Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Loses Huge Footwear Company Because Of Fake Products, a Problem It Denies Is Happening (cnbc.com)

Several sellers on Amazon had noted earlier this month that the platform is riddled with counterfeit products and that things have gotten worse after Chinese manufacturers were allowed to sell goods to the consumers in the United States. Amid the report, the German footwear company Birkenstock has announced it will no longer sell its sandals on Amazon. The company added that it will also ban any sales of its products by third-party sellers on Amazon, effectively making its products unavailable on the world's largest online store, according to a report on CNBC. From the report: "The Amazon marketplace, which operates as an 'open market,' creates an environment where we experience unacceptable business practices which we believe jeopardize our brand," Birkenstock USA CEO David Kahan wrote from the company's U.S. headquarters in Novato, California. "Policing this activity internally and in partnership with Amazon.com has proven impossible."

53 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by bazmail · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Knockoff doesn't have to mean low quality. Often times the quality is almost as good as the premium name item.


    Just saying.

    1. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but it is often illegal, and that is the problem...

      Society has rules, you don't have to agree with them, just follow them. There is a process to change them if you don't like them...

      That people don't take the actions to change them is not the fault of the rules, or companies, it is the fault of lazy people who can't be bothered...

    2. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by knightghost · · Score: 2

      The knockoffs on Amazon have been complete trash. Just saying ;)

    3. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 5, Informative

      Knockoff doesn't have to mean low quality. Often times the quality is almost as good as the premium name item.
        Just saying.

      True, but you should:
      1. Be clearly informed that what you're getting is a knockoff, not the real thing
      2. Be supported by Amazon when attempting to return substandard goods
      3. Expect that Amazon would insist on the above

      That's not happening. My increasing reluctance to deal with non-"Prime" vendors is due solely to Amazon's lackadaisical attitude towards what is being sold. As long as they get their cut, they appear not to care. And the product descriptions on some of this stuff are misleading and so brief as not to provide any significant information about what is being sold. I'm talking about lack of dimensions, poor product photos, that sort of thing.

      Amazon's on track to become as sketchy as Ebay.

    4. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by bazmail · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yeah the reviews are amazing

      "Hello main man! This product is best product. I have much happiness after buy. You buy. YOU BUY!"

    5. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like the left-wing liberals in Texas what boarded themselves up in a Federal building with AR-15s?

    6. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that we have accepted, in a large number of cases, ignoring laws we don't like, and people think that is how it is supposed to work for all laws.

      ^ This, right here, is correct...

      If you get to pick and choose the laws you follow, then they aren't laws at all, but mere suggestions...

      Civilization doesn't work very well when that happens...

    7. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or don't have the millions of dollars to buy governments like corporations in the US. We don't live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy, stop being naive.

      All that money doesn't do any good if the people would get up and vote and use their brains...

      Bernie Sanders came close to it, but too many people are sucked into the Clinton machine...

      Trump won for much the same reasons, beating out very well funded efforts to stop him.

      The people are the ultimate source of power, if they would only use it, all those rich people would be powerless...

    8. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that mega corporations aren't playing by the rules either. For example, they use offshore tax havens to hide profit that should go to paying US taxes. If they aren't playing by the rules, why should you? You can't afford it, they can. Playing by the rules is out the window in 2016.

    9. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Informative

      White Privilege right there. Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton, the finest examples there are.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've gone insane from wingnut propaganda. People call the toxic Conservatives bigots and racists because of the bigoted and racist things they say and do. It's a dead-end subculture that destroyed the Republican party.

      Funny, I thought Bill Clinton was a Democrat. He was a member of a "whites only" country club and he was proud of the confederate flag even using it as part of his campaign logos and making a speech about how much he loved that flag. I thought it was the Republican party that ended slavery and ended segregation in the schools of the south and state democrats were the ones that opposed it. I thought Democrats in the US senate and House voted against early legislation to end segregation and extend rights to non-whites. I thought that Republicans could not get elected in the south because they advocated for equality for the black and the whites there voted Democrat because of that.

      The democrats were on the losing side of the civil war. Go brush up on your history. You have been fooled.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    11. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was making a comparison between two similar acts, one championed by Liberals, one Championed by Conservatives.

