More interesting than the headline is how they got here. The search team (dubbed A9) apparently fought "tooth and nail" against the change. They were mainly concerned that changing the algorithm...
More interesting than the headline is how they got here.
The search team (dubbed A9) apparently fought "tooth and nail" against the change. They were mainly concerned that changing the algorithm violated the "customer first" ethos that Amazon was founded on.
Does anyone else see similar battles in their own organization or others like Amazon? How are lines drawn and who usually ends up defending the customer?
It's impossible to be a publicly traded company and maintain a "customer first" ethos. By design, the company has to be "shareholders first." They are obligated to maximize "shareholder value,"...
It's impossible to be a publicly traded company and maintain a "customer first" ethos. By design, the company has to be "shareholders first." They are obligated to maximize "shareholder value," which is almost entirely synonymous with quarterly profits.
EDIT: All do respect, but the common arguments to this point are incredibly pedantic. It doesn't matter if there's no legal obligation to maximize quarterly profits, the shareholders are going to pressure companies to do that the overwhelming majority of the time, because their self interest is practically synonymous with profit. I'm not citing the law, I'm citing the basic concept of capitalism. You might find private companies willing to forgo maximizing profit for their own personal values, but once you get investors just trying to build a portfolio, that goes out the window.
I hear that quite often but I'm pretty sure it's not true. There are plenty of companies who act in far less predatory/aggressive ways than they could.
They are obligated to maximize "shareholder value"
I hear that quite often but I'm pretty sure it's not true. There are plenty of companies who act in far less predatory/aggressive ways than they could.
This is exceptionally important: the shareholders are well within their rights to make clear to directors that the environment, social responsibility, or any number of other things must be...
To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
[...]
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value.
This is exceptionally important: the shareholders are well within their rights to make clear to directors that the environment, social responsibility, or any number of other things must be considered alongside profit or company value.
Acting in the best interests of the company and the shareholders simply means that the directors (in theory) can't deliberately run the company into the ground for personal gain.
People misinterpret this quite a bit. It's true that they need to hunt shareholder value, but that doesn't exclude long term plays. For years, Amazon operated at a loss in order to grow their...
People misinterpret this quite a bit. It's true that they need to hunt shareholder value, but that doesn't exclude long term plays. For years, Amazon operated at a loss in order to grow their customer base. They could continue to offer fair search results in the name of retaining customers, and thus providing shareholder value in the long run. Of course, they could also make the decision they made and claim that it's also for shareholder value. My point is that Bezos' hands are certainly not tied here. They can do pretty much whatever they want. Amazon is not in danger of any shareholder action on a quarterly timeline, and that shouldn't be an excuse for their actions (not that you're necessarily making excuses). Consumers can also respond to shit like this to show that it's bad for shareholder value to fuck us, by shopping on brand sites, or on different retailer sites like walmart, or target.
I thought everybody did this? I might end up on Amazon in the end but I always try to search broader in the beginning. Also because I have an inherent distrust in company search engines. I know...
If I start using Google to look for products before checking if Amazon has it, that gives competitors a chance to pitch their product to me and become loyal to them.
I thought everybody did this? I might end up on Amazon in the end but I always try to search broader in the beginning. Also because I have an inherent distrust in company search engines. I know Google is part of that in some way so I use multiple search engines.
I do this, but in my friend group I'm the odd one out. Everyone else is all like "but then I've got to give my details to some random store I've not been to before" which is a somewhat reasonable...
I do this, but in my friend group I'm the odd one out. Everyone else is all like "but then I've got to give my details to some random store I've not been to before" which is a somewhat reasonable hangup, but it's not like it's the wild west out there anymore. I think they just don't want the hassle of having accounts registered all over the place, spamming their emails, and potientially getting their data sold/leaked.
It's a hard cycle to break evidently because i've become a bit of a broken record about it and still no budging
Not only this, but Amazon has also done a very good job of locking me in via real-world convenience. If I order from them, I know that the package will arrive next-day to the locker by my home...
I think they just don't want the hassle of having accounts registered all over the place, spamming their emails, and potientially getting their data sold/leaked.
Not only this, but Amazon has also done a very good job of locking me in via real-world convenience. If I order from them, I know that the package will arrive next-day to the locker by my home that I pass on the way back from work. Most other retailers will take anywhere from 1-5 days to get to my front door, at which point I'll almost definitely be at the office - it's then a gamble as to when and how I'll be able to actually get the package.
It frustrates me to this day that the Post Office didn't (and still don't) take advantage of their "last mile" locations to become multi-carrier pickup hubs. Even if Royal Mail themselves are carrying the package, I need to wait for an attempted delivery, then wait for it to get back to the central hub, and then request a next day drop-off at the local office for an extra fee. As it is, Amazon now has the monopoly with their own lockers and the other retailers are left out.
I feel like I recall seeing a similar article not too long ago and I pretty much had the same initial thoughts after reading the headline. Amazon's a private company so of course they'd try to be...
I feel like I recall seeing a similar article not too long ago and I pretty much had the same initial thoughts after reading the headline. Amazon's a private company so of course they'd try to be as profitable as possible?
