Friday, April 24, 2009
Books / Retail Amazon Steps In It Again
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM
It's been a busy couple weeks for Amazon!
Consumerist reports that someone named Bob bought an anti-snoring mouthpiece on Amazon. The manufacturer promised Bob a free mouthpiece if he gave the product a five-star review on Amazon.
Bob wrote about this practice in a review for the mouthpiece. Amazon deleted his review. He wrote another one, and Amazon deleted that one, too. Finally, he wrote to Amazon, who suggested that his review didn't meet their reviewer guidelines, but didn't mention the pay-for-play in their e-mail.
Bob wrote back and asked for more clarification, explaining his problems with a company offering gifts in exchange for positive reviews, and asking Amazon whether they supported sellers giving free stuff to customers who write five-star reviews generally, and in this particular case, whether Amazon was ethically and legally okay with letting fake five-star reviews of a medical product (that other reviews had complained caused pain and discomfort) influence a customer's decision.Amazon wrote back, ignoring the ethical question and writing only that "we do not post comments regarding time specific material, for example about the sellers, price, sourcing, experience with the website other than review of this item and experience with the product in our Customer Reviews." Amazon also suggested another edited version of the review, which again left out any mention of bribed reviews.
Copies of the e-mails are posted at Consumerist, and you should read them. It seems undeniable, after this awful month, that Amazon has the worst public relations policy of any major customer service company in the United States right now.
Share via
2
The problem Will is that Amazon won't let you report on companies that do this.
Hey, if Amazon doesn't want my business they don't have to have it, plenty of other sites will gladly take my money.
Hey, if Amazon doesn't want my business they don't have to have it, plenty of other sites will gladly take my money.
4
It's worth having someone out there with dreadful customer relations if only because you can use it as a stick to beat other companies with. Why, only last week, I saw a guy trying and failing to return a non-functioning video game in a flesh and blood shop (full disclosure: it was my husband and I was hiding behind a rack of Pokemon plushies trying to disguise my embarrassment) and closing his argument with: "For Christ's sake. I get better customer service at Amazon than I do with you guys. THAT'S HOW MUCH YOU SUCK."
5
There is a certain point in size and penetration at which companies in traditional businesses must begin trading in their ethics for market share. Amazon hit that point at some time in the last year, I think - though others might contend it was a couple years back, or even when they stopped being just a bookstore.
7
consumerist has an update - amazon did reply to Bob and he is satisfied with their response:
http://consumerist.com/5225489/update-am…
http://consumerist.com/5225489/update-am…
8
The problem, dipshit Will, is that on the face of it Amazon reviews LOOK like they are unpaid, but some portion of them ARE PAID. As usual, you have ahold of the wrong end of the horse. That's not his mouth you're looking in.
The correct response from Amazon, of course, should have been to instantly terminate the SELLER, not the review. Their response here is bad, bad news. Amazon reviews are very popular, and they are perhaps the most notable example of customers providing value to sellers -- a very large part of Amazon's value as a retailer is in their very large database of reviews. Now that is tainted.
Ordinarily a company that found out one of their employees was deliberately damaging one of their prime assets -- one they have spend years aquiring, FOR FREE -- would swiftly and mercilessly zap that employee. If Amazon has any decency at all the person who is killing these reviews would be fired immediately.
The correct response from Amazon, of course, should have been to instantly terminate the SELLER, not the review. Their response here is bad, bad news. Amazon reviews are very popular, and they are perhaps the most notable example of customers providing value to sellers -- a very large part of Amazon's value as a retailer is in their very large database of reviews. Now that is tainted.
Ordinarily a company that found out one of their employees was deliberately damaging one of their prime assets -- one they have spend years aquiring, FOR FREE -- would swiftly and mercilessly zap that employee. If Amazon has any decency at all the person who is killing these reviews would be fired immediately.
9
The Seattle media -- I'm gonna say it, I'm gonna sayyy itttt -- machine is angry that old stodgy and staid Amazon.com won't be as happy and energetic as the Ballmers of the world. Doubly angry since it's in their backyard.
So this non-story is somehow worth the hype the other more valid story got.
Moral of the story: if you're a hometown company, you had better lob sexy PR people at the local press or they'll keep hounding you.
So this non-story is somehow worth the hype the other more valid story got.
Moral of the story: if you're a hometown company, you had better lob sexy PR people at the local press or they'll keep hounding you.
10
@7: I'm sure Paul will be eager to correct the story. Oh wait,
Yes. Because it took them 72 hours to fix a ratings glitch and they don't support the local arts. FUCXERS!
