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."
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
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...
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.
"Hello main man! This product is best product. I have much happiness after buy. You buy. YOU BUY!"
You mean like the left-wing liberals in Texas what boarded themselves up in a Federal building with AR-15s?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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...
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
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. :(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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