Amazon to give power to brands to remove fakes from website
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
IMHO, it's not a good compromise to push the responsibility for fake-detection onto brands and manufacturers. Small makers might not have the resources to effectively police Amazon's massive inventory, and some brands might abuse this power to squash smaller competitors. It's really Amazon's job to keep fakes out off of its platform, and I think they should do the work themselves.
However, cooperative things like their "serialization" feature seem like a pretty good idea.
As long as they track which box contains which units it doesn't matter if they ship A's stock for B's sales or returns, they still know it was A's stock.
Why do you think keeping stock separate instantly solves a counterfeit problem?
How can an unbranded SD card be fake? Fake with respect to what?
A brand brings this value: expectations.
If I buy a no-brand item, I'm not sure what expectations I can have, and I'm not sure I can even claim that it's a fake, since I have no reference point as "the true item".
I mean that's literally the biggest value that a brand brings to you, the consumer.
That's also why brands work hard to build up and maintain good reputations.
That is exactly what a brand is supposed to protect you against: if a reputable brand is caught doing this, it won't take long for its reputation to go down the drain.
You won't see many reputable brands engage in this, and that also explains why they rightfully complain when someone else uses their brand to push their bogus products, as their reputation can take a hit due to a malicious player.
Intellectual Property protection around brands (brand names, logos, etc...) is serious business.
There are a few problems a listing might have:
- Product not as advertised.
- Product as advertised, but not made by the asserted manufacturer.
- Product as advertised, but vendor doesn't have the legal right to sell it.
#1 is just fraud, and defrauds the customer. #2 is a trademark violation, and defrauds the customer without the customer suffering harm. #3 is a copyright violation, and defrauds the copyright holder.
Consumer advocates should worry about #1 and to a lesser extent #2. Most policy debate seems to focus on #3. But #2 is what's at issue here, so hey, progress.
How does that work? I don't think this position is defensible, and I also don't think this is what's happening: the customer is defrauded by bearing a risk they did not choose.
I wonder: is it possible for an operating system or filesystem to prevent this from happening?
In respect to not being the claimed capacity, but modified in a data-destroying way to make that difficult to detect:
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1326059# (from 2015, capacities have obviously changed since then):
> Tests by the Counterfeit Report found that the cards will work at first, but generally speaking, buyers are purchasing what they think are cards with capacities of 32GB and up. Instead they are getting are cards with 7GB capacity. Counterfeiters simply overwrite the real memory capacity with a false capacity to match any capacity and model they print on the counterfeit packaging and card, Crosby explained. Users can’t determine the actual memory capacity of a counterfeit memory card by simply plugging it into their computer, phone, or camera. When the user hits the limit, the phony card starts overwriting files, which leads to lost data.
> The Counterfeit Report often comes across cards in capacities that don’t exist in any product line, and the cards it purchases and tests that are 32GB and up are usually always fake. The counterfeiters make a great profit on the fake cards, and there’s no consequence.
I just bought a small physical device/tool for a particular task. (Magazine reloader.) Apparently, this small niche manufacturer has serious problems with Chinese knock-offs. However, all of the knock offs could be found with a simple generic search on Amazon. Furthermore, most of the knock offs really relied on also knocking off the branding of the original, so searching on the brand name very specifically found all of the knock offs.
So this can cut both ways. Strong brands, even from small manufacturers, can cope without Amazon's intervention, but this could well raise the barriers to entry for new brands.
It's really Amazon's job to keep fakes out off of its platform, and I think they should do the work themselves.
I ordered 1 Gerber keychain multitool from Amazon awhile back, and I got 3 of them. The runner who grabbed the box didn't realize she/he grabbed a pack of 3. If they are operating at a pace where they get quantity wrong, just who at Amazon is going to take the time to inspect items and distinguish the fakes?
This can be a serious problem, with potentially health damaging effects. There was a problem with knockoffs of a leading brand of electronic hearing protection. These knockoffs had electronics that were too slow to clamp down on noise signals, and so could actually amplify quite dangerous levels of noise for a few milliseconds.
Just last night, I was watching a YouTube video about knockoff green laser pointers. It turns out, all of the cheaper ones tested leave out a necessary filter and so leak a lot of energy as invisible infrared light. This can be quite dangerous, as it's potentially eye damaging and yet invisible, so it's far too easy to expose yourself from a back reflection, without even knowing it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420214/the-danger-of-gree...
