|
Cicero posted:It's not that you can definitively point to the price increase immediately improving the service overnight, it's that they're steadily spending more year by year, which may necessitate raising the price at some point. All that original content Netflix is making isn't cheap. Absolutely. A price increase might be justified (bean counter wise at least) to keep up with costs and thus maintain the current level of quality provided. Netflix isn't in the best position here either because they keep relying on very expensive originals that they don't even have the rights to while being boxed out of exclusives for non original stuff. So it is definitely becoming more expensive for them to offer even reduced quality offerings. As a consumer I understand those realities but I also understand that the marketing they have behind the price increase is bs. Of course saying they need to charge more to provide less isn't the best marketing campaign so I don't even fault them for that. But I don't shed any tears for them either as I stop giving them my money. One good thing about Netflix though is their customer service workers apparently have no retention incentives because they didn't hesitate to cancel and give me a credit (both crediting previous month and giving me access to an additional month since apparently their system can't prorate??) Amazon especially routinely will price stuff out to be a loss or break even to gain market share which means they eventually would need to raise prices to be able to make a profit. And from what I've seen through my experience as a prime user are the fees going up and the service quality staying the same or getting worse. At 10% annualized increases I suspect they're trying to capture profit rather than improving quality. So I would be curious to hear about the services they've added or improved since the last price increase that would justify the claim that they increased prices to increase quality versus them trying to make more profit. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, it sucks if a good service gets to be a bad value or something but it's not capital P problematic. If amazon prime at some point in the future becomes a really bad value it's also super optional and easy to get out of. You got a lot of consumer power on it. If netflix raises their price a ton and gets bad movies that is sad to see it go, but it's not really a hard situation or anything. It's not like health insurance or something where you invariable have to pay it no matter how high it goes. Amazon prime or netflix or something have no good leverage over you having to pay if they raise the price or lower the service past what you find acceptable. Ok Mr Quixote, thank you for this brilliant insight.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Absolutely. A price increase might be justified (bean counter wise at least) to keep up with costs and thus maintain the current level of quality provided. Netflix isn't in the best position here either because they keep relying on very expensive originals that they don't even have the rights to while being boxed out of exclusives for non original stuff. So it is definitely becoming more expensive for them to offer even reduced quality offerings. As a consumer I understand those realities but I also understand that the marketing they have behind the price increase is bs. Of course saying they need to charge more to provide less isn't the best marketing campaign so I don't even fault them for that. But I don't shed any tears for them either as I stop giving them my money. One good thing about Netflix though is their customer service workers apparently have no retention incentives because they didn't hesitate to cancel and give me a credit (both crediting previous month and giving me access to an additional month since apparently their system can't prorate??) That's why prime is a bad example of Amazon misusing its market position or otherwise being a danger at their size: prime has so many different elements that isolating one diminished value can't possibly account for anything, and you constantly saying that Netflix and Prime video offerings are worse doesn't make that necessarily true. As for a more "raw" benefit, as a consumer I feel I get better value from Prime through savings and coupons at Whole Foods, which is my closest grocery store (and I am well aware that supermarket utility varies wildly by region and recognize I get certain unique benefits where I live) and has historically had much better goods for very little more than other "normal" competitors provided you aren't buying holistic crystal soap or prepared food. I do think certain elements of Whole Foods have become worse post-Amazon, but some have stayed the same and others have improved, and as a "what's on sale this week" cook the savings (or at least ease of access to savings through the app) do seem to be worth more than $20/year, even though this week's deals are kinda cruddy. Lots of services go up in price just to maintain their value. Many services go up in price and shift value around. I'm certain some of my state park fees and taxes are going to pay for fire recovery in other state parks that I will never in my life use, but I'm not cursing the state for depleted value even though they actually have a monopoly on those particular locations and hold huge structural control over competing park systems and services.