An author fighting the spambots and the pricingbots

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by nogle

The author has chosen not to sell direct to consumers. His customer is the distributor. He has chosen his pricing structure and Amazon is living up to it. By choosing to use a distributor, he is giving up control on price to the end user/customer.

However, if you think that the author should be allowed to use a distributor and choose the pricing to the end consumer, then you are supporting an agency pricing model.

I think you should read what you wrote and re-think it. And then not try to put words in my mouth. Ever again.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Then I would have bid more in the first place. That is how it is meant to work. Decide how much you want to pay, bid that......

But you would then lose the whole point of trying to buy something at an auction.

As someone who has 30 odd years of experience at auctions, the idea is to bid to buy at the lowest price you can, that is the way an auction is supposed to work - which doesn't mean giving away your maximum price to other bidders, or, very important, to the auctioneer. They are (in the real world) only human, and if he/she has a big bid sitting before him, he may well have a "reappraisal" of what he /she thinks it is worth. So, for example, instead of starting bidding at 100, with a bid of 1,000 "on the book" the auctioneer may begin at 150/200/300. Even though it may have an auction estimate of 150, say.
But, if you trust the auctioneer, and you cannot attend in person, or have no-one to bid on your behalf, or do not wish to be there,then you have to leave a maximum price you would be willing to pay.
Or bid by 'phone or internet. The amount of your maximum bid is still secure.

Now, ebay..... No personal contact, no knowledge of the people running it, no control once you have placed your bid, lots of strange tales about the bidding process, no knowledge of the technological marvels that may, or are intended/designed to, prevent you bidding against a mythical bidder.

Such "auctions" may be absolutely free of blemish or outside interference - but I would only bid a price .... A) I could afford to lose or B) leave an amount I would consider a real bargain.
That is, if I was absolutely happy and very sure that I was buying what I thought I was......

[emellaich]

... and I never saw the original article as complaining. It seems to me that the writer was sharing something amusing (or is that bemusing) that happened. He is trying to guess why the bots have even entered the game. Clearly they don't have the book. All of this automatic pricing seems like nonsense. Here is a game to try:

Write a 'book' to sell on Amazon. Now, have your brother-in-law sign up as a amazon seller and offer the book for below list price. Wait for Amazon to drop the retail price to match. Try to get the discounted price to be cheaper than your royalty amount. Now buy a few thousand copies. Profit!

[Ekaros]

I'm less worried of arbitrage in physical goods than I'm in stock, commodity and derivatives market. In other it can sometimes help the consumer to get best price in multiple places which realy isn't a bad thing.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I think you should read what you wrote and re-think it. And then not try to put words in my mouth. Ever again.

I have not tried to put words in your mouth. I have simply pointed out the logical extension of allowing the control of retail price to fall further back in the value chain.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by nogle

I have not tried to put words in your mouth. I have simply pointed out the logical extension of allowing the control of retail price to fall further back in the value chain.

Rather sad, that's what you come up with.

That is not what I said. It's what YOU said and how YOU think.

Again. You should not try to put words in my mouth. Ever again. You should focus on your opinion instead of trying to give me mine.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Rather sad, that's what you come up with.

That is not what I said. It's what YOU said and how YOU think.

Again. You should not try to put words in my mouth. Ever again. You should focus on your opinion instead of trying to give me mine.

1. I am sorry that logic eludes you.

2. Your threats are meaningless and childish.

3. I shall respond no more.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by nogle

1. I am sorry that logic eludes you.

2. Your threats are meaningless and childish.

3. I shall respond no more.

You are not showing logic.

If you can't tell the difference between a computer algorithm and a person setting prices in a competitive market...

...you've got a lot more problems than just calling names.

And please tell me where I "threatened" you. I think I told you not to put words in my mouth. Reading comprehension is key.