      And completely random note

      A Citizen's Dividend of 17% would end poverty.

      No it wouldn't, it would simply shift the definition of poverty. American "poor" are rich compared to most of the rest of the world. We still call them "poor" because poverty is always relative.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Don't forget that the Clinton's belong to a "whites only" country club for years and that Bill Clinton loves the Confederate flag. He even used it as part of his campaign logo for governor I believe.

      Well, to be fair, it is mostly people up north that get their panties all in a wad over the confederate battle flag.

      Most folks in the south don't think it is the horrible symbol of racial bigotry, etc.....it is just a symbol of the south.

      Hell, I associate it with going to Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts (their backdrop) and on bumper stickers here mostly, not as something against black, but something that is for the south for southern pride.

      It's only been in the past 3 -4 years that it has even been raised as an issue and it is mostly by folks up north it seems. No one here really sees it as a problem or anything as horrible as people here recently have been trying to make it...

      I do sometimes long for the days before political correctness took the fun out of anything, and tries to demonize just about anything it can....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      I was more indicating the Bundy Brothers... in Oregon, apparently.

      You mean where it ended in a shootout, and there's an on-going grand jury investigation into misconduct by the FBI, where the FBI is refusing to disclose information? And it's come to light that the FBI had tampered with evidence before the shooting and after the shooting?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      No it wouldn't, it would simply shift the definition of poverty.

      "a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information."

      Did I say I would end "relative poverty"? Even my parents are relatively-poor compared to me.

      Oh, and to put another figure to it: 134 million households, 2/3 of all households are 2-adult. Targeting incomes under $30,000 would be 28% of all households--call it 30%? 5/3 adults * 30% of 134 million * ~$7,000 = $469 billion. Tack on ~$140 billion to cover aid for children of low-income households (it's 1.4% including children and low-income naturalized Americans, who are excluded from receiving the Dividend as a direct benefit--rather it's paid as a non-refundable tax credit) and it's $619 billion. This replaces what should be ~$1.7-$1.9 trillion of government expenses currently.

      Using 2013 numbers, I got a more-concrete number of around $1,167 billion less in taxpayer cost. The numbers are resolved essentially by paying every American adult a fixed benefit, but scaling the general fund tax system such that the difference between current total loss to taxes and the new system's loss to taxes is lowered. That is to say: if you're giving every Adult $7,000, the low-income households might see a total spendable income of $7,000 per adult (that's $14,000 for a 2-adult household), while people making ~$50k are getting a net change of $5,000, and at $400,000 it's a net-change of $1,000, etc. You wind up getting handed $14,000 but paying $11,000 more in taxes, you're $3,000 ahead.

      It's complicated like that--flowing that particular chunk of money through the Social Security Trust Fund--instead of just flatly taxing less because otherwise you create this insanely-complex tax system that's fragile when economic recessions kick in. I wanted a system that would absolutely compensate for inflation, diminish (and survive) recessions, and eliminate welfare traps (i.e. adding employment should *always* add to your income, rather than competing with a welfare service; it's no good getting a $10/hr job and losing $9.75/hr of welfare, because then you get to work for 25 cents an hour and fuck that). That excluded simply slashing taxes by about a third--the strategy appropriate for a system called a Negative Income Tax.

      But yes, the essential outcome is an immediate, 100% remediation of our welfare system (families on food stamps and HUD--notably, the 75% of HUD-qualified households who go on a waiting list and *never* receive benefits--are suddenly in a stronger financial position); a multi-hundred-million-dollar profit market for renting mirco-unit apartments (244sqft) to the current 1.6 million homeless individuals (it's $5.76 billion of revenue, and I built in a 33% risk reserve in the accounting which would, if fully-taken by landlords, represent $1.9 billion in profits; I think the market will end a lot slimmer than that); and, at a resolution of a 2-week or 1-month time span, over $1 trillion of annual taxes immediately returned to the taxpayer, excluding the part that's being moved downward to the 30% lowest-income households.

