Amazon destroying millions of items of unsold stock in one of its UK warehouses(itv.com)
itv.com
Amazon destroying millions of items of unsold stock in one of its UK warehouses
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21/amazon-destroying-millions-of-items-of-unsold-stock-in-one-of-its-uk-warehouses-every-year-itv-news-investigation-finds
134 comments
> Economics are immune to guilt ... Regardless of the solution, moralizing is ineffective.
I'm just gonna quickly point out: This is simply not true and I'm surprised you'd make the claim.
PR is a huge deal for most companies, and public shaming through press coverage is a very effective way to raise awareness of issues and push for change. Nike, for example, didn't address issues of sweatshop labour out of the goodness of their hearts, nor was it technology or government action that caused them to reform their practices. It was pure, simple public pressure that did the job.
I'm just gonna quickly point out: This is simply not true and I'm surprised you'd make the claim.
PR is a huge deal for most companies, and public shaming through press coverage is a very effective way to raise awareness of issues and push for change. Nike, for example, didn't address issues of sweatshop labour out of the goodness of their hearts, nor was it technology or government action that caused them to reform their practices. It was pure, simple public pressure that did the job.
Those are exceptions, not the rule. PR's importance is very variable. Nike, as a luxury brand, has to care what people think about it. People seeing it as a 'good' brand is the core of their business. This is simply not true for 99% of companies. Most companies on the planet could get all the bad PR in the world, and even if, by some miracle, you remembered their name, you wouldn't even know when you buying their products.
Even when you only consider public brands, doing bad things, more often than not, is just ignored, especially if they aren't a luxury brand trying to sell based on perception (Nestle).
Even when you only consider public brands, doing bad things, more often than not, is just ignored, especially if they aren't a luxury brand trying to sell based on perception (Nestle).
Quite.
Case in point: Budget Airlines.
Ryanair does everything short of punch you in the face. O'Leary literally laughs at his own customers.
And he can. Because what they going to do?
Case in point: Budget Airlines.
Ryanair does everything short of punch you in the face. O'Leary literally laughs at his own customers.
And he can. Because what they going to do?
well the thing is, I flew with ryanair multiple times and never had problems. well I had, but basically I was too stupid and made a small mistake inside my name and it costed me like 10€ for the call! (yeah they take like 2€ per minute for support calls)
but well you get what you ask a cheap flight with exactly the details you booked. but you can fly tons of locations, even once that bigger airlines have cancelled long time ago because they aren't worth it.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm somehow paying Nestlé for the air I breathe. They are impossible to avoid.
Did Nike address anything? I assumed everyone was still manufacturing in poorer countries due to more lax labor and environmental laws.
They might run some ads how they changed suppliers or something, but people are not going to pay double or triple for clothing so a factory worker in Bangladesh can get a better quality of life at work. People will not even pay more so their neighbors and countryman can have a better quality of life.
They might run some ads how they changed suppliers or something, but people are not going to pay double or triple for clothing so a factory worker in Bangladesh can get a better quality of life at work. People will not even pay more so their neighbors and countryman can have a better quality of life.
No, but they will pay 2% more to fix something if it means 5% of customers don't write them off as "awful, unethical, big corp" and not buy stuff from them.
There are plenty of examples of companies that did or did not react to negative PR, but the effect is in the statistics, not the individual anecdata.
There are plenty of examples of companies that did or did not react to negative PR, but the effect is in the statistics, not the individual anecdata.
What are the statistics? All of these companies are still contracting out their labor to factories in countries with lower labor and environmental standards.
Nike chooses not employ any laborers for a reason. I do not see them advertising that the people making the clothes badged with the Nike symbol are working maximum 8 hour days, or maximum 40 hours per week, or getting vacation days.
It is all prose. The sweatshop conditions and disparities in quality of life at work between developed and developing countries have been known for 30+ years. The only thing causing improvements for the laborers in developing countries is increased demand for their labor, not some unverifiable PR response by Nike.
Nike chooses not employ any laborers for a reason. I do not see them advertising that the people making the clothes badged with the Nike symbol are working maximum 8 hour days, or maximum 40 hours per week, or getting vacation days.
It is all prose. The sweatshop conditions and disparities in quality of life at work between developed and developing countries have been known for 30+ years. The only thing causing improvements for the laborers in developing countries is increased demand for their labor, not some unverifiable PR response by Nike.
They are still manufacturing in those poorer countries. But I believe they do take some effort now to inspect and vet places where their shoes are made and make sure that children aren't working there.
From what I've seen, bad PR forces a company to make some bullshit changes that rarely, if ever, address the actual issue.
"Due to the allegations of sexual misconduct, we have forced everyone in the company to go through mandatory training"
"Sorry for polluting the river, we've donated a fraction of our annual profits to a non-profit and we'll do a half-assed job of cleaning up the mess even though the damage has already been done"
"In response to the recent report of terrible worker conditions, we are making changes at these locations to offer mental health services and an additional day off each year, we will continue to evaluate the needs of the employees and make changes where necessary"
People get outraged, they see an apology and some half-assed attempt to put the issue to rest and then people forget about it.
"Due to the allegations of sexual misconduct, we have forced everyone in the company to go through mandatory training"
"Sorry for polluting the river, we've donated a fraction of our annual profits to a non-profit and we'll do a half-assed job of cleaning up the mess even though the damage has already been done"
"In response to the recent report of terrible worker conditions, we are making changes at these locations to offer mental health services and an additional day off each year, we will continue to evaluate the needs of the employees and make changes where necessary"
People get outraged, they see an apology and some half-assed attempt to put the issue to rest and then people forget about it.
"The report would be a lot more useful if there were some context for this data. How many items do comparable places like Wal Mart warehouses destroy each week? What's the reason for these items being marked for destruction? What percentage of the products are these; how many items go through the warehouse per week that are not destroyed?"
If you read the article you might have caught some context:
"Many vendors choose to house their products in Amazon’s vast warehouses. But the longer the goods remain unsold, the more a company is charged to store them. It is eventually cheaper to dispose of the goods, especially stock from overseas, than to continue storing the stock."
and
""Overall, 50 percent of all items are unopened and still in their shrink wrap. The other half are returns and in good condition. Staff have just become numb to what they are being asked to do.”"
If you read the article you might have caught some context:
"Many vendors choose to house their products in Amazon’s vast warehouses. But the longer the goods remain unsold, the more a company is charged to store them. It is eventually cheaper to dispose of the goods, especially stock from overseas, than to continue storing the stock."
and
""Overall, 50 percent of all items are unopened and still in their shrink wrap. The other half are returns and in good condition. Staff have just become numb to what they are being asked to do.”"
> The report would be a lot more useful if there were some context for this data.
I disagree with this, or at least the implication that there should have been more information gathered before publication.
If the data is surprising against a common-sense set of expectations, it's Amazon's burden to provide a context for interpretation where the surprising information makes sense, not the report.
Assuming the report's facts are in order, reporting accurate facts and leaving "contextualization" to someone else is good journalism, especially if the facts themselves are not widely known or actively hidden.
I disagree with this, or at least the implication that there should have been more information gathered before publication.