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Sears may be down to its last 24 hours. Iconic retailer likely liquidates if no bid comes in tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Zachack posted:From my wife's perspective (and FYI "Happy" or "pleased" are better substitutes than "fine with" for the non beep boop robots in the room) getting a second, longer season of Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and and being able to stream some weird Canadian time travel show from the 00s are sufficient improvements to the service to justify the price increase because she likes those things and doesn't care about other shows. For many goons I'm willing to bet that a 4th season of The Expanse is worth an extra $20 or more. Your perception of Netflix getting worse in spite of a price increase is useless because it's based on your own value judgements which exist independently of Netflix economics - my wife, again, would say Netflix has more than justified a price increase because now they have many British Baking shows and she does not care about my losing access to a narrow range of Kung fu movie rights (which Amazon may have picked up). Do you think Amazon would have shelved marvelous mrs maisel had they not increased the price? This doesn't seem like the best example of Amazon increasing the quality of their services to correspond with a price increase. It sounds like bog standard happy with the service. Which is fine, I don't think I ever suggested that no one would find the service worth the money. I took issue with the idea that Amazon has made their services better while doing so, and given that the prime (ha ha) example here is that amazon released its 2nd season of a show they bought the 2nd season for in 2017 (which also went on to win a ton of awards) for their video service which centers around having movies and tv shows I think that demonstrates the point. If the true value that has been added is the 2nd season of marvelous mrs maisel, you would have been able to get that without the increase. Really what is being said is that amazon had underpriced their service compared to the value that you perceived from the offerings, and that is perfectly reasonable. Plenty of people will be in the same boat where they feel that way (I'm one of them...but only because I am on the student version), but that isn't them adding value, it is them capturing it. Same with Netflix; it's fine if you enjoy the service and the shows; what I made fun of is their advertising that they needed to do so in order to provide new shows and movies and them using the little rascals as an example of the quality hits I can enjoy. Yes, I understand that there likely exist people who agreed that adding the little rascals is worth extra money per month. Fundamentally though, they've kept the service at similar levels while increasing the price. Inflation and such is an argument for that too, but it isn't what they sold the increase on. But again, I don't blame them for marketing on the idea that they needed to increase their prices to offer me such great titles as the little rascals, but the reality is that they saw an opportunity to make more profit and they did so. Funny tho how the price increase corresponds to record profit levels (doubling net margin YoY) and demolishing investor expectations. A coincidence I am sure. And again, it is fine for them to make a profit, but why assume that a price increase is actually being used to increase quality? Zachack posted:Lots of services go up in price just to maintain their value. Many services go up in price and shift value around. I'm certain some of my state park fees and taxes are going to pay for fire recovery in other state parks that I will never in my life use, but I'm not cursing the state for depleted value even though they actually have a monopoly on those particular locations and hold huge structural control over competing park systems and services. Indeed, many need to increase prices to maintain value (annualized increases of 10% probably exceed that tho), which isn't the same as increasing value. Similarly with "shifting" it around. And for the consumer, the increased price may still be "worth it", or maybe they're captured enough that they feel they have no choice. Government fees fall under similar guidance, obviously, and I think it is absolutely worth asking if a fee\tax increase is actually going towards things of value (which we seem to agree is highly subjective) rather than being wasted. I think a similar comparison for netflix\amazon increasing profits to boost their bottom line would be a park commissioner (or similar) increasing fees so they can embezzle (more) money while keeping the services they offer the same (maybe even keeping to events that had previously been scheduled!). Maybe the fee was very cheap prior, and we could all agree that increasing the fee makes sense given the services offered, but we could probably also agree that raising the fee to line someone's pocket isn't worth it; even if we believe the fees before and after are reasonable. I'm not sure I follow your claim that owning property and putting it to use is a "monopoly" tho, that seems a bit wild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
So I find article about when American Amazon Prime price changes: https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/28/technology/amazon-prime-timeline/index.html It says it launch in 2005 at $79 per year, rise to $99 a year in 2014, and $119 in 2018. It also look like whole streaming services like for music were added from last price change. Spotify charges easy €10 per month to just stream the music, that is €120 per year on its own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
If other retailers want to compete with Amazon, they just have to add free two-day shipping even if it means raising their prices to compensate. I'd guess most people don't look at the monthly/annual cost of Prime or much of the additional stuff, they just want to have poo poo soon without the psychological "hit" of paying extra for express shipping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Do you think Amazon would have shelved marvelous mrs maisel had they not increased the price? This doesn't seem like the best example of Amazon increasing the quality of their services to correspond with a price increase. It sounds like bog standard happy with the service. Which is fine, I don't think I ever suggested that no one would find the service worth the money. I took issue with the idea that Amazon has made their services better while doing so, and given that the prime (ha ha) example here is that amazon released its 2nd season of a show they bought the 2nd season for in 2017 (which also went on to win a ton of awards) for their video service which centers around having movies and tv shows I think that demonstrates the point. If the true value that has been added is the 2nd season of marvelous mrs maisel, you would have been able to get that without the increase. Really what is being said is that amazon had underpriced their service compared to the value that you perceived from the offerings, and that is perfectly reasonable. Plenty of people will be in the same boat where they feel that way (I'm one of them...but only because I am on the student version), but that isn't them adding value, it is them capturing it. I'll also note that you neglected to address Whole Foods Prime, which I think started after the price increase and has provided more than $20/year in value. Further, while at the gym (another hotbed of wild fluctuating cost/value), I remembered Twitch Prime gives me free games and gewgaws - while some games are old, last week they gave away The Messenger, a fairly popular new release currently on sale for $14, and the combined game value since June, even accounting for some games being old or games I already own, is easily greater than $20. quote:Same with Netflix; it's fine if you enjoy the service and the shows; what I made fun of is their advertising that they needed to do so in order to provide new shows and movies and them using the little rascals as an example of the quality hits I can enjoy. Yes, I understand that there likely exist people who agreed that adding the little rascals is worth extra money per month. Fundamentally though, they've kept the service at similar levels while increasing the price. Inflation and such is an argument for that too, but it isn't what they sold the increase on. But again, I don't blame them for marketing on the idea that they needed to increase their prices to offer me such great titles as the little rascals, but the reality is that they saw an opportunity to make more profit and they did so. Funny tho how the price increase corresponds to record profit levels (doubling net margin YoY) and demolishing investor expectations. A coincidence I am sure. And again, it is fine for them to make a profit, but why assume that a price increase is actually being used to increase quality? re: Monopoly - the state has a huge amount of power to allow or deny new parks from opening through a variety of regulatory mechanisms and ownership of surrounding lands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Yes, I understand that there likely exist people who agreed that adding the little rascals is worth extra money per month. I don't think you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting  about how evil netflix is for spending money on shows you personally didn't like.Which makes sense because think half of this thread of people getting real, real mad that there are products and services targeted at someone other than themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Xae posted:I don't think you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting lol talk about a weird reading to take for a thread about the collapse of retail
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Xae posted:Which makes sense because think half of this thread of people getting real, real mad that there are products and services targeted at someone other than themselves. People seem convinced Amazon is scheduled to be a monopoly soon and whatever amazon sells (which will apparently drop most products) is all that will be purchased so must be good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:People seem convinced Amazon is scheduled to be a monopoly soon Honest question, has even just one poster said that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Amazon competes with its own marketplace sellers and there is no alternative to amazon in online retail as a seller. Unless you're arguing online retail is meaningless (lol) or Amazon doesn't engage in anticompetitive actions (debatable but their ad business is just slotting fees) then you are really missing the point Stifling sellers reduces seller competition resulting in long term price increases. Amazonbasics is the vector by which amazon will generically compete with marketplace sellers. If it was just a house brand then it would be fine (but amazon is not a mere online retailer, they are a marketplace as well) but it is directly used to suppress seller competition. Malcolm XML fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
By the way amazon marketplace interferes and stops European buyer protection so it's not exactly all roses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
