Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
I understand that the indignation comes from the idea of trying to entice someone who can't or shouldn't be spending money on something to do so anyway, against their best interest.
Like when Judge Reinhold's character in "Ruthless People" tried to sell the kid the huge, over priced speakers (Caution: Language NSFW):
As for whether Amazon actually is doing that here (or if Amazon might be PERCEIVED to be doing that here, which is apparently the same thing these days) is under discussion.
ApK
|
It's common for people to attribute nefarious motives to corporations rather than altruistic ones. But maybe Amazon is genuinely trying to be nice to people who need it the most? Or, maybe their most self-centered motivation with this program is that they wish is to create thankful customers who, when they rise out of their situation of poverty, will be loyal Amazon customers. Who knows?
One thing that I
do know: Amazon has admitted that people who have Prime
do spend more than those without it. But with their typical reticence concerning things like this, they refuse to say how much the spending goes up. I had Prime for one year, two or three years ago. To be honest, most of the stuff are things that I could have easily done without; most of the rest of it are things that I never use and actually help clutter the house. My shopping with Amazon went up exponentially during that year. I'm still paying for it (via credit card payments). People in difficult financial situations do not need this.