If the data is surprising against a common-sense set of expectations, it's Amazon's burden to provide a context for interpretation where the surprising information makes sense, not the report.
Assuming the report's facts are in order, reporting accurate facts and leaving "contextualization" to someone else is good journalism, especially if the facts themselves are not widely known or actively hidden.
> reporting accurate facts and leaving "contextualization" to someone else is good journalism
How is that good journalism? If you're writing a piece about something that you feel people should be outraged about, you need to provide context. Otherwise, any number will seem absurd when talking about operations at an industrial scale. People have zero grasp of how much garbage and waste is created. Providing that context is key to the story.
How is that good journalism? If you're writing a piece about something that you feel people should be outraged about, you need to provide context. Otherwise, any number will seem absurd when talking about operations at an industrial scale. People have zero grasp of how much garbage and waste is created. Providing that context is key to the story.
It would be useful but it would probably require Amazon’s cooperation. I agree that it doesn’t mean the reporter did anything wrong to run the story with the info they could gather. Maybe someone from Amazon will explain in response to this story?
But there is a mystery at the heart of this story. Amazon’s decisions seem hard to explain. We should let it remain a mystery until we learn more, without either assuming they’re evil villains or speculating that there must be a logical explanation.
(And it might have been good for the story itself to say this.)
But there is a mystery at the heart of this story. Amazon’s decisions seem hard to explain. We should let it remain a mystery until we learn more, without either assuming they’re evil villains or speculating that there must be a logical explanation.
(And it might have been good for the story itself to say this.)
> Amazon’s decisions seem hard to explain. We should let it remain a mystery
This gets back to what I disagree with. If Amazon's decisions seem hard to explain, the decisions should be brought to the public's attention and Amazon should explain them. There is no reason for it to remain a mystery. And they'll never explain it unless there is a price to be paid for not explaining, e.g. being perceived as wasteful.
This gets back to what I disagree with. If Amazon's decisions seem hard to explain, the decisions should be brought to the public's attention and Amazon should explain them. There is no reason for it to remain a mystery. And they'll never explain it unless there is a price to be paid for not explaining, e.g. being perceived as wasteful.
Acknowledging a mystery doesn’t mean you don’t try to solve it. But you are making an assumption of political power we don’t have, as a small number of people commenting on Hacker News.
We can hope this story blows up enough that someone else, perhaps at Amazon, reveals some interesting information. But we’re not in control of whether that happens.
We can hope this story blows up enough that someone else, perhaps at Amazon, reveals some interesting information. But we’re not in control of whether that happens.
> The report would be a lot more useful if there were some context for this data. How many items do comparable places like Wal Mart warehouses destroy each week?
Enormous amounts of all, and everything. I worked for most of my life in the cheaper side of electronics industry.
Brands themselves often destroy huge amount of unsold stock.
Apple famously quietly buys their iStuff from industrial refurbishers for destruction, to reduce the number of second hand iphones going around, and intentionally made engineering choices to make refurbishing very hard before.
"Luxury" brands often mandate their retailer to always destroy unsold stock, and set goals like "no more discount for you if you let stock to hang on the shelves longer than 3 months"
Enormous amounts of all, and everything. I worked for most of my life in the cheaper side of electronics industry.
Brands themselves often destroy huge amount of unsold stock.
Apple famously quietly buys their iStuff from industrial refurbishers for destruction, to reduce the number of second hand iphones going around, and intentionally made engineering choices to make refurbishing very hard before.
"Luxury" brands often mandate their retailer to always destroy unsold stock, and set goals like "no more discount for you if you let stock to hang on the shelves longer than 3 months"
> Economics are immune to guilt, you have to find another way to penalize the behaviors you dislike or incentivize the behaviors you want.
Aren't articles like this part of that "other way"? The start of the long path to regulation.
Aren't articles like this part of that "other way"? The start of the long path to regulation.
How would you regulate this?
The entity that throws these things away is called something like "Amazon Warehouse 123", and its business is to accept goods that belong to others in bulk, keep them for a while, and finally either ship them singly to regular buyers, in bulk to the owner or someone else, or throw the away. The discarded goods are ones for which the owner either has told Amazon Warehouse 1234 to discard, or the owner has stopped paying or otherwise relieved the warehouse of its obligation to… warehouse those goods.
Would you regulate the owner (which is often another Amazon subsidiary, but may also be someone else)? The warehouse? And what would you make them do?
The entity that throws these things away is called something like "Amazon Warehouse 123", and its business is to accept goods that belong to others in bulk, keep them for a while, and finally either ship them singly to regular buyers, in bulk to the owner or someone else, or throw the away. The discarded goods are ones for which the owner either has told Amazon Warehouse 1234 to discard, or the owner has stopped paying or otherwise relieved the warehouse of its obligation to… warehouse those goods.
Would you regulate the owner (which is often another Amazon subsidiary, but may also be someone else)? The warehouse? And what would you make them do?
Yes.
There may be a portion of these items that is excess or obsolete and cannot be otherwise disposed of.
There are accounting rules (which are both reasonable and justified) which force companies to write down this kind of inventory (i.e. it hits the P&L). Additionally, there are real costs associated with keeping these items in the warehouse which justify their disposal.
I once worked on an E&O project at a large public company, and finding reasonable ways to dispose of this type of inventory was very difficult. Most ended up in the trash.
In any event, the reporting on this subject is, once again, pretty inadequate and reads as borderline advocacy in the media's opposition to all things Amazon.
There may be a portion of these items that is excess or obsolete and cannot be otherwise disposed of.
There are accounting rules (which are both reasonable and justified) which force companies to write down this kind of inventory (i.e. it hits the P&L). Additionally, there are real costs associated with keeping these items in the warehouse which justify their disposal.
I once worked on an E&O project at a large public company, and finding reasonable ways to dispose of this type of inventory was very difficult. Most ended up in the trash.
In any event, the reporting on this subject is, once again, pretty inadequate and reads as borderline advocacy in the media's opposition to all things Amazon.
Garments are sold at astronomical markups in the West.
So they are considered perishable almost like food if not sold in season.
The new wave of brands embracing this make near no money on liquidation sales, so they don't even try.
So they are considered perishable almost like food if not sold in season.
The new wave of brands embracing this make near no money on liquidation sales, so they don't even try.
Shh! You're destroying the narration! Who would otherwise find it shocking? /s
Media outlets suck at providing context to numbers. It's ironic they always measure every goddamn thing with football fields and olympic swimming pools, but can't be bothered with percentages.
Media outlets suck at providing context to numbers. It's ironic they always measure every goddamn thing with football fields and olympic swimming pools, but can't be bothered with percentages.
The data was gathered by an undercover reporter who presumably had limited access to systems and reported on what they could. Amazon were free to provide the context, but chose not to. They are also virtually alone in the scale of their business, so context stops really having any meaning: even if they actually destroy ten times less (as a percentage of items sold) than other smaller retailers, a single Amazon warehouse in a single country destroying ~20,000 items a day is still noteworthy.
joosters(1)
No Amazon definitely destroys most returns. I was informed that anything you can take to a Kohl’s is destroyed after return. That’s why sometimes it’s not available as an option.
That's not true -- you were informed wrong, sorry.