      Oh, and the top-tier tax bracket is bounded at 40%. Our flat-tax rate--if we used a flat-income-tax system--would have been 29.97% in 2013; in large part using the top-tier bracket of 39.6% as a sort of risk meter, I conjectured that taxing the richest-of-rich more than 4/3 the effective tax rate was poor tax policy (and, besides, represents raising income taxes on rich people, which *might* cause undesirable political or economic consequences). That kind of pisses people off, since some Gallup polls and such show most Americans believe the rich aren't paying their fair share and should be shaken down for 65% of their income, since of course they don't need it.

      Do you know what the one real problem is?

      It's a trillion dollars. The U.S. Federal spending is $3 tr

    15. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by golden_hands · · Score: 2

      Society has rules, you don't have to agree with them, just follow them. There is a process to change them if you don't like them...

      Unless you're a leftwing liberal, then you can riot, block roads, protest, or simply ignore the actual laws, and call anyone who complains a bigot, racist, homophobe ....

      The problem is that we have accepted, in a large number of cases, ignoring laws we don't like, and people think that is how it is supposed to work for all laws. You cannot say we are going to ignore laws we don't like, and at the same time want people to uphold / follow laws we like, but they don't.

      Besides, we now have a new class of laws, Laws that apply only to the little people, and don't apply to people with enough power and influence.

      You can't have it both ways.

      Yes- notice how rich people never need to riot or block roads in order to make their protest visible or heard ? Its always the poor and dispossessed who need to riot and block roads in order to be heard. Rich can buy their Congressmen and if required entire parties. Nothing to do with left or right- merely to do with the few tools that are left to the powerless to protest.

    16. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Drop the tax rate and compete.

      Actually net US corporate taxation is lower than most of our competitors. Yes, we have higher rates but those are offset by many more exemptions and exclusions. People who point to other countries want to adopt their rates but not their rules; adopting both would result in higher tax revenues and more incentive to shelter income.

      We are getting one upped by others because they know how to compete - we don't.

      It's not know-how. Primarily it's low wages. China has a per-capita GDP of $15,000, vs. $57,000 for the US. China's median private sector salary is $4,755 per year, vs $42,233 for the US. It's even lower What's more income inequality is greater in China than it is in the US. There are 21.6x fewer people in the top decile by income in China than there are in the bottom decile; that figure is 15.9 for the US. This basically means your work force is poor, and legally prevented from unionizing. On top of that regulations are spottily enforced in China if at all. All the complexity of environmental, worker and consumer protections go away if you're willing to grease a few palms. In business this is we call a no-brainer deal.

      The irony is that culturally speaking the Chinese people hate the idea of corrupt officials. But they live in a system we're they're not only not allowed to vote, they're not allowed to know or publicize unflattering news. So going by the example of the country we have the greatest trade deficit with, the way to compete is to suppress wages and unions, provide a system of graft as a way to get around environmental and safety rules, take away individual voting rights and freedom of information, and basically run the place so that business owners (for a price) have their interests set above everyone else's.

      OK, copying our #1 trade deficit partner turns out not to be so attractive. Well, who's #2 on the list? It's the European Union, where wages are high, regulation is high, bureaucracy is high, worker and consumer rights are high, and income inequality is low.

      Hmm. Interesting choice.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One, your rant is interesting because your sole fix for a really bad economy is taxing people more. Can you name a single example where taxing people more, improved things?

      Two, you can tax 100 % of the people you think aren't paying enough, and it won't help anyone. The rich can always avoid taxes, where the middle class cannot. The bottom 50% don't pay taxes (because they are poor).

      Three, the Number One indicator of Poverty is ... single parent homes. The Number one indicator of crime is poverty. The black community, supported by the Democratic Welfare state has a 75% single parent home. Taxing the rich isn't going to fix this problem, and the DNC loves its economic slaves which vote as a block at a rate of 85%-95%.

      So, while you can spout statistics all you want, until you look at correlation between single parent homes and poverty, you're ignoring the real problem .

      As for housing, HUD and Government subsidies PROMOTE being locked into poverty. Because if you earn enough money, you get kicked out and lose your subsidies. It is a vicious circle of poverty and dependency, all in the name of compassion (and the voting block for the same policies that you are supporting). Yes, I want to toss grandma off a cliff, and kill kittens (Just getting the inevitable Ad Hominem out of the way).

