patent

    The system allows them to prioritize delivery methods according to potential goodwill cost. Here's a simple example: Say Amazon has only two customers - you and me. We both frequently buy expensive stuff. I don't really care when it arrives, just so it arrives. You, on the other hand, complain if things arrive late. The system would allow Amazon to know that they should prioritize your shipments over mine.

    Now, extend this to many, many customers with widely varying buying habits, and varying attitudes to early, on-time, and late deliveries. It's kind of cool, if you think about it. Say I buy stuff from Amazon very infrequently, but when I do, it's always *really* expensive, and I *hate* it when stuff arrives late. Then there's this other guy who buys less expensive stuff, but buys all the time, and *he* LOOOOOVES it when stuff shows up early, but doesn't much care if it's late. Then there's this chick who buys, on average, one book every month and never says anything positive if it's early, never complains if it's up to a week late, but rants and raves and swears to never buy again from Amazon when something's over a week late...

    The system allows Amazon to prioritize shipment plans among their millions of customers, all with varying buying styles and delivery-time cares. They do it because it allows them to maximize their profits, which, it seems, most people on here don't like. But look at the effects - you get, not only *what* you want, but you get it within a timeframe that's acceptable to you!

    That having been said, in a very simple sense, you and most others are right that it rewards "frequent customers," but in a limited way. The only way this system gives frequent customers preferential treatment is because frequent purchasers provide more information about buying habits and delivery-time cares to enable Amazon to prioritize. A more accurate statement would be: "This system will give preferential treatment to customers who spend the most money and complain the most if stuff is late and like it when stuff is early." Which makes sense.

    Another thing to consider is that Amazon has a limited pool of shipping resources. This system is a method to accurately distribute those resources, but not just according to pure cost - it actually takes into consideration "goodwill cost!" For crying out loud, it takes into account your feelings!

    This is an application of free-market principles to an internal resource distribution problem, and it's actually a clever solution. They increase their profit, and you get what you want. I don't see the down side to this. (Other than the patent.)