After reading about antitrust concerns, I suppose it is a bit odd that Amazon is simultaneously the platform for and a competitor to sellers/merchants. Not familiar with the legislation at all but definitely seems like some sort of weird grey area.
Interesting how they have removed "Relevance" as a sort by option in favor of "Featured".
For what it's worth I've never really liked Amazon's search.
Would much prefer looks around on forums etc. to find a good product or brand then see if it's available on Amazon.
Also wanted to plug this neat site I found a while back that I use for searching Amazon > https://so.cool/.
I like the filters and sorting a lot more and it even includes links to ReviewMeta and Fakespot inline with the results. As far as I know, it is just one guy who maintains it with no ads or affiliate links, so if you like it consider donating.
More interesting than the headline is how they got here.
The search team (dubbed A9) apparently fought "tooth and nail" against the change. They were mainly concerned that changing the algorithm violated the "customer first" ethos that Amazon was founded on.
Does anyone else see similar battles in their own organization or others like Amazon? How are lines drawn and who usually ends up defending the customer?
It's impossible to be a publicly traded company and maintain a "customer first" ethos. By design, the company has to be "shareholders first." They are obligated to maximize "shareholder value," which is almost entirely synonymous with quarterly profits.
EDIT: All do respect, but the common arguments to this point are incredibly pedantic. It doesn't matter if there's no legal obligation to maximize quarterly profits, the shareholders are going to pressure companies to do that the overwhelming majority of the time, because their self interest is practically synonymous with profit. I'm not citing the law, I'm citing the basic concept of capitalism. You might find private companies willing to forgo maximizing profit for their own personal values, but once you get investors just trying to build a portfolio, that goes out the window.
Perhaps, but in Amazon's case, the pressure came from an internal group trying to promote their own importance, not shareholders.
I hear that quite often but I'm pretty sure it's not true. There are plenty of companies who act in far less predatory/aggressive ways than they could.
This is exceptionally important: the shareholders are well within their rights to make clear to directors that the environment, social responsibility, or any number of other things must be considered alongside profit or company value.
Acting in the best interests of the company and the shareholders simply means that the directors (in theory) can't deliberately run the company into the ground for personal gain.
People misinterpret this quite a bit. It's true that they need to hunt shareholder value, but that doesn't exclude long term plays. For years, Amazon operated at a loss in order to grow their customer base. They could continue to offer fair search results in the name of retaining customers, and thus providing shareholder value in the long run. Of course, they could also make the decision they made and claim that it's also for shareholder value. My point is that Bezos' hands are certainly not tied here. They can do pretty much whatever they want. Amazon is not in danger of any shareholder action on a quarterly timeline, and that shouldn't be an excuse for their actions (not that you're necessarily making excuses). Consumers can also respond to shit like this to show that it's bad for shareholder value to fuck us, by shopping on brand sites, or on different retailer sites like walmart, or target.
I thought everybody did this? I might end up on Amazon in the end but I always try to search broader in the beginning. Also because I have an inherent distrust in company search engines. I know Google is part of that in some way so I use multiple search engines.
I do this, but in my friend group I'm the odd one out. Everyone else is all like "but then I've got to give my details to some random store I've not been to before" which is a somewhat reasonable hangup, but it's not like it's the wild west out there anymore. I think they just don't want the hassle of having accounts registered all over the place, spamming their emails, and potientially getting their data sold/leaked.
It's a hard cycle to break evidently because i've become a bit of a broken record about it and still no budging
Not only this, but Amazon has also done a very good job of locking me in via real-world convenience. If I order from them, I know that the package will arrive next-day to the locker by my home that I pass on the way back from work. Most other retailers will take anywhere from 1-5 days to get to my front door, at which point I'll almost definitely be at the office - it's then a gamble as to when and how I'll be able to actually get the package.
It frustrates me to this day that the Post Office didn't (and still don't) take advantage of their "last mile" locations to become multi-carrier pickup hubs. Even if Royal Mail themselves are carrying the package, I need to wait for an attempted delivery, then wait for it to get back to the central hub, and then request a next day drop-off at the local office for an extra fee. As it is, Amazon now has the monopoly with their own lockers and the other retailers are left out.
I feel like I recall seeing a similar article not too long ago and I pretty much had the same initial thoughts after reading the headline. Amazon's a private company so of course they'd try to be as profitable as possible?
After reading about antitrust concerns, I suppose it is a bit odd that Amazon is simultaneously the platform for and a competitor to sellers/merchants. Not familiar with the legislation at all but definitely seems like some sort of weird grey area.
Interesting how they have removed "Relevance" as a sort by option in favor of "Featured".
For what it's worth I've never really liked Amazon's search.
Would much prefer looks around on forums etc. to find a good product or brand then see if it's available on Amazon.
Also wanted to plug this neat site I found a while back that I use for searching Amazon > https://so.cool/.
I like the filters and sorting a lot more and it even includes links to ReviewMeta and Fakespot inline with the results. As far as I know, it is just one guy who maintains it with no ads or affiliate links, so if you like it consider donating.