Tons of items on Amazon list "Amazon Warehouse" as a cheaper buying option, which are literally the returned items they're reselling, with a listed condition determined from inspection. This includes items that were returned at Kohl's.
Amazon destroys some returns, but that happens after the inspection process, if they determine the specific item was damaged enough that it's not profitable to resell.
Tons of items on Amazon list "Amazon Warehouse" as a cheaper buying option, which are literally the returned items they're reselling, with a listed condition determined from inspection. This includes items that were returned at Kohl's.
Amazon destroys some returns, but that happens after the inspection process, if they determine the specific item was damaged enough that it's not profitable to resell.
Yup... it's just that inspecting the item also has a cost, which may lead to the item not being profitable to resell anymore, in which case it is destroyed without inspection. Or it's the individual employees who choose to play it safe and prefer to destroy an item rather than risk customer complaints if it get resold in less-than-mint condition.
Inspection is quite cheap. In cases where it's not worth returning+inspecting, Amazon generally tells you to just keep the item as well as the refund. That's generally the case with items under $10. If you abuse this, your account will ultimately be banned. If Amazon's bothering to accept the return in the first place, it's because it's worth inspecting.
Also, individual employees don't get to "play it safe" in either direction. There are expected rates for grading returned items. An employee will be penalized or lose their job for wrongly marking resellable items as non-resellable (destroy), just as much as the opposite.
Also, individual employees don't get to "play it safe" in either direction. There are expected rates for grading returned items. An employee will be penalized or lose their job for wrongly marking resellable items as non-resellable (destroy), just as much as the opposite.
There are vast numbers of returns from Amazon and all sorts of other companies that are not sold by them again, (whether as new or via their “Amazon Warehouses” discounted price) nor destroyed. These items are sold in bulk by the pallet and semi-load to other companies who can do then triage the products and decide what to do with them. Sometimes they end up back on Amazon, for sale by a third party. One local company auctions items online on their own site for pickup only. Others go onto eBay, etc.
>No Amazon definitely destroys most returns. I was informed that anything you can take to a Kohl’s is destroyed after return.
I don't think the existence of a Kohl's dropoff option means Amazon destroys 51%+ of their returns. Examples of people buying pallets of Amazon returns that are not destroyed: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amazon+returns
Like many retailers, Amazon outsources many reverse logistics[1] operations. Some returned product is sold off. Some is destroyed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_logistics
I don't think the existence of a Kohl's dropoff option means Amazon destroys 51%+ of their returns. Examples of people buying pallets of Amazon returns that are not destroyed: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amazon+returns
Like many retailers, Amazon outsources many reverse logistics[1] operations. Some returned product is sold off. Some is destroyed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_logistics
For 5 years now I've actually been receiving Amazon returns at my office for some reason, and only for Raspberry Pi sound card components. I've tried contacting Amazon every way, including emailing the personal address of Jeff's (which led me to priority support), but they still keep shipping me these returns.
Either the universe or Amazon wants you to have a side hustle in Raspberry Pis.
I fail to see the problem here.
I forgot to mention they're all labeled "defective"*
I’m pretty sure I just saved a previously returned item from this fate. I bought something just yesterday from Amazon labeled as “new, but with a damaged box”. The item was heavily discounted, I think around 40% off. I could care less what the box looks like or if the individual parts aren’t wrapped perfectly if the item is in good working condition.
>I could care less
Why can so many otherwise seemingly intelligent Americans not grasp this simple grammatical concept?
Considering that you very clearly understood the intent from context, it seems rather petty to point this out in an otherwise completely unrelated discussion.
The fact I "understood the intent" doesn't make it grate any less, whenever I set this phrase misused time after time by Americans. "I could care less" is literally the opposite of the sentiment you are trying to express.
> Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous, both meaning "not concerned or interested at all." "Couldn't care less" is the older and more obvious phrase grammatically, but it has been confused for so long that both are now defined.
Thanks for your feedback. However, I’m going to stick with Webster on this one. Let’s also not forget that English has always been a hodgepodge of language mashups and slang.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-...
Thanks for your feedback. However, I’m going to stick with Webster on this one. Let’s also not forget that English has always been a hodgepodge of language mashups and slang.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-...
First of all, "130K" is a meaningless number except as a percentage of items sold/returned. Curiously, the article neglects to mention this. Plus, you need to compare that percentage with other retailers.
Second, this happens with any business.
For new products, it's stuff Amazon has determined simply isn't selling and is unprofitable to continue storing in the limited warehouse space. Better to chuck it and make space for products that are actually selling.
While for returns, they're going to be items that are similarly unprofitable to sell. "Amazon Warehouse" is the seller on Amazon that sells returned items -- and they resell a ton of the returns -- but there isn't always a price point that is both low enough that people are willing to buy the cheaper returned item, but still high enough that it's profitable for Amazon to continuing stocking it and ship it.
Now a lot of businesses (e.g. BestBuy I'm assuming) sell certain types of returned items, particularly electronics, in bulk to eBay resellers. That's where you can people selling things like a single model of webcam in "open box" condition for ~50% off retail, they've got 100 units for sale that "may have cosmetic scratches but 100% functional" and the photograph is "representative". Which is great. But since Amazon has its own internal "Amazon Warehouse" reseller, I'm not sure it ever does this.
Second, this happens with any business.
For new products, it's stuff Amazon has determined simply isn't selling and is unprofitable to continue storing in the limited warehouse space. Better to chuck it and make space for products that are actually selling.
While for returns, they're going to be items that are similarly unprofitable to sell. "Amazon Warehouse" is the seller on Amazon that sells returned items -- and they resell a ton of the returns -- but there isn't always a price point that is both low enough that people are willing to buy the cheaper returned item, but still high enough that it's profitable for Amazon to continuing stocking it and ship it.
Now a lot of businesses (e.g. BestBuy I'm assuming) sell certain types of returned items, particularly electronics, in bulk to eBay resellers. That's where you can people selling things like a single model of webcam in "open box" condition for ~50% off retail, they've got 100 units for sale that "may have cosmetic scratches but 100% functional" and the photograph is "representative". Which is great. But since Amazon has its own internal "Amazon Warehouse" reseller, I'm not sure it ever does this.
What's beyond me is why they can't find a minimal effort solution that still nets them a minimal profit or at least costs them less than disposal. I'm sure they're paying to dispose of this stuff.
Around the US, Goodwill has what it calls "outlet stores", where anything that didn't sell at Goodwill (a low bar to clear) gets sent and dumped into giant bins to be sold as-is by weight, as a last chance at redemption before the landfill. Despite the low quality of the goods, the stores are usually packed, and even Goodwill rejects have value. Before the pandemic my wife and I enjoyed the cheap entertainment of picking stuff up for a song and reselling it on eBay for fun.
I for one would gladly sift through bins of Amazon returns and buy them by weight. If you have "valuable" waste like this there's no need to ship it, people will come to you.
Around the US, Goodwill has what it calls "outlet stores", where anything that didn't sell at Goodwill (a low bar to clear) gets sent and dumped into giant bins to be sold as-is by weight, as a last chance at redemption before the landfill. Despite the low quality of the goods, the stores are usually packed, and even Goodwill rejects have value. Before the pandemic my wife and I enjoyed the cheap entertainment of picking stuff up for a song and reselling it on eBay for fun.
I for one would gladly sift through bins of Amazon returns and buy them by weight. If you have "valuable" waste like this there's no need to ship it, people will come to you.
[deleted]
> isn't always a price point that is both low enough that people are willing to buy the cheaper returned item, but still high enough that it's profitable for Amazon to continuing stocking
I don't think this is how the prices on Amazon Warehouse are set... I suspect Amazon or Amazons third party sellers consider most warehouse sales to be a lost sale of the 'new' item. That means it's better to destroy the item than sell it at a discount greater than the production cost of a new item.
Thats why you rarely see discounts >30% in amazon warehouse, despite the fact any price over a few dollars probably pays for the storage and shipping costs.
Remember destroying items costs money - in many countries there is a tax on landfill, which for many items can work out about the same cost as shipping it to someone at amazons scale.
I don't think this is how the prices on Amazon Warehouse are set... I suspect Amazon or Amazons third party sellers consider most warehouse sales to be a lost sale of the 'new' item. That means it's better to destroy the item than sell it at a discount greater than the production cost of a new item.
Thats why you rarely see discounts >30% in amazon warehouse, despite the fact any price over a few dollars probably pays for the storage and shipping costs.
Remember destroying items costs money - in many countries there is a tax on landfill, which for many items can work out about the same cost as shipping it to someone at amazons scale.
> Thats why you rarely see discounts >30% in amazon warehouse
I think it's more that, if an item is in genuinely resellable working condition, lots of people are willing to pay 70% for it, so there's no reason to go lower. Heck, stuff in excellent condition is usually around 90% the original price, because people will pay it.
The fact that Amazon permits third-party sellers to sell used items in the first place seems to be evidence that Amazon isn't worried about them cannibalizing sales of new items. And after all, Amazon knows buyers interested in used items might buy elsewhere anyways, so Amazon prefers to make that profit itself. That's why "Amazon Warehouse" exists in the first place.
On eBay, when you find items that are akin to "open box" but are only 40% or 30% of the original price, there's usually something seriously defective -- the screen doesn't work, it's missing a required accessory, etc. They're basically being sold for parts. That's just not the business Amazon's in.
I think it's more that, if an item is in genuinely resellable working condition, lots of people are willing to pay 70% for it, so there's no reason to go lower. Heck, stuff in excellent condition is usually around 90% the original price, because people will pay it.
The fact that Amazon permits third-party sellers to sell used items in the first place seems to be evidence that Amazon isn't worried about them cannibalizing sales of new items. And after all, Amazon knows buyers interested in used items might buy elsewhere anyways, so Amazon prefers to make that profit itself. That's why "Amazon Warehouse" exists in the first place.
On eBay, when you find items that are akin to "open box" but are only 40% or 30% of the original price, there's usually something seriously defective -- the screen doesn't work, it's missing a required accessory, etc. They're basically being sold for parts. That's just not the business Amazon's in.
> I think it's more that, if an item is in genuinely resellable working condition, lots of people are willing to pay 70% for it
That isn't the author's point. If it cost 20% of the price to produce and ship a product to the end user (AKA 400% markup, which isn't unreasonable for many items) then providing a discount >20% is less profitable than selling a new item at full price. Obviously it isn't an exact formula (you may capture sales that you would have otherwise lost) but the larger the discount the less likely it is to make sense, even if the item is "free" to sell because your profit off of the discounted "free to produce" item is less than the profit off of the new item, even after subtracting the costs.
That isn't the author's point. If it cost 20% of the price to produce and ship a product to the end user (AKA 400% markup, which isn't unreasonable for many items) then providing a discount >20% is less profitable than selling a new item at full price. Obviously it isn't an exact formula (you may capture sales that you would have otherwise lost) but the larger the discount the less likely it is to make sense, even if the item is "free" to sell because your profit off of the discounted "free to produce" item is less than the profit off of the new item, even after subtracting the costs.
See my second paragraph. I addressed precisely that.
It is indeed what you say -- "you may capture sales that you would have otherwise lost" -- and that Amazon prefers to capture those rather than having another site capture then. Remember, people who are highly price-conscious compare sites.
It is indeed what you say -- "you may capture sales that you would have otherwise lost" -- and that Amazon prefers to capture those rather than having another site capture then. Remember, people who are highly price-conscious compare sites.
> there isn't always a price point that is both low enough that people are willing to buy the cheaper returned item, but still high enough that it's profitable for Amazon
This doesn't seem to match what the article is listing:
> There's no rhyme or reason to what gets destroyed: Dyson fans, Hoovers, the occasional MacBook and iPad; the other day, 20,000 Covid (face) masks
Any MacBook or iPad will sell for more than the cost of shipping. Dyson fans will as well. There are other reasons it's not done.
This doesn't seem to match what the article is listing:
> There's no rhyme or reason to what gets destroyed: Dyson fans, Hoovers, the occasional MacBook and iPad; the other day, 20,000 Covid (face) masks
Any MacBook or iPad will sell for more than the cost of shipping. Dyson fans will as well. There are other reasons it's not done.
The article is cherry-picking for sensationalism. Those aren't representative, obviously. And the "there's no rhyme or reason" is the author's (entirely unsupported) opinion, not a fact.
Amazon is a for-profit business. It's not intentionally dumping MacBooks it can resell profitably.
Obviously neither of us knows in this particular circumstance, but one would assume they were damaged enough to not be resellable, that a mistake was made somewhere, or a third-party seller using FBA requested them disposed of for some reason (e.g. an ancient used model there was no more demand for).
Amazon is a for-profit business. It's not intentionally dumping MacBooks it can resell profitably.
Obviously neither of us knows in this particular circumstance, but one would assume they were damaged enough to not be resellable, that a mistake was made somewhere, or a third-party seller using FBA requested them disposed of for some reason (e.g. an ancient used model there was no more demand for).
It's not that's obvious to be honest. We already know that expensive brands will destroy their stock rather than lower prices / allow donations.
This happens with electronics (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2019/06/04/france-ba...), clothes (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5bad1ef2e4b09d41eb9f7bb0), food (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-dest...), etc.
This happens with electronics (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2019/06/04/france-ba...), clothes (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5bad1ef2e4b09d41eb9f7bb0), food (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-dest...), etc.
Amazon isn't a luxury brand.
And if there are any luxury brands Amazon sells (are there even?) where the brands demanded Amazon return returned items to the brand for destruction... well then it's the brand that's responsible, not Amazon.
Again, Amazon's just out there to make money. It's not going to destroy swathes of merchandise it can easily otherwise make money off of. That kind of goes against the whole profit motive.
And if there are any luxury brands Amazon sells (are there even?) where the brands demanded Amazon return returned items to the brand for destruction... well then it's the brand that's responsible, not Amazon.
Again, Amazon's just out there to make money. It's not going to destroy swathes of merchandise it can easily otherwise make money off of. That kind of goes against the whole profit motive.
> First of all, "130K" is a meaningless number except as a percentage of items sold/returned.
No, it's not. 130k of _anything_ is a stupidly high amount. It may be 0.1% of items sold, it's still 130 000 perfectly good items destroyed. In many countries, supermarkets are obligated by law to give away unsold food as long as it is not perished. The exact same thing should happen to Amazon.
No, it's not. 130k of _anything_ is a stupidly high amount. It may be 0.1% of items sold, it's still 130 000 perfectly good items destroyed. In many countries, supermarkets are obligated by law to give away unsold food as long as it is not perished. The exact same thing should happen to Amazon.
[deleted]
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted: 130k is a lot, specially when you consider this is just one warehouse in the UK. Extrapolate this number (including other retailers) and we might be talking about millions of products being destroyed daily on this planet just to increase profit margins for a few people.
The negative externalities from this must be tremendous.
The negative externalities from this must be tremendous.
This is not ideal, but par for the course in the CPG sector. You’d be shocked how much food your local grocery store throws out each week too.
Also the quality of the reporting is very poor and mostly seems intent at just making Amazon look bad. How much do others destroy? It’s a lot. There’s no ability for the reader to understand if this is bad (relatively speaking) or not.
Also the quality of the reporting is very poor and mostly seems intent at just making Amazon look bad. How much do others destroy? It’s a lot. There’s no ability for the reader to understand if this is bad (relatively speaking) or not.
Newpapers / books etc used to get pulped regularly. Seriously - back when your local newsdealer sold papers the way it worked is you'd tear off the front page of paper and pulp the rest. You'd be credited unsold copies based on the torn off front page. This was national - and daily.
Books used to have print runs, after 2 years or even less, anything excess got pulped (millions of items).
If you work in a western grocery store - the expiration date thing used to be ridiculous (perfectly good food in my view going out door). They wouldn't let workers take it home either because of potential conflicts. Inventory management has improved significantly here though I think (still an issue of course).
Amazon charges enough to cover the costs of the returned products. I've even been asked to throw away items myself (I returned something, they credit me the funds and asked I dispose of the item myself).
Books used to have print runs, after 2 years or even less, anything excess got pulped (millions of items).
If you work in a western grocery store - the expiration date thing used to be ridiculous (perfectly good food in my view going out door). They wouldn't let workers take it home either because of potential conflicts. Inventory management has improved significantly here though I think (still an issue of course).
Amazon charges enough to cover the costs of the returned products. I've even been asked to throw away items myself (I returned something, they credit me the funds and asked I dispose of the item myself).
Grocery stores in the UK have shrinkage rates of 2% or so.
That includes theft, damaged items, and expired/unsellable food.
2% really doesn't sound bad, and I would guess is substantially lower than Amazon sees - especially considering estimates I could find suggest that the vast majority of that 2% is theft.
That includes theft, damaged items, and expired/unsellable food.
2% really doesn't sound bad, and I would guess is substantially lower than Amazon sees - especially considering estimates I could find suggest that the vast majority of that 2% is theft.
I don't think this is a good argument that just because x industry does this that it's ok another y industry does it to justify it.
It's important to have the article properly framed, though. If you didn't organize and get rid of (sell or toss) unused things at your place, you're eventually going to end up under piles of garbage nobody wants unless you somehow anticipated all your own needs perfectly.
At some point you buy something you thought you'd need that you didn't. The same goes with businesses trying to sell. The difference from cleaning up your software project is that getting rid of physical product is not just deleting a few lines of code. It has to go somewhere.
At some point you buy something you thought you'd need that you didn't. The same goes with businesses trying to sell. The difference from cleaning up your software project is that getting rid of physical product is not just deleting a few lines of code. It has to go somewhere.
There exists a second hand market online, Amazon just don't want to feed into it.
Probably the scarcity by waste leads to more profits than trying to recycle, as the environmental costs of waste aren't paid by Amazon.
Probably the scarcity by waste leads to more profits than trying to recycle, as the environmental costs of waste aren't paid by Amazon.
I don't think he is making that argument -- which is why he prefaced it with "This is not ideal" -- just setting context,
Is it a different industry? Any customer-focused retail that readily accepts returns will inevitably have returned items that are difficult to resell.
And in that situation the retailer is just throwing away the product for the consumer who returned it; otherwise the consumer would probably have just thrown it away.
What if the article is written as follows:
"Before Amazon came along, a store of its kind would routinely dispose of 1 million perfectly good products each year. Now thanks to a series of complicated quantum neural artificial inteligence robots, matching an army of bargain hunters with stock destined for landfill an 87% reduction in waste has been achieved this year alone. Thanks Jeff for saving the world, again!"
Amazon warehouses are shelters for things. Either someone pays the fee and adopts the thing, or it goes to the farm upstate.
There are lots of thing mills breeding special things that wind up in the shelter. It's a cold and cruel business, but that's humans trying to make a buck for you.
If things don't get adopted, they don't always get killed though. Sometimes they get adopted for pennies on the dollar, and move elsewhere in the system.
There are lots of thing mills breeding special things that wind up in the shelter. It's a cold and cruel business, but that's humans trying to make a buck for you.
If things don't get adopted, they don't always get killed though. Sometimes they get adopted for pennies on the dollar, and move elsewhere in the system.
>Either someone pays the fee and adopts the thing, or it goes to the farm upstate.
Yeah, and everyone else (but not Amazon!) will pay the "upstate farm" fee, aka environmental damage, for eternity.
Aren't externalities great?
Yeah, and everyone else (but not Amazon!) will pay the "upstate farm" fee, aka environmental damage, for eternity.
Aren't externalities great?
This has been known for years, at least in Europe. German article from 2018: https://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/handel/das-ist-ein-riesengro...
Edit: people replying seem to think that I'm saying that:
1. only Amazon does this; 2. it can be prevented but Amazon just chooses not to.
I didn't say any of those things.
Edit: people replying seem to think that I'm saying that:
1. only Amazon does this; 2. it can be prevented but Amazon just chooses not to.
I didn't say any of those things.
ALL retailers destroy unsellable inventory. Items can be defective, counterfeit, damaged, under legal injunction like a trade dispute, incorrectly licensed, or just plain unwanted. If you trade in any item anywhere eventually you're going to end up with something in stock you can't sell.
I mean, what do we want to happen? These things to sit idle forever in a warehouse taking up space?
I mean, what do we want to happen? These things to sit idle forever in a warehouse taking up space?
Give them away for free. we should incentivize under-production, not over-production. charge more for waste disposal
You can't give counterfeits away, you'll be sued. You can't give unlicensed or embargoed products away, you'll be fined. Give away damaged or defective goods and you'll see even worse PR than this story.
You can only give away the stuff you "could" sell but can't find a buyer for, which (1) pretty much means no one wants it and (2) will poison your relationship with the people who sell you the stuff you *can* resell!
You can only give away the stuff you "could" sell but can't find a buyer for, which (1) pretty much means no one wants it and (2) will poison your relationship with the people who sell you the stuff you *can* resell!
Yes, that's why we need to removing the externality of destroying goods (and all of us enjoying the environmental damage) by making it cost more to destroy something than to give it away (which may include refurbishment, repackaging, etc).
What, you tried selling a made-for-landfill thing that works half the time? Should've done your research. Choose your loss.
