Watchdog talks about Amazon closing accounts

[MattW]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I think it's way past getting anyone on our side. And apologies for my 'whining' but I feel I have the right to.

That's your whole problem right there: your overblown sense of entitlement that just rubs people the wrong way. And your complete inability to even admit that there might be a point to an opinion with which you do not agree.

And before you "get angry again": free speech (aka "the right to say whatever you want") doesn't mean you're not wrong or that you're not an entitled, whining perso. Not saying you are.

Matt

[Alpha o]

If those who "return" too much are trying to buy low and sell high on Craigslist or Ebay, I don't blame Amazon.

We have a city full of them who haunt garage sales. I've seen other posts where some search for specialty items on private sale and try to get the lowest price so the reseller gets the profit.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It would be a really bad idea for them to specify a figure. The inevitable result of that would be people gaming the system.

Originally Posted by Blossom

If they were too do that then scammers could take advantage of it. I have seen on freebies forums many people scamming Amazon for free stuff by having multiple accounts and other methods. Amazon has to protect themselves to stay in business as a leader. There are alot of dishonest people out there.

If customers are gaming the system, then it's a bad system and needs to be changed. I'm pretty sure that Amazon could craft (and in fact has crafted) a policy that's difficult to game. The problem from Amazon's perspective isn't that more people will game the system if they tell people what it is, but that fewer people will shop there in the first place.

To me, that says that Amazon is apparently remaining a business leader by claiming one policy and enforcing a different one. That means that people following their stated return policy in good faith can be affected by their unstated policy.

Claiming that this kind of dishonesty is good for business is beside the point. Fraud is illegal because it's dishonest, not because it's ineffective. Since laws against fraud have to be published, though, I'm guessing that Amazon's attorneys have determined exactly how far they can go, but still avoid conduct that is technically fraudulent. They're "gaming the system", one might say.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

If customers are gaming the system, then it's a bad system and needs to be changed.

No, it's an imperfect system, like all non-trivial systems involving large groups of people.

It has to balance several contradictory elements, like usability, transparency, privacy, fairness, security, effectiveness, etc.,

If you think you could make a better system, go bell that cat. I'll be looking for you to appear on the cover of Fortune or Time, but I won't be holding my breath.

ApK

[Josieb1]

Watchdog were obviously contacted by enough people for them to feel it was worth looking at.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

Watchdog were obviously contacted by enough people for them to feel it was worth looking at.

Not sure if that was a direct response to me or not.
If not, please stop reading now.

If so:

Perhaps, but if so, then the solution need not have anything to do with making a perfectly un-gameable system.
It may just involve getting that number just slightly below whatever number Watchdog (or such) cares about.
Perhaps by a minor tweak to the form letter or the CS script.
Even, perhaps, by an actual adjustment to the policy.

Not saying there may not be room for improvement, and there's every reason to think Amazon is constantly working on improving the process.

Just saying the possibility of gaming the system, and the reality of needing to factor that in, does not make it a bad system.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by ApK

Not sure if that was a direct response to me or not.
If not, please stop reading now.

No it wasn't. It was a general comment about the show.

[ProfCrash]

From what I have read, one of the large problems is that there is no one you can talk with. All interactions are handled via email and that is highly problematic. It creates a trail for Amazon to fall back on but it does not really allow for individuals to try and address the problem in a way that feels satisfactory.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

From what I have read, one of the large problems is that there is no one you can talk with. All interactions are handled via email and that is highly problematic. It creates a trail for Amazon to fall back on but it does not really allow for individuals to try and address the problem in a way that feels satisfactory.

Not only that, but the emails are all non specific. If I were to get a warning that I thought was not warranted I would want to be able to justify my returns. If Amazon CS tells me to return something that shouldn't count.

Some refunds also should not count. I have a number of refunds that were made to items that I didn't have any problems with. When Amazon has given me these refunds it was to compensate for other issues. I wanted to buy Prime for my mother when it was on sale for one day and gift purchases weren't allowed. They ended up refunding my last order to compensate. When I had trouble with slow shipping credits they refunded my last two purchases to compensate. These should not count, but if no communication of specifics is allowed how would I know?

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

From what I have read, one of the large problems is that there is no one you can talk with. All interactions are handled via email and that is highly problematic. It creates a trail for Amazon to fall back on but it does not really allow for individuals to try and address the problem in a way that feels satisfactory.

I have all the emails on a word doc from my September letter, their emails and my replies, it runs to 10 pages with no actual resolution.

The customer is basicly banging their head against a brick wall.

[alanHd]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I have all the emails on a word doc from my September letter, their emails and my replies, it runs to 10 pages with no actual resolution.

The customer is basicly banging their head against a brick wall.

I agree it does suck that you cant speak to anyone one on one but has others have already stated no one is forcing you to buy anything from Amazon and you still have access to all your digital content.

If it was me in your position I would just buy elsewhere and viola they never have an excuse to ban you from anything.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by ApK

If you think you could make a better system, go bell that cat. I'll be looking for you to appear on the cover of Fortune or Time, but I won't be holding my breath.

I don't need to. Amazon already has one. They're just pretending to use a different one.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by alanHd

I agree it does suck that you cant speak to anyone one on one but has others have already stated no one is forcing you to buy anything from Amazon and you still have access to all your digital content.

If it was me in your position I would just buy elsewhere and viola they never have an excuse to ban you from anything.

Thats the plan, we only buy ebooks and any cheap whispersync audios (£1.49 is my max price for each). My Audible membership has lapsed now and not been renewed. Plus the odd free app. We have never returned an ebook or an audio (and never would) so we 'should' be safe. Prime runs out in March and I doubt it will be renewed (depends on Amazon's original tv shows)

But even if we get past next years 'annual check' how long before we are no longer monitered, who knows, maybe never I just don't trust Amazon anymore.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

I don't need to. Amazon already has one. They're just pretending to use a different one.

And thats the truth, Amazon has its own benchmarks but no one knows where the line is drawn.

When i've wanted a replacement for a damaged item (arrived damaged that is) of which there has been a couple this year, CS look at our account and go ''oh your Prime we'll just send out a new order and you can return the damaged one for a refund''. So we get penalised for the refund. The customer hasn't got a chance.

The only way to stay safe and protect digital content is not to order physical items and never return anything.

Anyway I better say no more before I get moaned at again. I'm just interested in what Watchdog says.

[JoHunt]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

The only way to stay safe and protect digital content is not to order physical items and never return anything.

I think this is a bit OTT. I've ordered lots of physical items from Amazon and my digital content is not in danger. I have no fear of returning anything that's defective in the future (I've only returned 1 defective item and 2 ebooks in 10 years).

Josie, please don't take this the wrong way, but if the email you received was a one-off deal, perhaps Amazon is really in the wrong. But you also received the same warning last year. Perhaps just accept Amazon's determination and move on. Nothing will change your Amazon purchase/return record or how they have reacted.