Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Doles Out Freebies To Juice Sales of Its Own Brands (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Amazon cracked down on fake reviews two years ago by prohibiting shoppers from getting free products directly from merchants in exchange for writing reviews. It was a major turning point for the world's largest online retailer, which had previously seen "incentivized reviews" as a key way for consumers to discover new products. Amazon changed course because it realized some merchants were using such reviews to game its search algorithm, undermining faith in the customer feedback that helps drive e-commerce.
Amazon instead used its "Vine" program, in which Amazon serves as a middleman between prolific Amazon reviewers and vendors eager for exposure. Amazon would still allow freebies in exchange for feedback so long as there was no direct contact between its retail partners and reviewers, theoretically lessening the chance of quid-pro-quo. Amazon would select shoppers eligible for the program, and Amazon vendors would pay a fee and provide free products to participate. But there was an important group excluded from the Vine program: independent merchants who supply about half the goods sold on the site.
Now those excluded merchants and review watchdogs are alleging Amazon is guilty of the review manipulation the company said it was trying to prevent. Amazon uses Vine extensively to promote a fast-growing assortment of its own private-label products, distributing free samples to quickly accumulate the reviews needed to rise in search results and boost shopper faith in making a purchase. It gives Amazon a big advantage when introducing its own brands over third-party merchants who are more vulnerable to Amazon's private-label competition than prominent brands already in stores.
Amazon instead used its "Vine" program, in which Amazon serves as a middleman between prolific Amazon reviewers and vendors eager for exposure. Amazon would still allow freebies in exchange for feedback so long as there was no direct contact between its retail partners and reviewers, theoretically lessening the chance of quid-pro-quo. Amazon would select shoppers eligible for the program, and Amazon vendors would pay a fee and provide free products to participate. But there was an important group excluded from the Vine program: independent merchants who supply about half the goods sold on the site.
Now those excluded merchants and review watchdogs are alleging Amazon is guilty of the review manipulation the company said it was trying to prevent. Amazon uses Vine extensively to promote a fast-growing assortment of its own private-label products, distributing free samples to quickly accumulate the reviews needed to rise in search results and boost shopper faith in making a purchase. It gives Amazon a big advantage when introducing its own brands over third-party merchants who are more vulnerable to Amazon's private-label competition than prominent brands already in stores.
Wow, a company is putting its own interests ahead of other companies? Is anyone surprised by this? They aren't a public service that is required to treat each company that sells through their site equal treatment, they are a corporation doing what corporations do - making money. Next up, we'll discuss the OUTRAGE of water that is wet.
Enigma
Allowing people to edit reviews after the fact is probably just as bad in terms of having a trustworthy platform.
Case in point:
I bought a cheap xbox 360 compatible controller from some rando Chinese company. It of course, was a total piece of shit. (battery terminals had a faulty contact, thumb-stick's were lacking in sensitivity. poor battery life etc) -- it was just materially inferior in every way to a proper model.
So I post a scathing review; stating these facts. A few days later I get a message from the company offering to refund my purchase entirely (and let me keep the item) If i'd change the review to at least 4 stars, and list something positive about it.
I'm assuming this is a pretty common practice. And a consumer lacking scruples might just go ahead and take the bait.
I'd love to see them broke up like AT&T.
Amazon has 4% of the retail market. For online retail, they have 30%.
They are no where near a monopoly. Almost anything Amazon sells, you can buy elsewhere.
Comparing Amazon to AT&T is silly.
Publishers Weekly (for bookstores) and Library Journal (for libraries), as well as other reviewing platforms, such as Kirkus Reviews, commonly receive advanced copies to send out for review. The deal is that the reviewer gets to keep the book. In the case of galleys, which are often printed on newsprint, or other 'advanced copy' formats, the publisher is obligated to send a final bound copy to the reviewer when it is available. It's one of the best ways publishers can advertise their books without a huge advertising budget, which is reserved for bestselling authors where the return is greater. This seen as 'fair payment' for a review and never considered as somehow unfair or unethical.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.