      I want people to have opportunity, not guarantees. 40+ years of war on poverty, and we are no better off than before. Repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insane.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      One, your rant is interesting because your sole fix for a really bad economy is taxing people more. Can you name a single example where taxing people more, improved things?

      Current Federal taxes taken is $2.4 trillion; I modify this to about $1.2 trillion. I guess 1.2 is greater than 2.4 in your world.

      Two, you can tax 100 % of the people you think aren't paying enough, and it won't help anyone. The rich can always avoid taxes, where the middle class cannot. The bottom 50% don't pay taxes (because they are poor).

      I'm aware of that and accounted for it. You're in "repeat mantra instead of thinking" mode: you haven't engaged your brain in any way except to retrieve tired, old arguments.

      Taxing the rich isn't going to fix this problem,

      Let me repeat this:

      Oh, and the top-tier tax bracket is bounded at 40%. Our flat-tax rate--if we used a flat-income-tax system--would have been 29.97% in 2013; in large part using the top-tier bracket of 39.6% as a sort of risk meter, I conjectured that taxing the richest-of-rich more than 4/3 the effective tax rate was poor tax policy

      Let's put this simply: The group of people who end the day with MORE TAKE-HOME PAY in my system is EVERYONE.

      As for housing, HUD and Government subsidies PROMOTE being locked into poverty. Because if you earn enough money, you get kicked out and lose your subsidies.

      So let's quote myself again:

      I wanted a system that would absolutely compensate for inflation, diminish (and survive) recessions, and eliminate welfare traps (i.e. adding employment should *always* add to your income, rather than competing with a welfare service; it's no good getting a $10/hr job and losing $9.75/hr of welfare, because then you get to work for 25 cents an hour and fuck that).

      Congratulations: you took the solution I gave and cited the problem I solved.

      Repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insane.

      This is a tired and often-repeated lie. It's the lie that sells real estate books. "I'm rich; if you do what I did, you'll be rich too." No you won't.

      The economy today has a much higher productive output per person, which means some things are possible which weren't possible before. If you're out of air in the tank and suffocating, pulling your mask off underwater means you drown; pulling it off when you're on land means you live. Same action, different consequences. You can't explain that.

      You're repeating mantras and not thinking. Use the part of your brain that hurts when it's turned on.

    19. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Taxes are regressive. All of them. The rich will pay to avoid them, the poor cannot. Guess who is impacted more by any / all taxes?

      Welfare should be TEMPORARY, and limited in scope.
      Minimum Wage is always $0, regardless of the starting wage.

      The economy today has a much higher productive output per person, which means some things are possible which weren't possible before. If you're out of air in the tank and suffocating, pulling your mask off underwater means you drown; pulling it off when you're on land means you live. Same action, different consequences. You can't explain that.

      If you are dumb enough to go diving, without a clear plan, reserves in the tank, and run out of air, I don't expect the government to suddenly provide you with a "Air Grant" and subsidies for being stupid. You went high risk activity and got the result you were looking for. Yes, it is tragic when it happens, but I am NOT responsible, nor should I be, for your choices. Choices have consequences. So, I do have an answer, it just isn't what you wanted.

      That being said, if you and I were diving, together, and you screwed up, and ended up without air, underwater, I would help get you to the surface. I wouldn't loan you my tank on a permanent basis in perpetuity. THIS is a safety net option. Welfare State is NOT safety net, it is a hammock.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that we have accepted, in a large number of cases, ignoring laws we don't like, and people think that is how it is supposed to work for all laws. You cannot say we are going to ignore laws we don't like, and at the same time want people to uphold / follow laws we like, but they don't.

      No, the real problem is that there are far too many laws. The law is supposed to be something that nearly everyone actively agrees with, in its entirety. It also needs to prescribe responses which are proportional to the offense; that's where its legitimacy comes from. Things like "if you commit murder you can be locked up (and maybe killed)", "if you steal then the property can be taken back and you can be fined"... these are accepted by almost everyone, being impossible to dispute coherently. Turn about is fair play; the murderer or thief can hardly object to being subjected to the same treatment they practiced against others.

      What we have, however, is a vast array of laws too large for any one person to comprehend, most of which carry disproportionate punishments. Most of which, in fact, have no proportional punishment, because there is no victim whose rights were violated, and thus nothing to be proportional to. Such laws have no legitimacy.

      This isn't a matter of laws we like or don't like. Treating the law as if it were determined by some sort of popularity contest is actually part of the problem. The distinction is between laws which have a sound moral and ethical basis, vs. ones that have merely been made up by legislators for reasons of social engineering, demogogy, and/or personal profit.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  2. So they are just letting the fakes win? by turp182 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems like this approach would just let the counterfeit products completely control the Amazon market for their type of product.

    I wonder if Birkenstock is aware of a website called Aliexpress.com... A quick search shows that $20 off retail is much more than one needs to pay for a counterfeit version of their shoes.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:So they are just letting the fakes win? by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you noticed the blurb, they've been "working with" Amazon to tackle the issue. However Amazon is unable or unwilling or a combination of both to give them the tools they've been asking for.

      If they want Amazon to "solve" the problem like eBay then I'm glad. EBay basically gives brand owners free reign to delete listings for products that compete with theirs with no recourse for the seller even if the listing is legit. I used to sell stuff on eBay for a living and we had auctions halted and strikes against us for merchandise (like fancy hand bags) that we knew beyond any doubt was authentic with a complete paper trail to prove it. EBay threw small sellers under the bus. Hopefully Amazon will have more of a spine.

  3. Re:How? by bhcompy · · Score: 2

    They likely can only control the third parties they directly sell to and build it into their contracts.

  4. It happened to me by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you think of fake products, knock-offs and the like, you think primarily of fashion goods, like the Birkenstock sandals in the article. So, when I bought a Black and Decker electric knife recently, I never dreamed there would be a problem. The knife is a piece of crap. It was haphazardly packaged, and will not cut through anything. True to form, when I complained about it, they offered to take it back if I would return it. But then I thought, "What I bought was an errand." Instead of getting a legitimate product, conveniently delivered to my front door, I got a crappy product, and now I have to print out the return strip, repackage it, and then go down to the UPS store and stand in line to have it shipped off. They say they'll pay for the shipping and refund my money, but isn't my time and effort worth something? Why should I have to waste an hour dealing with something that is obviously a fake product? If they can deliver me a glob of shit, they can goddam well come around and pick it back up. Amazon needs to scrutinize their sellers better.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:It happened to me by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no company that is designing "knockoff electric knives" with separately tooled factory lines. It doesn't make financial sense to do so. What they are doing is making extra runs of the "real" product without B&D knowing about it and throwing them into packages. The product is the same. The main issue is that the Black and Decker knife is crap, like most of BD stuff made in China.

    2. Re:It happened to me by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right there in front of you in writing are instructions on how to have UPS stop at your door and pick up the item you're returning. Yes, it's a shame an unscrupulous third party sold you a counterfeit item. But don't pretend Amazon doesn't have mechanisms in place to have that UPS driver pick up your return. They do it every day.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:It happened to me by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      It costs a lot of money to tool up a manufacturing line for electric knives. It is almost 100% certain they are using the same tooling as the "real" line. Well 90% certain. OK, maybe 30% certain.

  5. Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I go to Amazon to perhaps purchase something, I go there to buy from Amazon, not some unknown third party. I wish there was an option to disable the entire marketplace listings for my account. If there was such an option, I might shop there more. As it is I barely go there anymore.

    I view Amazon now as I have Ebay for a long time, where I go to buy cheap trash I don't really need. And i don't buy cheap trash.

    Other well known sellers are becoming like flea markets too, Newegg I'm looking at you. If I go to an online retailer I am going there to buy from them, not some guy on a street corner. That's how it feels now. :(

    1. Re:Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by Rhys · · Score: 2

      At least newegg gives you an option to limit it to newegg itself as soon as you hit search.

      But yes, my one experience with their 'marketplace' (flash deals) was shit. Item shipped significantly different than item pictured, far lower quality. On the plus side, they gave a refund and did *not* want their trash back. At least it only wasted a little time (and materials)?

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    2. Re:Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      I wish there was an option to disable the entire marketplace listings for my account.

      I'd love to have this option as well. Screening out all the cruft and crap at Amazon is nearly more trouble than it's worth now.

      The other thing that baffles me about Amazon is that in their search pages, you can't jump ahead 5 or 10 pages...you can only advance 1 or 2 pages at a time. Depending upon what you search for and how you sort it, you might get 50 pages of irrelevant 99-cent items before you start to find what you need. Then you have to slog through them to get to what you really want. It's a perfect example of hostile design.

      WTF, why bother with pagination if you don't let your customers use it? eBay lets people jump ahead 10 pages if they need to, why can't Amazon?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 2

      I'm willing to pay more at Amazon or Newegg...ONLY because I'm expecting them to stand behind what I buy there. When they start disavowing responsibility for stuff sold through their site, there's really no motivation for me to buy through them.

    4. Re:Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't do it account wide, but you can do it on a per-search basis. Near the bottom on the left, once you've chosen a department, you'll see a "Seller" section. Curiously Amazon has itself listed as both Amazon and Amazon.com, I have no idea why.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

      I know which items are from a third party seller, yes you can tell at a glance. The issue is I don't care to see them, that's not why I am at Amazon, I am there to buy from them, and only them. Until recently I was very trusting of Amazon, now it appears counterfeits from third parties now get put in the same spot in the warehouse as legit items and sold by Amazon. Many Amazon reviews discuss this commingling problem and the resultant distrust.

      The signal to noise ratio is way too high due to the flood of marketplace items, it's like shopping a flea market now.

    6. Re:Amazon 'marketplace', wish I could disable it. by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      When I go to Amazon to perhaps purchase something, I go there to buy from Amazon, not some unknown third party. I wish there was an option to disable the entire marketplace listings for my account. If there was such an option, I might shop there more

      Search for whatever you're looking for. In the results, scroll down to Seller filter. Select Amazon, Amazon.com, or Amazon Warehouse Deals (used, scratch and dent, returns, etc) as appropriate. Presto, you just eliminated anything not sold at least by Amazon.

  6. Summary leaves out a key part of the quote by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Summary quotes the Birkenstock CEO as saying "The Amazon marketplace, which operates as an "open market,” creates an environment where we experience unacceptable business practices which we believe jeopardize our brand." It leaves out a later sentence in the same paragraph, which it probably at least as much of an issue as the counterfeiting problem: "It also includes a constant stream of unidentifiable unauthorized sellers who show a blatant disregard for our pricing policies."

    Birkenstock wants all dealers to sell at full list - stores were selling on Amazon at a discount, and undercutting other dealers, who were complaining to Birkenstock.

    1. Re:Summary leaves out a key part of the quote by dj245 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Summary quotes the Birkenstock CEO as saying "The Amazon marketplace, which operates as an "open market,” creates an environment where we experience unacceptable business practices which we believe jeopardize our brand." It leaves out a later sentence in the same paragraph, which it probably at least as much of an issue as the counterfeiting problem: "It also includes a constant stream of unidentifiable unauthorized sellers who show a blatant disregard for our pricing policies."

      Birkenstock wants all dealers to sell at full list - stores were selling on Amazon at a discount, and undercutting other dealers, who were complaining to Birkenstock.

      I used to be 100% against such policies until I realized the advantage. With MSRP policies, vendors have to compete on service and customer satisfaction. Without minimum pricing policies, the main competitive advantage comes down to price. Minimum sales price policies protect small vendors against large ones, to some extent. The big companies might be getting a volume discount from the manufacturer, but at least the small businesses have a chance at competition on their merits (service / reputation / customer satisfaction), rather than on price.

      Another point is that the manufacturer dodges the potential legal problems of preferring one reseller to another. They can point to their MSRP policy as proof that they don't play favorites (they don't illegally play favorites, anyway) with their resellers.

      I'm not saying MSRP policies are good, but they aren't 100% bad either.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  7. Amazon is a crapshoot. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's just like what Ebay has been for over a decade now. You can not be sure you are buying anything that is real. I used to use the "prime" as a real item indicator, but even thouse are now turning out to be china junk sold as real with a username that even looks real.

    "SandiskMemory" is NOT Sandisk... in fact Sandisk does not have a direct amazon store so anyone using the seller name SanDisk is selling china fake junk.

    Amazon refuses to fix this because they are making mad profit off of it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Hell No by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A few years ago, I purchased what I thought were genuine Nikon batteries for use in my cameras.

    Once they arrived, I took a very good look at them and determined they were, in fact, counterfeit.
    ( They had official looking hologram stickers and whatnot, but were not the real thing )

    I returned them and ended up purchasing the batteries through a local dealer instead.

    Now, while some will say " What's the big deal ? ", if a problem develops within those batteries and
    it ends up destroying your $$$$ camera, you can bet Nikon would tell me " Too Bad for you ". Otoh,
    if a genuine Nikon battery does the same thing, Nikon would probably be a bit more sympathetic since
    it is their official product that I'm buying.

    Bottom line: If I cannot trust Amazon and / or the sellers who operate through Amazon to deliver genuine
    products, I will simply cease using Amazon to purchase any of it.

    It's that simple.

    1. Re:Hell No by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 2

      A few years ago, I purchased what I thought were genuine Nikon batteries for use in my cameras.

      Once they arrived, I took a very good look at them and determined they were, in fact, counterfeit.
      ( They had official looking hologram stickers and whatnot, but were not the real thing )

      I returned them and ended up purchasing the batteries through a local dealer instead.

      Now, while some will say " What's the big deal ? ", if a problem develops within those batteries and
      it ends up destroying your $$$$ camera, you can bet Nikon would tell me " Too Bad for you ". Otoh,
      if a genuine Nikon battery does the same thing, Nikon would probably be a bit more sympathetic since
      it is their official product that I'm buying.

      Bottom line: If I cannot trust Amazon and / or the sellers who operate through Amazon to deliver genuine
      products, I will simply cease using Amazon to purchase any of it.

      It's that simple.

      Yes, and I'll bet you a donut and a cup of coffee that, if you open up those batteries which are remarkably similar on the outside, you'll find (if you're lucky) undersized calls of dubious quality. The batteries, if you dared to put them in your camera, which I wouldn't recommend, will probably last 1/2 to 2/3 the time a genuine battery would.

      As Heinlein said, TANSTAAFL. Sure, there's a Nikon markup, but if you want 3rd party bateries, don't buy the ones that are trying to pass for Nikon. Buy some from a manufacturer like Wasabi (I've had good experience with them) or Digipower (likewise), who are trying to build a brand reputation.

    2. Re:Hell No by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Chances are that "counterfeit" was made in the same factory line as the "real" one.

      There have been a lot of cases of third-party batteries being made to significantly lower standards. Often the counterfeit ones are the QA rejects from the real factory.

      2) Nikon wouldn't know if you you were using the "real" one or not.

      LiIon batteries must communicate with the charger, some communicate things like serial numbers so they can tell it's a fake. A common failure mode is for the battery to expand significantly, at which point it may be difficult to remove it from the camera without causing damage that was obviously not done by the battery and thereby invalidating your warranty.

      3) Relying on corporations to be sympathetic is pretty comical. Nikon doesn't care about you.

      He's not relying on their sympathy, he's relying on consumer protection laws (you do have those in your country?). If I buy a battery from manufacturer A and put it in a device from manufacturer A, and it destroys the device, then it's clearly the responsibility of manufacturer A. If you buy a battery from A and it destroys a device from B then you're likely to have a lot of effort proving responsibility, and that's assuming that A is not some fly-by-night operator and still exists when you hit the problems.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  9. Re:Cutting corners by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No it isn't. The reason shoes sell here in the US for $100+ that cost $20 to manufacture is profit, development and (mostly) marketing costs. Nike pays Michael Jordan a billion dollars for marketing purposes. That money comes from the consumer. A pair of Jordan shoes costs about $20 to make in China. The $100 profit goes to Nike. It doesn't go to quality.

  10. Commingling Inventory by crow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest problem raised in the article is the commingling of inventory. Many sellers of products provide the products to Amazon, and they are shipped out of Amazon warehouses. When multiple companies are selling the exact same product, Amazon commingles the inventory, as they consider the products to be fungible. In theory, that's fine. However, if some of the companies are selling knock-offs, you have a problem. People ordering from the knock-off seller have a good chance of getting the real thing and writing a great review. People ordering from legitimate sellers get knock-offs and write terrible reviews.

    I've seen a number of products myself where the reviews clearly indicate that people are receiving different products, and there's no way to tell which one you might actually receive.

    If Amazon were to fix this one problem, they would be in a much better position to manage counterfeit products.

    1. Re:Commingling Inventory by swb · · Score: 3

      This is one of my main complaints -- you find a specific item and there's a dozen or more sellers of the item, including Amazon itself.

      I usually filter by Prime and try to choose Amazon as the seller to make sure I have the best chance of getting the real product and a recourse for a failed product.

      I think Amazon could benefit itself and its reputation by forcing greater differentiation of products by seller. You would think they would want to for brand identity purposes and to claim more sales, especially when the alternative sellers are often underpricing Amazon. I know they're making money either way, but usually they're making more when they are the seller and not just the transaction handler.

  11. 30% is a lot of money by DogDude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Amazon gets 30% of everything sold there. There's HUGE incentive for them to let anybody sell whatever they want because:
    - 30% is a lot. Last I checked, it was 30% of the sale price AND shipping
    - Amazon doesn't make anywhere near 30% on just about everything else they sell, themselves. Much of their stuff is sold at a loss.

    Now why somebody would want to give up 30% of the price (PLUS shipping) is beyond me. There are very few things that have the kind of markup it would take to make any money after that huge commission. I suppose that there's always somebody dumb enough to think that if you somehow sell enough stuff for a loss, eventually, you'll make money...?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:30% is a lot of money by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Depending on the sale it's typically about 8-15%. Some high-risk items are 45% (software licenses and other intangibles like digital music and books).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  12. Who is losing who? by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Birkenstock needs Amazon more than Amazon needs Birkenstock.

  13. Re:Cutting corners by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I understand the term, it's only a knockoff if it's attempting to portray itself as a different company's brand. Supermarket own brand ketchup is not a Heinz knockoff, even if it's made in the same factory with the same ingredients, because it's got someone else's name on it and isn't trying to pretend to be Heinz ketchup.

    If the shoes cost $20 to make and you can get shoes for the same quality as Nike and manage to sell them for $40, making $20 profit on each one, then you shouldn't worry about putting your own brand name on them. You'll get good reviews and the value of your brand increases. The problem is when you make an inferior product and put someone else's name on it, because then you get the benefit from their reputation and they pay the cost when their reputation suffers because of the substandard goods.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  14. Oh noes! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All of the Birkenstock wearing hippies will have to buy their overpriced status symbols somewhere else. The horror!

    The issue here, really, was that some vendors were actually willing to discount Birkenstock products instead of sticking to full retail price - and that made BIrkenstock's brick-and-mortar and small-web-site retailers cranky. So Birkenstock would rather lose a huge outlet for their products than lose a lot of smaller ones that don't want to compete on price. That's their call. But this is only marginally if at all about knock-offs. This is about competition and price, and Birkenstock is chopping off a venue where shoppers might save a few dollars on shoes so they could spend it on tofu instead.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  15. Amazon has gone downhill. by Northdot · · Score: 2

    Amazon is full of crap listings now. So common to see an item with a normal retail price of $60 in a listing that has the item at $400. It's the ecommerce equivalent of malware.

  16. Re:Honest question by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    You should care: the shortfall that the government doesn't collect from corporations comes out of YOUR TAXES. Christ, how dumb are you? The government doesn't go without: it just takes more of YOUR money.

  17. They are trying to scam YOU, so hit them back by Optic7 · · Score: 2

    I have returned small counterfeit or complete no-name imitations that were sold as the real item before. But then I realized that when a seller does that, they are basically trying to scam you and hoping that you won't do anything about it.

    After realizing that, I just hit them where it hurts - give them a one-star rating of the vendor/transaction (not the product - remember that there are two different ratings on Amazon), and make clear on the review what the problem was. This will affect their ability to sell on Amazon, eventually.

    The only time so far that I've had to do this for a small item the vendor refunded my purchase price and shipping without asking for the apparent counterfeit (and/or used) item back.

    So remember, they're trying to scam you and get away with it - act accordingly!