Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

Nike faced a similar situation where they felt that they could not effectively control their brand image so they pulled their products from Amazon. However, the product was still around as many individual re-sellers listed Nike products. So Nike ended up having even less control without having a relationship with Amazon [0].

Counterfeits are one issue, but brands have to accept that they cannot control distribution channels as they have in the past. Companies don't like to have their products showcased against similar products, but that's inevitable. Margins will shrink, and they'll just have to compete more on quality, value and reliability. In the end, the consumer benefits. The only solution would be to severely restrict what it means to own a product in a legal sense, which would be very harmful to consumers who value ability to re-sell and donate clothing.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nike-resisted-amazons-domin... (paywall)

View on HN

> Nike faced a similar situation where they felt that they could not effectively control their brand image so they pulled their products from Amazon. However, the product was still around as many individual re-sellers listed Nike products. So Nike ended up having even less control without having a relationship with Amazon [0].

This brings an interesting point though; is it fair in the market for a retailer/distributor to have such sway that not selling with them becomes a riskier proposition then selling with them? Isn't that the sort of thing that we have anti-trust laws for?

I suppose Nike could have a contract with their resellers requiring they not sell Nike products on Amazon.

It sounds like that's exactly what Birkenstock has and it doesn't make a difference to Amazon.

Why would it matter to Amazon if someone has a contract with a re-seller - "don't sell my stuff on Amazon"?

If the re-seller breaches then it is up to the other party in the contract to sue the re-seller. Amazon has nothing to do with it. So then Nike would just sue a bunch of smaller companies when they try to sell on Amazon.

Virtually all Nike Amazon sellers weren't buying wholesale. They were buying from Nike stores, Nike Outlet, clearance in other stores, etc.

damn, that sounds like it would be a lousy business to be in. But I guess I'm wrong because they did it?

Yes, I've heard from people with mid six figures of inventory in Nike.

The trick is not to pay full price, use discounted gift cards, rewards, etc.

I don't do clothing, but I've used similar techniques on many other categories. Plenty of people have large businesses moving goods from retail to Amazon.

Ok - so any software/tools used in this? It seems like a niche that would be underserved but wondering if there is stuff that is especially used in this field.

What about stuff from Europe - is this mainly an American thing. sorry to be asking about stuff that you probably only know a little bit about, but you obviously know more about it than I do.

Yes, plenty of tools. Tactical arbitrage, oaxray are some popular ones at $99/month.

I do some of that and some wholesale and try to stay informed on what others are doing.

I know there's a tool called FBA Wizard used by some UK sellers, and tactical arbitrage has UK support as well but I don't know that much.

I have bought stuff from amazon.co.uk and sold on amazon.com when the price difference was large enough in the low 5 figure range, really just a handful of products that I sold a bunch of.

"Isn't that the sort of thing that we have anti-trust laws for?"

I might be wrong, but the way I understand it is that anti-trust relates to abuse of a monopoly position, not the monopoly position itself. So, if Amazon were doing things to force Nike to sell through them or get less money elsewhere, they'd be in violation. However, simply being so big that Nike would lose lots of money by not selling there is not.

To put it another way, if I make a video and I decide that I don't want it on YouTube for whatever reason, Google aren't guilty of anti-trust if I then realise that I'm losing a lot of money by not having it there. They're simply the dominant player with the most customers. If, however, Google did something to reduce my revenue from other sources if I don't also have it on YouTube, they would be guilty of anti-trust.

Flawed analogy and IANAL, etc., but that's my understanding.

> So, if Amazon were doing things to force Nike to sell through them

Such as buying up Nike products from other sellers so that way Amazon can still sell Nike whether Nike likes it or not?

That doesn't force Nike to do anything, and Nike gets properly paid for each product sold. Trademark aspects likely are covered by the first-sale doctrine (=as long as you actually sell legit Nike products, you can advertise them as such).

Amazon's saying "Hey Nike, you'll be selling through us whether you like it or not". And it's forcing Nike to actually explicitly sell through Amazon if they want to retain any control whatsoever over the product listings.

Sure, but that's the same with every other reseller: if you want more control over how they sell your things, you need to make a deal with them about it. Just because a seller is larger than others it's not suddenly a monopoly abuse if they legally resell your product. Saying "I don't want you to resell my stuff" is generally speaking not a right you have as a manufacturer (you might have leverage to stop misleading advertisement or misrepresentation of the product though).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com