Hacker News Reader

Comment by WhyNotHugo | Hacker News Reader

> Amazon's Fair Pricing Policy lets it remove the Buy Box (the "Add to Cart" button), or even suspend a seller, if they're offering their item cheaper elsewhere.

This kind of abusive practice needs to be banned in whichever countries it's still legal.

You can't really aspire to improve the situation if such things continue to be legal.

View on HN

Isn't this like Costco requiring manufacturers to offer SKUs at Costco that are not sold anywhere else? Or mattress stores offering to match price knowing full well that the SKUs in their store are not sold elsewhere?

This policy feels like incentive enough for Chinese manufacturers to not build behind a single brand, so the policy will not apply. Materially the same product, different SKU under a different brand name.

Feels trivially easy to get around this policy.

Costco is a membership club, and AFAIK these have different rules.

Yes, Costco's proprietary program has different rules from Amazon's proprietary program. This is obvious.

I am suggesting that for a manufacturer larger than the very smallest, compliance is simple. They just create another SKU (or brand) and sell it for less off Amazon. Voila, the customer cannot purchase the same product for less money off of Amazon.

I don't think that's the same thing at all. Amazon forces price changes across all the vendor's other outlets, such as Walmart, their own website etc.

If Costco requires a separate SKU, the seller still has complete pricing freedom everywhere else.

Everyone keeps talking about dynamic pricing.

But these sorts of contractual limits on a vendors pricing elsewhere should be illegal.

Walmart does this as well: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pepsico-walmart-hit...

Why should it be illegal? Its their platform. If enough sellers don't like it and leave then Amazon will have to change their policy. There's several other platforms people can sell their stuff on.

It's already illegal in EU and UK

This is not even remotely a response to the question asked by the comment you’re replying to.

Because its a collective action problem. Being on Amazon is the least bad option for any individual business even though they would all be better off if they left simultaneously. IMO a primary purpose of market regulation should be to counteract these types of problems so that the market can move itself out of a local maxima and become more efficient overall.

Because it's monopolistic and hinders other competitors from entering the marketplace which harms consumers in the longterm.

In what way is it monopolistic? Amazon has many competitors

Are they really competing if they can't have a lower price than Amazon?

They can by choosing to not sell on Amazon.

Yes, because “free” market deregulation has worked out so well for consumers over the last 30 years.

“Don’t like the monopoly? You’re free to go elsewhere. No wait, there is no elsewhere. Oh well, I guess you must like it here then since you keep coming back. “

But there is “elsewhere”. You can buy directly from the manufacturer.

I do not get the complaint. People shop at Amazon because they see the value Amazon provides: easy returns, free and fast shipping, etc.

That part is fine. The fact that Amazon controls their vendor's pricing across the rest of their channels is a major issue though. It's price fixing tbh.

I really don't understand this monopoly argument at all for Amazon. What category of product is sold there, but nowhere else? Between big box stores, Wal-Mart, Target, eBay, B&H, local stores, independent online stores. I don't feel at all that I'm forced to shop at Amazon for lack of choice. Is this an American thing?

Not in the US either and it feels like Amazon is the only choice for some things.

Oh I meant that I'm in the US, so maybe this issue is specifically a problem outside the US.

"Yes, because “free” market deregulation has worked out so well for consumers over the last 30 years."

Yes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com