Y'all are a little behind, they're branding their clothing price undercut operation as Amazon Essentials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:And you were using that point to say that’s how you could believe Amazon is 5% vs Walmart’s 2. But it’s not even close to true because ecom is nowhere near that large in sales yet. I don’t think that just because you can’t buy a house or a 787 on Amazon means we should pretend that it’s not a significant marketplace.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant it wouldn't supprise me, not that I was certain. Either way it seems that e comerce is only going to grow rapidly, so we'll see in a few years how it shakes out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:If it was just a house brand then it would be fine (but amazon is not a mere online retailer, they are a marketplace as well) but it is directly used to suppress seller competition. I don't think Amazon is using basics to take aim at particular companies they consider threats. They're looking for high volume and moderate profit margins. Is that not a typical house brand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Amazon competes with its own marketplace sellers and there is no alternative to amazon in online retail as a seller. Unless you're arguing online retail is meaningless (lol) or Amazon doesn't engage in anticompetitive actions (debatable but their ad business is just slotting fees) then you are really missing the point Maybe I am missing your point here but there’s a ton of alternatives? Funnily enough my company used to feud with Amazon because they were always trying to make us become wholesale partners, but thankfully they essentially got rid of account reps and automated it. Wholesaling would have been brutal on our other alternatives ie direct site, Macy’s, EBay etc as we would be giving Amazon control on pricing that they would drive down. And those alternatives all together are larger and much more profitable than Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Honest question, has even just one poster said that? PT6A posted:If other retailers want to compete with Amazon, they just have to add free two-day shipping even if it means raising their prices to compensate. I'd guess most people don't look at the monthly/annual cost of Prime or much of the additional stuff, they just want to have poo poo soon without the psychological "hit" of paying extra for express shipping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Honest question, has even just one poster said that? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:Maybe I am missing your point here but there’s a ton of alternatives? Not really in many cases, especially for smaller sellers. There's a reason they're facing legal action in Europe over their marketplace policies and had to drop quite a few of their policies already (like forcing seller to always offer the cheapest price through Amazon). They're very much a dominant player. nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:It also look like whole streaming services like for music were added from last price change. Spotify charges easy €10 per month to just stream the music, that is €120 per year on its own. Prime Music is terrible, has a tiny selection and Unlimited Music costs extra, it isn't included with Prime. Not comparable with Spotify at all. Lambert fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Dec 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:there is no alternative to amazon in online retail as a seller. Why would you even say something so demonstrably false?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So I find article about when American Amazon Prime price changes: Streaming music has been a feature for Prime since at least 2014. They did release an "unlimited" version for an additional monthly cost on top of prime though. I bet a ton of people were elated to hear about that. Xae posted:I don't think you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting I haven't called Netflix (or Amazon) evil. I have suggested their price increases are to make more money though. A dastardly opinion to foist upon such benevolent corporations and I should be more respectful of people who aren't just fine with them increasing prices, but /happy/ about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
But I already know that you have difficulty with reading comprehension, you don't need to prove that again. Can you provide an example of a poster who claimed that Amazon, as a retail seller, is on the cusp of being a monopoly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But I already know that you have difficulty with reading comprehension, you don't need to prove that again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Do people arguing that Amazon is already a monopoly count, or are we doing pedant fights today? Its also possible he just doesn't know what a monopoly is but uses the word anyway. Its pretty popular these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
The fact that you can order things online from places other than Amazon is enough proof for some people that the system works and we have no cause for concern about Amazon's predatory and thuggish business practices, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
The world isn't divided into "good, fair business practices" and "monopolies," though. You can argue that some aspects of Amazon's practices are harmful or have the potential to become harmful without arguing that they are, or are ever likely to become, a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Xae posted:Its also possible he just doesn't know what a monopoly is but uses the word anyway. Yeah, it seems like Owlofcreamcheese and Cicero are taking accusations that Amazon is taking steps that are harmful to consumers and treating that as an accusation that Amazon is becoming a monopoly or a Towel Baron or something. Almost as though they don't understand that there are a lot of bad things that a market leader can do even without becoming an actual monopoly
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You can argue that some aspects of Amazon's practices are harmful or have the potential to become harmful The potential to become harmful part is the part though, a lot of people seem to be listing threats that seem to hinge on amazon becoming the sole distributor of various objects. Like why should I care if amazon has a house brand of towels that they sell cheaply unless there is a realistic threat they might drive out the rest of the towel business and then raise prices? Why should I worry about the "potential" for that to happen if it absolutely definitely isn't going to ever happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Amazon has outsized market power in a range of areas, and effectively establishes the scope of sale for those areas in a way that other companies have not been able to do. This is most prominent by their creation of their own market space. One of the ramifications of this power over distribution, market information, and market power, is the ability to distort other aspects of the market in a way that is harmful to people in any part of the process, from producers to distributors to consumers. Amazon doesn't need to have 100% of any market to be a problem, if it has 5% of almost all markets, or if 5% of consumers now use amazon as their default market space before considering alternatives. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Dec 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:if it has 5% of almost all markets, or if 5% of consumers now use amazon as their default market space before considering alternatives. If that then what? People keep playing this game of saying "but if they get 1% of the market, then you'll see, YOU'LL SEE!" like it's some self evident nightmare. Is the idea that we currently live an idyllic life of a bunch of moral companies and amazon is going to come in and be the first one to do capitalisms? Like I can look up toy sales easily because a lot of numbers got published around toys r us compared to other things and it's 30% of toys are sold at walmart, toys r us was 18%, target is 17% and k-mart is 4%, and then 31% "other". Why do I care if that reshuffles in some minor way? What if amazon DOES get 5% of toy sales? Or even 30%? How does my life change? Large companies already are selling these things and doing all the price gouging and manufacturer squeezing and whatever else. Why is this the one line too far that changes everything? Instead of being one of the nice periods where competition temporarily lowers prices until a new equilibrium is formed for a while until some newer new competitor lowers prices temporarily again. Why is this one scary?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If that then what? People keep playing this game of saying "but if they get 1% of the market, then you'll see, YOU'LL SEE!" like it's some self evident nightmare. Two things you keep ignoring: 1. Amazon is succeeding at killing these smaller businesses because they have all of their proprietary sales data. 2. Amazon has to be power to easily kill off anyone that could possibly out innovate them if otherwise allowed to develop. So you’re losing out on anything that’s better than the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Two things you keep ignoring: 2. Is this about competitors to the amazon storefront itself, or competitors on specific products? For the storefront, I don't think they really can do much. But entering that business is extremely difficult even if amazon were to completely ignore you. For specific products, amazon can definitely crush small competitors by cloning their product. But so can any billion dollar company. So can all of amazon's competitors. Preexisting market power isn't necessary at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Why would you even say something so demonstrably false? You cannot ignore amazon if you are an online seller. Their pricing power and dominance over online retail is immense. The brands that do not sell through Amazon are affected by its policies on fakes and the gray market, for one. Market dominance is an established criterion. Go learn about it and then comment. DrNutt posted:The fact that you can order things online from places other than Amazon is enough proof for some people that the system works and we have no cause for concern about Amazon's predatory and thuggish business practices, I guess. Yep for them as long as some dumbass can set up a site and sell stuff it's OK for online retail to depend entirely on a single vendor otherwise. Amazon used basics as a way to undercut sellers -- it's abuse of their dominant position in being the portal by which people by stuff to force engagement with sellers, then selectively picking off the profitable stuff to sell directly. A good remedy would be to force amazon to spin off and rebrand amazon.com, amazon marketplace and aws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/28/sears-chairman-eddie-lampert-submits-bit-for-company.html Lampert put a $4.4 billion bid in for Sears, so its execution has been stayed for a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:1. Amazon has detailed sales data about everything. But they don't upfront know anything about the production side, especially production cost. Is having all the sales data really that much better than public info like review Yeah if you have to ask this then you need to really deal with sales more. Having cross sectional data on purchasing behavior is ridiculously valuable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 08:34
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/28/sears-chairman-eddie-lampert-submits-bit-for-company.html  Only a douchebag like this would invest in Sears.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 08:56
|
|
|
It seems bizarre that Lampert is doulbing/tripling down, though obviously, he's going it with a lot of other peoples money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:It seems bizarre that Lampert is doulbing/tripling down, though obviously, he's going it with a lot of other peoples money. I really don't think he's 'right' in the head. I think that kidnapping back in the day did a number on him and we're just watching the story play out. I mean there's an angle and he and whoever else will get paid out of this, but I just think the guy has always been off in some way and his stewardship of Sears is the end result of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 14:27
|
|