That's only one class of knock off, and the easiest kind to police.
> If they are operating at a pace where they get quantity wrong, just who at Amazon is going to take the time to inspect items and distinguish the fakes?
That's a really weird assertion, since Amazon's current practices are totally irrelevant. It also makes no sense to talk about order pickers being the key part of any solution.
Amazon has total freedom to reform its business practices in all relevant parts of its organization to solve this problem, and I would argue it's their responsibility. Those changes would likely not be at the order fulfillment level, but at the SKU creation/inventory acquisition/seller account approval level.
Personally, I think Amazon should completely separate Amazon Marketplace from their main online store, and push it onto an entirely different site that's excluded from searches by default. Then they should rework the FBA into a program that has very high standards and accountability, and make it the only way 3rd party sellers can get things listed on the main Amazon site.
What are the other classes of knock offs?
That's a really weird assertion, since Amazon's current practices are totally irrelevant.
I don't think it's weird at all. If Amazon is going to have human beings checking for knock-offs, they are going to have to look at physical items at one point. I have seen many complaints that in many cases, the original manufacturer's Amazon Fulfillment stocks are intermixed with the counterfeits. The people working knock-off policing are going to be running around the same space as the item runners. They are going to have high workloads. Why wouldn't Amazon's current practices be relevant?
Amazon has total freedom to reform its business practices in all relevant parts of its organization to solve this problem, and I would argue it's their responsibility. Those changes would likely not be at the order fulfillment level, but at the SKU creation/inventory acquisition/seller account approval level.
Why not start a competing online marketplace, with better policing of knock-offs? I think this is already happening, with niche manufacturers opting to sell on their own websites instead of selling on Amazon because of these problems. Whoever is offering fulfillment services to such businesses is effectively doing this. In the future, perhaps Amazon will once again declare, "Your margins are our opportunity," once again and move in to the niche. Perhaps one day Amazon will use this maneuver one too many times.
They won't be if Amazon stops commingling stock from different sources.
Dumping everything into a big pile, then expecting pickers (or some other kind of hurried low-level worker) to sort out the fake/counterfeit items is probably the most impractical and inefficient way possible of addressing this problem.
Amazon's problem is on the "input" side, so they should solve it there.
> Why not start a competing online marketplace, with better policing of knock-offs?
Someone could totally do that, but I was talking about fixing the problem at Amazon. No marketplace should be offering fakes and knockoffs, so competition isn't going to be a panacea.
No disagreement. I think there will be come corporate inertial to overcome, however.
No marketplace should be offering fakes and knockoffs, so competition isn't going to be a panacea.
Given that people are already going to alternatives because of this precise issue, it's quite likely the market will mount a specific response, if it hasn't already. The market isn't a panacea. Panaceas don't exist. However, sometimes the market can respond in a good or at least adequate way.
I used to always order everything from Amazon. Now I've reached a point where I avoid it.
What's annoying is that the fakes and the reals have the same listings and share the same reviews. So you glance at the reviews and see mostly 5 stars... only to notice that all recent ones are 1 star written by people who received fakes.
Ex: https://www.amazon.com/Joico-111772-K-pak-Conditioner-33-8-o...
All these fake items could destroy Amazon's credibility pretty fast...
do a good job(Amazon's brands ), while making the alternatives look bad.
And it's one huge step ahead against their biggest competitor, aliexpress.
Not only that, but those are policy / design issues. The technical implementation of this at Amazon scale isn't trivial, then adding in fraud detection <for this tool> so folks don't abuse it too.
The assumption that Amazon doesn't care about this problem, the fake reviews problem and others killing their marketplace vs. the problems being difficult to solve that permeates the comments here gets tiring.
There is no logical reason why they wouldn't care when they try to cultivate customer satisfaction and loyalty (they're one of the most loved companies in America) in every other aspect of their business.
Edit: I'll concede that it's been a serious PR problem for Amazon only in the last 3 years. It's been a problem for brands, sellers, and buyers for much longer, and Amazon has known about it for more than a decade.
I've seen plenty of false Apple claims regarding Amazon and I've talked to people who sued Apple and won. There's also a famous case (search hard 2 find accessories) that sued Apple and lost because the judge basically said Apple had immunity under the 1st amendment to make claims even without vetting them. I think this is wrong but it's tough to go up against Apple in court.