Amazon has the worst public relations policy of any major customer service company in the United States right now.
Yes. Because it took them 72 hours to fix a ratings glitch and they don't support the local arts. FUCXERS!
11
Sven, how you respond to problems is more important than not having problems -- or pretending to not have them, rather.
13
Fnarf@11: yup. And it's great that Amazon had it fixed within 72 hours. Would Walmart or Target have fixed it in 72 hours? No. People expect perfection out of Amazon.
14
There is no such thing as a "major customer service company". You think their business function is "customer service"? Paul, do you read your own stuff before you post it?
I've never had an ounce of trouble with Amazon, so I can't speak to the quality of their Customer Service (I don't really see how this story relates to customer service at all, but I will accept your premise because I don't have the energy to unravel your logic).
Honestly though, can you trust any "open source" rating channel? Yelp? The Stranger restaurant reviews? Trip Advisor? My guess is that there are plenty of shills (and whatever the negative version of a shill is) to be found in all of those and most others. If any of you think random strangers should be trusted sources of information, I'll sell you a bridge.
I've never had an ounce of trouble with Amazon, so I can't speak to the quality of their Customer Service (I don't really see how this story relates to customer service at all, but I will accept your premise because I don't have the energy to unravel your logic).
Honestly though, can you trust any "open source" rating channel? Yelp? The Stranger restaurant reviews? Trip Advisor? My guess is that there are plenty of shills (and whatever the negative version of a shill is) to be found in all of those and most others. If any of you think random strangers should be trusted sources of information, I'll sell you a bridge.
15
Fact: Sellers often get booted for these actions. Maybe his was the only complaint. Meh... nonstory.
16
Gee Paul, your anti-Amazon bias (because they're more efficient than your beloved independent bookstores) is showing.
Failing newspapers and car companies deserve it, you have written, because technology is changing and the dinosaurs aren't able to keep up. Why isn't the same true of independent bookstores?
Failing newspapers and car companies deserve it, you have written, because technology is changing and the dinosaurs aren't able to keep up. Why isn't the same true of independent bookstores?
17
Paul,
Did you read the follow up to this? The guy ended up happy. And, do you read consumerist, because Amazon is so very clearly NOT the company with the worst PR. It's not even in the ball park. For instance, the story I read just on my feeder just before this one was how Time Warner is cutting people off for using too much of their product.
Did you read the follow up to this? The guy ended up happy. And, do you read consumerist, because Amazon is so very clearly NOT the company with the worst PR. It's not even in the ball park. For instance, the story I read just on my feeder just before this one was how Time Warner is cutting people off for using too much of their product.
18
"It seems undeniable, after this awful month, that Amazon has the worst public relations policy of any major customer service company in the United States right now."
As much as they infuriated me with their weird (non)censorship policy this is just ridiculously, stupidly untrue.
As much as they infuriated me with their weird (non)censorship policy this is just ridiculously, stupidly untrue.
19
Sven is right. It's a non-story and Paul's arbitrary deadlines for how fast Amazon ought to be able to fully resolve technical or vendor or customer relations problems have no justification. I think the reason Amazon gets an F for the 72 hour fix, or for the fact that this one took a few go-arounds is based solely on the need to boost local booksellers.
I should probably start beating the drum on what a lousy job Elliott Bay's remodeled restaurant did in responding to complaints about their terrible first few weeks after the re-opening. How many weeks does a beloved local indie institution get to figure out why the customer is unhappy with their the bland, overpriced, cold chili? Four? Six? Eight?
I should probably start beating the drum on what a lousy job Elliott Bay's remodeled restaurant did in responding to complaints about their terrible first few weeks after the re-opening. How many weeks does a beloved local indie institution get to figure out why the customer is unhappy with their the bland, overpriced, cold chili? Four? Six? Eight?
20
- UPDATE: Amazon Contacts Reader About Pay-to-Play Reviews, Promises Changes By Laura Northrup, 10:04 PM on Thu Apr 23 2009
- Amazon Steps In It Again
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Paul - it looks to me that you posted your story, with no mention of the successful resolution *after* the updated information was, in fact, available. This is terribly dishonest. If you want to talk about business standards, lets start with the ethical standards of cherry picking information to suit your pre-existing bias. Your readers deserve better.
- Amazon Steps In It Again
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Paul - it looks to me that you posted your story, with no mention of the successful resolution *after* the updated information was, in fact, available. This is terribly dishonest. If you want to talk about business standards, lets start with the ethical standards of cherry picking information to suit your pre-existing bias. Your readers deserve better.
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Boy-Nerds Offended by Cootie-Ridden "Girl" Movie by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS