Amazonfail: don't buy from Amazon this Christmas

[DJ Fatuus]

Originally Posted by Philidor

I just didn't like seeing nice DJ Fatuus told to shut his gob

Hehe, I'm think skinned. I only feel hard done by since I'm kind of on MI's side. As bad as I may look in the eyes of others, I will still occasionally buy from Amazon. I just wish those who do so would accept the responsibility for what their doing, rather than stick their head in the sand - "it's not me; I don't know them; therefore it has nothing to do with me".

The concept of "profiting from unfairness" is a continuum with slavery at one end, and a slightly unfavourable contract at the other. I think we should all consciously choose a point on their line that we are happy to engage with. Just not thinking about it is not a moral option.

Mr. MI, I would just urge that you lose the defensive attitude (it really looks like moral insecurity), stop thinking that every contrary view is an attack, and just think about what indirectly results from your actions, and resolve to either accept it, or change.

You don't have to be charitable if you don't want to. But you can't then take the moral highground, quoting $16 CD's as an abomination that no one should suffer. If you want to be selfish at the expense of others, at least admit it.

As a separate point (and one that I've already made but you've ignored), 'spreading the word' is a hugely effective weapon. I can't believe you actually view the OP as pointless. I for one have passed on the suprising Amazon situation, and who knows who my friends have told. "Big talkers" and "action takers" are not mutually exclusive. It's not a difficult contept to understand how talking affects public opinion, and public opinion affects company policy.

No doubt you'll quickly ignore what I'm actually saying and reduce my opions to "crying" and "touching bullshit", but it's ok. As already stated I have no respect for your current position.

[Stlukesguild]

Just taking Amazon, it wouldn't necessarily be 'considerably more.' You'd need to look at profits, investment plans, how much they pay their shareholders, and balance the wage claim against that. That's what unions do all the time: you send in the labour lawyers and accountants and base your wage claim on their findings.

I purchase the vast majority of my music through second-party dealers who advertise and sell through Amazon. In most instances their prices are well beneath what Amazon sells for and far less than Barnes and Nobles, Borders, or any other source. Of course I could deal directly with these other dealers but through Amazon I am able to rapidly compare prices on the same disc and I am assured of the safety of my transactions... undoubtedly for a share of the sale. Amazon gets the brunt of the publicity as the bad guy because they are the biggest, but how are these secondary dealers able to undercut even Amazon... often by 50% or more. Just recently I purchased a complete string quartets of Schubert on DG for a little over $16. The current price on Amazon is $42.99, Barnes and Noble is listed at a sale price of $35.49. Most other companies list in a similar price range. Again one wonders how well any of these other companies pay their employees and what benefits they may expect. One also wonders how realistic it may be to expect that we are about to research how each company we buy from treats its employees.

[Zeitblom]

Just to add a few words about price and quality.

Here in the UK, there is a wide range of supermarkets. Some have low prices and treat their staff less well than others (one of our largest chains is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart, and has a notoriously bad attitude towards the unions). One in particular is run by a partnership, rather than a company; its staff are its owners. Yes, the prices are a little higher (thought not by as much as some people think); but the quality of the goods on sale and the standards of service are better too. It's actually the British retailer that is managing best in the face of economic recession.

It comes down to two things. One, I can (and do) choose to shop at a supermarket where the staff are partners. So do lots of others. Second, the basic business model seems to produce results; get rid of shareholders, let the staff run the business, gain a reputation for quality and make money.

In other words, when you dump the macho attitude-ridden capitalist ideology, you get a better business, better products, happier staff and happier customers. All for a slightly higher price. Looks like a pretty succesful business model to me.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by micrologus

Well, I do! But of course I don't buy as many CD's as you do in such a short time.
I also prefer to listen to the CD before buying it and I like to compare different performances. I usualy buy my cd's in a specialised music shop in Brussels (about 120 km from where I live) or in Bruges (55 km from home). I also look for CD's when I'm abroad, or after attending a concert.

As I told Philidor, I don't have the luxury you guys do. There are no CD stores in my area. They have are all out-of-business. My only alternative is to buy online, otherwise, I would not have an opportunity to hear the music I want or would like to hear.

Also, I'm sure I get better deals than you do too. If you enjoy paying a wad for a CD, then that's your prerogative. I wouldn't pay $16 for a CD. That's for sure.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by Stlukesguild

Just taking Amazon, it wouldn't necessarily be 'considerably more.' You'd need to look at profits, investment plans, how much they pay their shareholders, and balance the wage claim against that. That's what unions do all the time: you send in the labour lawyers and accountants and base your wage claim on their findings.

I purchase the vast majority of my music through second-party dealers who advertise and sell through Amazon. In most instances their prices are well beneath what Amazon sells for and far less than Barnes and Nobles, Borders, or any other source. Of course I could deal directly with these other dealers but through Amazon I am able to rapidly compare prices on the same disc and I am assured of the safety of my transactions... undoubtedly for a share of the sale. Amazon gets the brunt of the publicity as the bad guy because they are the biggest, but how are these secondary dealers able to undercut even Amazon... often by 50% or more. Just recently I purchased a complete string quartets of Schubert on DG for a little over $16. The current price on Amazon is $42.99, Barnes and Noble is listed at a sale price of $35.49. Most other companies list in a similar price range. Again one wonders how well any of these other companies pay their employees and what benefits they may expect. One also wonders how realistic it may be to expect that we are about to research how each company we buy from treats its employees.

I seldom buy directly from Amazon. Like you, I buy from Marketplace sellers and can get killer deals. In fact, I'm almost positive I get better deals than anyone who buys from a store. You would have to be crazy to pay $16 for a CD when you can get it for $3 plus shipping brand new, sealed.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by DJ Fatuus

The concept of "profiting from unfairness" is a continuum with slavery at one end, and a slightly unfavourable contract at the other. I think we should all consciously choose a point on their line that we are happy to engage with. Just not thinking about it is not a moral option.

Mr. MI, I would just urge that you lose the defensive attitude (it really looks like moral insecurity), stop thinking that every contrary view is an attack, and just think about what indirectly results from your actions, and resolve to either accept it, or change.

You don't have to be charitable if you don't want to. But you can't then take the moral highground, quoting $16 CD's as an abomination that no one should suffer. If you want to be selfish at the expense of others, at least admit it.

As a separate point (and one that I've already made but you've ignored), 'spreading the word' is a hugely effective weapon. I can't believe you actually view the OP as pointless. I for one have passed on the suprising Amazon situation, and who knows who my friends have told. "Big talkers" and "action takers" are not mutually exclusive. It's not a difficult contept to understand how talking affects public opinion, and public opinion affects company policy.

No doubt you'll quickly ignore what I'm actually saying and reduce my opions to "crying" and "touching bullshit", but it's ok. As already stated I have no respect for your current position.

You want me to admit being selfish? Sure I'll say it, but you have to admit you're foolish. How's that for a trade-off?

You honestly think that I care if you respect my opinion or not? I really don't. The reason I don't is simple: I have no control over how a company treats their employees nor do you. If you think you're going to make a dent in Amazon's profits, then you're sadly mistaken. They've already reported record profits and with good reason: intelligent people shop online, unintelligent people buy $16 CDs from a store. Now which category do you fall under? Unitelligent or intelligent?

Trust me when I say that Amazon's sales aren't and won't be affected by this. How can it? I practically live on Amazon. I enjoy getting good deals, but even more so I love being able to get music that I can't get. I'm not the only one who shops on Amazon and you think a little story like this is going to keep people from shopping with them? Absolutely not.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by micrologus

I'm glad not all Americans are like you and please, don't fall back on your ancestry.

I'm glad not all English people are like you and please do yourself a favor and go dunk your head in a toliet and flush it. Thanks so much....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[micrologus]

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

I'm glad not all English people are like you and please do yourself a favor and go dunk your head in a toliet and flush it. Thanks so much....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What went wrong during your education?

[Stlukesguild]

Here in the UK, there is a wide range of supermarkets. Some have low prices and treat their staff less well than others (one of our largest chains is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart, and has a notoriously bad attitude towards the unions). One in particular is run by a partnership, rather than a company; its staff are its owners. Yes, the prices are a little higher (thought not by as much as some people think); but the quality of the goods on sale and the standards of service are better too. It's actually the British retailer that is managing best in the face of economic recession.

It comes down to two things. One, I can (and do) choose to shop at a supermarket where the staff are partners. So do lots of others. Second, the basic business model seems to produce results; get rid of shareholders, let the staff run the business, gain a reputation for quality and make money.

In other words, when you dump the macho attitude-ridden capitalist ideology, you get a better business, better products, happier staff and happier customers. All for a slightly higher price. Looks like a pretty succesful business model to me.

Somehow, I suspect much of this is little more than wishful thinking... if not outright fantasy. You shop at a store where the staff are partners... where the shareholders/investors have been eliminated. How exactly does that come about? Where all of the employees part of the initial business start-up and did they all put forth a portion of the initial investment costs and the labor without pay which would be part and parcel of starting up any business? In that case they would all be business owners as well as staff. Or perhaps each employee purchases a share of the business upon his or her hire? Or perhaps... the initial investors/owners out of the goodness of their heart give each new employee a percentage share of the business upon hire... in spite of the fact that those new hires did not need to venture forth the initial investment and labor without return... and with good possibility that the business might fail and all such investments would be lost. Or perhaps those same employees wages will be tied directly to the financial success of the company so that if the company profits surge 25% they will receive a 25% increase in their salary... but conversely... if the company profits fall 50% they will take a 50% cut in wages... and if the company actually loses money... they will receive no salary but be expected to foot their share of the losses?

Lets be real... what you are speaking of... a partnership or a limited partnership... is a business venture in which you have owner/operators... not employees. If that business grows, they will need to either take in new partners who must be expected to put forth the same degree of investment and take the same chances... or they will need to hire employees... and quite often the employees of a small business are no less secure in their job and assured of a salary and benefits that are no more lavish than those afforded by the larger corporate models. I would venture that there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Personally I am no fan of the abuses of capitalism... but none of the alternatives have worked... except in literary fantasy. Certainly the laissez-faire Capitalism of the last decade or so is not a viable option and has led to much of the current economic upheaval. There clearly need to be government controls and oversights for the sake of the larger society as a whole. CEOs making tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars even when a company is highly successful is still absurd. When the same companies are losing money and laying off employees such salaries and the grossly inflated benefits are unconscionable. On the other hand, much of the finger-pointing at Capitalism itself is but a rather pathetic form of schadenfreude and quite hypocritical when one considers how much many of the same current "nay-sayers" embraced the incredible growth and the almost overwhelming influx of inexpensive products (food, clothing, gasoline, computers, digital cameras, and yes... CDs) that were equally the result of Capitalism during the 1990s. Anybody knows the economy is cyclical... even someone without much invested stake in the same economy such as myself.

[Philidor]

@Mirror Image & micrologus: can we have a bit more Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Men (and Women)?