Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmccullough | Hacker News Reader

I actually have a crazy conspiracy theory that the reason they swap certain items is because there is a secondary means of profit where Instacart makes money through companies paying them to “suggest” certain products. I’ve had multiple occasions now where they’ve said they couldn’t find an item that I knew was in stock, and in mass quantities. I’ve had common brands of milk swapped out for expensive shit like Atlanta Cream Top (which ended up being tasty). I have no hard proof, but I suspect.

View on HN

I’m the engineer that wrote all the initial replacement algorithms and I currently work on the Instacart fulfillment system. We never have designed or even considered a system that would attempt to profit off not found items, that’s insanely anti-customer and unethical. We do suggest items on the storefront, pre-purchase, but our substitution recommendation system is entirely driven based on any specific requests from you (that order or previously) and a collaborative model driven by prior replacements.

We are also working on better ways to collect preferences from folks; I’m not sure when any of that would be going live.

> We never have designed or even considered a system that would attempt to profit off not found items

But now that you’ve been told, it’s too good of an idea to let it pass innit?

Delete this post

Care to explain why? Don't be a corporate cat trying to shut down anything where people from a company are honestly trying to correct a misconception.

This post doesn't delve any more details than what the user is expecting from Instacart.

Nothing like being a corporate cat. More to the point that OP is on record talking about how unethical a certain practice may be, which may be something IC does in the future. It was mostly just to protect OP

I’m not sure what this means. The OP was frustrated with something they thought we were doing, and I (as the engineer who wrote the actual code and knows what we do and do not talk about) wanted to set the record straight.

Maybe you should consider adjusting your recommendation engine to default to keeping the price as close to possible as the original item. The majority of your customers are going to have this as their highest priority. Basing it off prior replacements (which were most likely not optimal the first time), sounds like the engine might be perpetuating mistakes.

We do use (as inputs) problems folks report with replacements (which include “too expensive” as an option), so theoretically this is covered, but I do think that we will be looking at the initial ranking and boosting as it seems this is a consistent problem. As I noted elsewhere, we will be looking at better collecting preferences from customers as “the majority of customers” approaches don’t always work for very personal items like groceries (eg some folks would prefer to have it organic regardless of cost!)

Right but if I’m shopping at Whole Foods, all the red grapes are organic. So are the eggs, whether they’re $4 or $9 a dozen.

Yep, makes sense -- take my comment as "how things stand now" not "everything is hunky-dory" -- we will definitely be looking at this.

I've had the same experience. I'd select the cheapest possible chicken breast from Whole Foods and they replace it with air chilled, free range chicken breast. The difference in cost was quite significant per pound.

I don’t think so because every time they do this, (often), I let them know and they refund that more expensive price, so I’m not sure it would be economical

It's classic corporate bully tactics. Most people will let themselves be steamrolled and the corporation knows it. If one person (you) complains they will gladly refund because they know twenty others will not be able, know how, or care enough to pick the fight.

It's the same strategy as "unexplained" charges appearing at random on people's phone and cable bills. Concede one battle, win twenty others. Massive fraud being perpetrated every day gets a pass because:

1) each individual fraudulent act is so small the cost of fighting it is greater than the insult perceived by most victims

2) arbitration clauses

3) monopoly

4) corruption (kickbacks &c)

5) delegation of customer service to automated answering systems; it's easier to bilk your fellow man when he's invisible to you

Don't ever kid yourself, these policies are intentional and calculated, with malice aforethought. You can be certain spreadsheets and charts were created, examined and became the basis of an affirmative executive decision.

Please contact our support team in these cases, we absolutely aren't deliberately choosing more expensive items in order to profit -- see my comment elsewhere on this article, but we primarily look at your previous preferences and the preferences of other customers.

If you chose the cheapest possible option, it does seem inevitable that any replacement would be more expensive :-)

And, sorry that we were frustrating to you.

(engineer @ Instacart)

If this is really happening frequently, could it the pickers going for items they already know where to find?

Yeah as somebody who was a personal shopper before the internet getting requested items can be really tricky there is no guarantee they won't run out of something there is no Ralfs API to plug into to give real-time inventory information.

> there is no Ralfs API to plug into to give real-time inventory information

Which is why "send people to grocery stores" is going to lose out to more vertically integrated models.

  there is no Ralfs [sic] API to plug into to give real-time inventory information

[citation needed] :) there are many ways to "vertically integrate" with retailers (and yes, some do in fact offer a real-time API of what is in store, and our availability information for those is fantastic)

If they’re doing that they should stop because it’s a slam-dunk fraud class action. That’s true even without any promotion agreement and even if the customer consents to the higher priced item.

> it’s a slam-dunk fraud class action.

Ah, if only it was that simple. Companies just don't let you sue any more. (Including, I hasten to add, almost every single one of those darling HN graduates.)

https://www.instacart.com/terms

CTRL-F, "Arbitration"

> Mandatory Arbitration: If we’re unable to work out a solution amicably, both you and Instacart agree to resolve any disputes arising out of your use of the Services or these Terms through binding arbitration or small claims court.

> CLASS ACTION WAIVER: TO THE EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW, ALL CLAIMS MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE PARTIES' INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS, COLLECTIVE ACTION, OR NON-PAGA REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING (COLLECTIVELY “CLASS ACTION WAIVER”). THE ARBITRATOR MAY NOT CONSOLIDATE MORE THAN ONE PERSON'S CLAIMS OR ENGAGE IN ANY CLASS ARBITRATION. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THESE TERMS, YOU AND INSTACART ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION.

Hah, of course. I meant whatever, there is a lot of bad class action litigation. I figured it was worth pointing out here because it would seem like the customer agreeing to the higher priced item would immunize you, but it wouldn’t.

But that was kind of my point: Delivering anything short of a bobcat[0] instead of a bag of potatoes doesn't matter. Instacart's own terms of service put the onus on running you through the arbitration gauntlet. Well, or small claims, but only one person at a time so they can just drip-dry the entire problem away.

Sure, people will eventually stop using the service if the problem gets bad enough but as long as they keep the salami sliced[1] fairly thin, they'll get away with it for a long time with no outside check.

0 - https://www.xkcd.com/325/

1 - http://scams.wikispaces.com/Salami+Slicing

This clause is not legal or enforceable. You can sue anyone you agreed not to, contrary to corporate legal attempts to intimidate.

On what do you base this claim? As far as I know, you can't, as per the Federal Arbitration Act. And after Concepcion you can even be forced to go to arbitration on an individual basis rather than as a class.

You can file. It will never make it past the first motion.

YES! We have seen this too. We joked about it too. “How come they picked eggs that are twice as expensive?”

Do they give you the other product at the original price (which UK supermarket deliveries do), or do they bump up the price after you've placed the order?

Well from the article:

> Adopting an asset-light model, Mehta first built an app that let customers shop from established retailers--charging a delivery fee and, at least initially, a slight markup. Instacart kept a cut for itself and paid the shopper.

> Four years later those partnerships make up a significant percentage of revenue. More than 80% of orders are placed with partners, up from less than 20% three years ago.

Realistically, most people buy the cheapest thing that suits their needs. If that item is out of stock, a replacement is either more expensive or does not suit their needs, e.g. not organic when the original item was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com