What, you tried selling a made-for-landfill thing that works half the time? Should've done your research. Choose your loss.
No producer can predict with absolute accuracy the number of items they are going to sell. If you produce too many items that you don't end up selling, you overspend on production costs. If you produce too few, you cut your revenue. Optimizing the balance between these two extremes is part of running a successful business.
Charging more for waste disposal results in illegal dumping.
>Give them away for free. we should incentivize under-production, not over-production
...and that's how you end up with shortages.
...and that's how you end up with shortages.
I worked in an electronics store in the '80s. Once a month we would have "TV day", where all the warehouse guys would smash old TVs and other gadgets. Great way to relieve stress...
> Germany's largest online retailer also offers external providers who use the “Dispatch by Amazon” logistics service the opportunity to dispose of unsold inventory.
This implies those providers can dispose of the unsold inventory how they see fit, possibly by selling it wholesale or for parts, etc. This doesn't seem like a huge crime.
This implies those providers can dispose of the unsold inventory how they see fit, possibly by selling it wholesale or for parts, etc. This doesn't seem like a huge crime.
A significant amount of items don't get destroyed however; many are sold on the liquidation market.
https://www.liquidation.com/c/sourcedfromamazonliquidations
https://www.liquidation.com/c/sourcedfromamazonliquidations
I've watched a couple of giant-box openings on youtube where people buy unsold/returned stuff (and feeling my soul draining through my eyeballs) and decided that the landfill is just exactly where most of this stuff needs to go.
Perhaps that can be the model of the New Economy. All of the 'knowledge workers' can design/manage surveillance and all of manufacturing can provide piles of things that go immediately to the dump.
Perhaps that can be the model of the New Economy. All of the 'knowledge workers' can design/manage surveillance and all of manufacturing can provide piles of things that go immediately to the dump.
Link?
for returns unboxing? first one on a youtube search.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fDMcWYg2wU
surveillance economy? www.google.com
surveillance economy? www.google.com
In the UK a lot of the Amazon returns end up on John Pye auctions, which haven't been running at the same volume during the pandemic.
I wonder if Amazon are having to dispose of more items this way because their usual liquidation disposal chain is massively backlogged? If people like John Pye have all their warehouses already full, then there's nowhere for Amazon to send the stuff they'd normally dispose of that way, so it ends up at the local dump.
(Which, as an aside, is my local dump, as I live ~5 minutes drive from this specific Amazon warehouse, and the pictures in the piece match the local landfill site.)
I wonder if Amazon are having to dispose of more items this way because their usual liquidation disposal chain is massively backlogged? If people like John Pye have all their warehouses already full, then there's nowhere for Amazon to send the stuff they'd normally dispose of that way, so it ends up at the local dump.
(Which, as an aside, is my local dump, as I live ~5 minutes drive from this specific Amazon warehouse, and the pictures in the piece match the local landfill site.)
Why? The article seemed to focus more on the "what" and "how".
This article doesn't but the original itv article mentions it:
> Why are hundreds of thousands of products being destroyed in this way? The answer is Amazon’s hugely successful business model. Many vendors choose to house their products in Amazon’s vast warehouses. But the longer the goods remain unsold, the more a company is charged to store them. It is eventually cheaper to dispose of the goods, especially stock from overseas, than to continue storing the stock
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21/amazon-destroying-millio...
> Why are hundreds of thousands of products being destroyed in this way? The answer is Amazon’s hugely successful business model. Many vendors choose to house their products in Amazon’s vast warehouses. But the longer the goods remain unsold, the more a company is charged to store them. It is eventually cheaper to dispose of the goods, especially stock from overseas, than to continue storing the stock
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21/amazon-destroying-millio...
My guess would be about inventory space, shipping costs, returns, and stranded inventory.
Amazon has been fiddling with sellers inventory space on Amazon fulfillment centers for some years, and they keep reducing it, and penalizing sellers who don't sell enough (either by increasing their inventory fees, or reducing their storage volume).
For some sellers destroying inventory is probably the best option. Some product returns can't be sold, so you pay to have them destroyed.
So it's not just Amazon decision (I mean, if you leave stranded inventory and you don't move it, Amazon will warn you, and if you don't do anything then they'll destroy it).
Amazon has been fiddling with sellers inventory space on Amazon fulfillment centers for some years, and they keep reducing it, and penalizing sellers who don't sell enough (either by increasing their inventory fees, or reducing their storage volume).
For some sellers destroying inventory is probably the best option. Some product returns can't be sold, so you pay to have them destroyed.
So it's not just Amazon decision (I mean, if you leave stranded inventory and you don't move it, Amazon will warn you, and if you don't do anything then they'll destroy it).
What's stopping them from doing a lot auction (a la storage wars). Is it brand damage to whatever products are in it?
I mean, the naive idealist in me just want stuff that has already been produced to at least get used for a bit, even if it ends up being sold on ebay or craigslist.
I mean, the naive idealist in me just want stuff that has already been produced to at least get used for a bit, even if it ends up being sold on ebay or craigslist.
Amazon does this - in the UK there's companies like John Pye who do 'remaindered goods auctions'. There's a John Pye warehouse less than half an hour from this specific Amazon warehouse.
But they've not been able to do their normal auctions during the pandemic, and I expect remainder auction places have full warehouses and staffing issues. So if they're not able to take the excess stock from Amazon, Amazon's next easiest option is to dump it in the landfill.
(Source: I've bought a lot of stuff from that John Pye warehouse, including Amazon returns, and live locally to the Amazon warehouse in question.)
But they've not been able to do their normal auctions during the pandemic, and I expect remainder auction places have full warehouses and staffing issues. So if they're not able to take the excess stock from Amazon, Amazon's next easiest option is to dump it in the landfill.
(Source: I've bought a lot of stuff from that John Pye warehouse, including Amazon returns, and live locally to the Amazon warehouse in question.)
Amazon does sell/auction pallets of products, but it's probably their own inventory (not sure).
So most likely they won't do it for legal/logistical reasons.
Remember that Amazon doesn't move a finger if you don't pay them.
I don't see people paying amazon to have their products auctioned and amazon profiting from it. Neither I see how Amazon would split the bid between sellers. Who would be liable for that item?
You're not naive, you have products being mande and shipped from China to be destroyed in Amazon Fulfillment Centers. It's absurd.
But I guess it's the price of globalization.
So most likely they won't do it for legal/logistical reasons.
Remember that Amazon doesn't move a finger if you don't pay them.
I don't see people paying amazon to have their products auctioned and amazon profiting from it. Neither I see how Amazon would split the bid between sellers. Who would be liable for that item?
You're not naive, you have products being mande and shipped from China to be destroyed in Amazon Fulfillment Centers. It's absurd.
But I guess it's the price of globalization.
I'm not clear on the terms of the contract. If your inventory is stranded, then does Amazon have the right to donate it or resell it themselves? It seems plausible they wouldn't have that. If it's a product they don't list, would Amazon even want to assume the extra liability for selling it directly?
A lot of products are returned in used state, or have very slight use marks like scratches, tiny dents, protective foil that's been removed, etc. These items therefore can't be resold as new. Finding out exactly which items are and are not good enough is expensive, and therefore the items are just discarded.
>About half of the items marked for destruction were still in their shrink-wrap, while the other half were returned items in good condition, they said.
They're destroying new products too!
They're destroying new products too!
'In good condition' and appearing to still be in original shrink-wrap isn't good enough to sell as new to a consumer though.
You can try to offload it via a box of junk auction, and they do do that, but I'm not sure how tractable it is at scale.
You can try to offload it via a box of junk auction, and they do do that, but I'm not sure how tractable it is at scale.
Counterfeit, recalled, hazardous, unlicensed, etc items can all be "new". And need to be destroyed.
The article is heavy on implication and light on facts.
They are destroying things for a reason, which isn't given. It could be a bad reason of course, but probably isn't.
The article is heavy on implication and light on facts.
They are destroying things for a reason, which isn't given. It could be a bad reason of course, but probably isn't.
Amazon Warehouse attempts to get some value out of things that are easy enough or worth it to do a cursory inspection - but if you go to return some small value items Amazon tells you to just keep it/throw it away.
The amount of retail "wastage" that occurs would be surprising to many - one you may have seen is the "book without cover has been reported destroyed" you sometimes see - it's not worth it for publishers to have booksellers ship back unsold inventory.
The amount of retail "wastage" that occurs would be surprising to many - one you may have seen is the "book without cover has been reported destroyed" you sometimes see - it's not worth it for publishers to have booksellers ship back unsold inventory.
It's curious to me that used items in amazon Warehouse sell for very high prices...
For example, I randomly picked a 24V power supply:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/-/dp/B07P4N3H1F/
Cost: GBP 16.99, non-new + GBP 4.99 shipping.
Yet From ebay an equivilent item, inc shipping, is [1] costing GBP 4.43 (brand new). From Aliexpress the item costs GBP 4.87. On Google, there are 10+ companies all offering this device for similar prices.
There is some kind of market failure going on that is allowing Amazon to be substantially higher priced for the same items even when the item is in non-new condition.
[1]: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/191620564194
For example, I randomly picked a 24V power supply:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/-/dp/B07P4N3H1F/
Cost: GBP 16.99, non-new + GBP 4.99 shipping.
Yet From ebay an equivilent item, inc shipping, is [1] costing GBP 4.43 (brand new). From Aliexpress the item costs GBP 4.87. On Google, there are 10+ companies all offering this device for similar prices.
There is some kind of market failure going on that is allowing Amazon to be substantially higher priced for the same items even when the item is in non-new condition.
[1]: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/191620564194
The price at Amazon Warehouse is entirely based on some Amazon formula relative to the current "new" price at Amazon - which can result in weird price effects such as the one you noted.
It can also result in very good prices when the "new" item drops with a coupon or similar.
It can also result in very good prices when the "new" item drops with a coupon or similar.
That's a 24 V AC power supply with a 8 meter cable, which requires a lot more copper and iron than a little switch-mode DC plugpack with as little cable as they can get away with. They're very different products.
> but if you go to return some small value items Amazon tells you to just keep it/throw it away.
Anecdotally, this isn't always true. I have only returned a handful of things over the years, but among them was a microphone windscreen that didn't really fit. It cost maybe €6 or so and they did have me send it back.
Anecdotally, this isn't always true. I have only returned a handful of things over the years, but among them was a microphone windscreen that didn't really fit. It cost maybe €6 or so and they did have me send it back.
I think in the past it was more likely they would have you keep an item. It seems to me (also anecdotally) now they don't want to take back just food items.
I think there's a correspondence between the COVID-19 reduction of their real-human chat line and having us return everything except food now.
I think there's a correspondence between the COVID-19 reduction of their real-human chat line and having us return everything except food now.
I don't know what triggers the "keep it" option but I suspect there's a formula involving shipping price, whether it is a shipped/sold by Amazon or a marketplace vendor, account standing, etc.
But then why waste resources on shipping back the items if they are going to be destroyed? Is it because if customers find out this is happening there'd be a spike in returns?
>Finding out exactly which items are and are not good enough is expensive, and therefore the items are just discarded.
Correction. It's expensive in comparison to the cost of discarding (including disposal/environmental damage fees).
Which is something we can actually change.
Correction. It's expensive in comparison to the cost of discarding (including disposal/environmental damage fees).
Which is something we can actually change.
It's due to the way amazon prices 'returns'.
If a customer returns an item they don't like the color of, Amazon will see the package has been opened, and mark it unsellable.
If the manufacturer wants to get the item back to sellable condition (for example, by refurbishing it, and selling it as such), they have to pay for return shipping from the customer (~$6) and a "cross border removal order", costing ~$10 per item. Then they get the item back, and have to have staff to check and refurbish it, and then need to resell it (paying all of Amazons fees again, up to 40% of the retail price)
For most items, it's cheaper just to trash the item and manufacture a new one.
If a customer returns an item they don't like the color of, Amazon will see the package has been opened, and mark it unsellable.
If the manufacturer wants to get the item back to sellable condition (for example, by refurbishing it, and selling it as such), they have to pay for return shipping from the customer (~$6) and a "cross border removal order", costing ~$10 per item. Then they get the item back, and have to have staff to check and refurbish it, and then need to resell it (paying all of Amazons fees again, up to 40% of the retail price)
For most items, it's cheaper just to trash the item and manufacture a new one.
Tons of 3rd party sellers use the Fulfilled by Amazon program where they have Amazon store and handle all logistics on their items.
It's not cheap, and iirc cost increases over time. Amazon doesn't want their warehouses full of shit that doesn't move.
If the 3rd party stops paying and doesn't want to pay to have it shipped back to their own facility, then they need to get rid of it.
It's not cheap, and iirc cost increases over time. Amazon doesn't want their warehouses full of shit that doesn't move.
If the 3rd party stops paying and doesn't want to pay to have it shipped back to their own facility, then they need to get rid of it.
Amazon also charges for the disposal itself[1]. Although they're likely not going to receive payment from delinquent accounts, it's something sellers in good standing have to account for.
Amazon charges a monthly storage fee[2]. If your inventory hasn't moved within a year, you'll start getting charged a supplemental long-term storage fee[3] on top of that.
If you want Amazon to ship the inventory back to you, there's a removal fee[4] for that. Or Amazon can get rid of it for you, but there's a disposal fee[1] for that. And the fees for both options are actually the same, the deciding factor is really just whether you want to keep control over it (and have the capacity to receive/store it somewhere) or you want to pay Amazon to take it off your hands entirely (at which point they can do what they want with it).
... thinking about it, I wonder if this is how counterfeits end up working their way into the official "Sold by Amazon" supply chain.
[1] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5FKTA8LXU...
[2] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/help.html?...
[3] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/help.html?...
Amazon charges a monthly storage fee[2]. If your inventory hasn't moved within a year, you'll start getting charged a supplemental long-term storage fee[3] on top of that.
If you want Amazon to ship the inventory back to you, there's a removal fee[4] for that. Or Amazon can get rid of it for you, but there's a disposal fee[1] for that. And the fees for both options are actually the same, the deciding factor is really just whether you want to keep control over it (and have the capacity to receive/store it somewhere) or you want to pay Amazon to take it off your hands entirely (at which point they can do what they want with it).
... thinking about it, I wonder if this is how counterfeits end up working their way into the official "Sold by Amazon" supply chain.
[1] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5FKTA8LXU...
[2] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/help.html?...
[3] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/help.html?...
[deleted]
Trashing returns of perfectly good products is unfortunately nothing new. I had a friend who worked at a transfer station in the early 2000s that got sent returns from PetSmart. The return reason was written on a label. Some stuff was defective of course, but others, it was some trivial reason like the customer didn't like the color. The item was in otherwise perfect condition and going to the landfill. I name PetSmart only because my friend was on the lookout for pet stuff; it would be no surprise if other retailers had the same policy.
One issue is the liability risk. Especially food type products, retailers are really worried about putting something back on the shelf that has been out of their control.
What's the brand damage if returned petsmart food kills 20 animals because someone was tampering with it? For most folks it's not worth the risks.
What's the brand damage if returned petsmart food kills 20 animals because someone was tampering with it? For most folks it's not worth the risks.
I'm not talking food, but items like automatic watering bowls, nail clippers, pet carriers, still in package, some sealed in that plastic that is really hard to cut open.
Consumer goods returns generally follow a pattern.
Some items, especially for third parties, disposal is determined by the third party. This means if the item is not selling well and the third party (amazon has lots of these) doesn't want to or is not big enough to go through the liquidation approach, and doesn't want to pay storage fees and penalties for slow sales.
Other products are not selling well.
A retailer may go through a liquidator if the quality of returns is high (mostly new in box). You'll see people flipping this stuff on ebay all the time.
For premium brands there may be restrictions on resale to avoid devaluing the retail brand. Or they'll only sell in store for physical pickup (outlet style etc).
In the end calculation are made, cost to process, sort, return, restock, liquidiate etc. For items $25 or less it can quickly be not worth it to cycle the product. Especially if there ends up being scuffs and dings on the instore product etc (shoppers are rediculously picky sometimes).
That said, if this is hard to find items, they usually find a good market (returned AMD processors etc).
Some items, especially for third parties, disposal is determined by the third party. This means if the item is not selling well and the third party (amazon has lots of these) doesn't want to or is not big enough to go through the liquidation approach, and doesn't want to pay storage fees and penalties for slow sales.
Other products are not selling well.
A retailer may go through a liquidator if the quality of returns is high (mostly new in box). You'll see people flipping this stuff on ebay all the time.
For premium brands there may be restrictions on resale to avoid devaluing the retail brand. Or they'll only sell in store for physical pickup (outlet style etc).
In the end calculation are made, cost to process, sort, return, restock, liquidiate etc. For items $25 or less it can quickly be not worth it to cycle the product. Especially if there ends up being scuffs and dings on the instore product etc (shoppers are rediculously picky sometimes).
That said, if this is hard to find items, they usually find a good market (returned AMD processors etc).
What about infection? There many transmissible diseases amongst animal species.
Some items were new in box and sealed. It's the same situation as Amazon, except Amazon is at a vastly larger scale. The manufacturer isn't going to repair it and doesn't want it back.
How do you really verify that though? Many types of seal are pretty easy to fake, or at least replace with something that will LOOK factory to someone that doesn't see the same packaging repeatedly.
Hol'up, why would Petsmart fake seal items that are going to the dump?
I'm not sure if this is missed or brushed aside on purpose in the article. There is a crucial difference between destroying something and burning it to the ground vs removing something from circulation in a product chain and reusing any raw materials left by third party services.
This isn't much different than a product being rejected during manufacturing due to something like failed quality control, etc. If you're going to be outraged by this please apply that outrage consistently starting by studying how manufacturing works and then boycotting basically all factories that make anything.
This isn't much different than a product being rejected during manufacturing due to something like failed quality control, etc. If you're going to be outraged by this please apply that outrage consistently starting by studying how manufacturing works and then boycotting basically all factories that make anything.
I wonder if clothing returns often get destroyed. I know a lot of people will bulk order like 10 bathing suits with the intention of only keeping one or two.
I very rarely return stuff I have bought but don't end up liking (and I try to only buy stuff I know I want), and stories like this make it even more likely that I will instead resell them on local auction websites instead. Might get a little less money out of it but at least I can be more certain that the product is actually going to be used.
CBC Market place did a bit on that in Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1yqcagavfY
I used to sell physical products on Amazon. They told me once some of my products were damaged “in shipment” and unsellable. I had to pay to return them to me, or they could just trash them.
Presumably there is a reason these products are being destroyed, safety recalls etc., but the article doesn't seem to have any mention of that?
[deleted]
it's just cheaper for the manufacturer to make a new product than to check returns, due to the way amazons fees and policies work.
It's okay guys, I don't use plastic straws so I've saved the planet.
This is what people should really be angry about, not the 'peeing in bottles' working conditions.
This directly results in wasted labour, wasted resources, wasted money, and extra environmental damage. And all because amazon doesn't have any serious competition to force them not to waste those resources.
This directly results in wasted labour, wasted resources, wasted money, and extra environmental damage. And all because amazon doesn't have any serious competition to force them not to waste those resources.
[deleted]
Ok, I can understand that this is how capitalism and consumerism work, it's a lot cheaper just to trash the item and manufacture a new one instead of to check returns, but why don't they donate them to schools, communities, churches (or even better gift them to low paying amazon warehouse workers)??? Out of ~130k items per week they only donated ~30k items.
A lot of what gets returned is plastic garbage that doesn’t even do what it says it does
Is the motivation similar to shoe retailers that intentionally slash unsold stock apart with knives — they don't want to discount too much?
Another day, another "Amazon did a thing" story...
Saw this first on the last season of "Shameless".
I expect these are products returned with defects, that have been issued recalls, that were damaged during shipping, that expired, and all the other streams that aren't the 'happy path' of New product from manufacturer -> Amazon warehouse -> End user for lifetime of product. (Edit: or returned with no defects other than a lack of assured quality and possibly damaged packaging, but still not economically viable to ship back, verify, repackage, and relist as new and unused).
How much money, time, and energy would it take to ship them back to manufacturers where expert technicians could refurbish them to like-new condition if they're broken and fixable, to mark them down and sell them as blemished if they're cosmetically unacceptable but still functional, or to otherwise rescue them from destruction? As an industrial controls engineer in the manufacturing sector, I expect it's a lot more than just discarding it and fabricating a new one from raw materials on an automated production line.
I try to make my lines as flexible as possible, but there's an economy of scale problem that won't be put back into Pandora's box by shaming people with articles containing big numbers. Economics are immune to guilt, you have to find another way to penalize the behaviors you dislike or incentivize the behaviors you want. The reality is that it's really cheap and fast to build new things with low-touch mass production, making them easily diagnosed and repaired is less efficient, and the math says that it's cheaper to make 98% of your parts cheaply and write of 2% to waste than it is to spend 10% more per unit and have zero waste. I expect that the solution has to come either from technology that makes repair, self-diagnosis, packaging, and/or shipping cheaper, or from regulation that makes the 2% write off more expensive than 2%. Regardless of the solution, moralizing is ineffective.