當美國人在亞馬遜(Amazon.com Inc.)上買不到洗手液、廁紙和消毒濕巾的時候,許多人以為是居家隔離的購物者需求激增導致產(chǎn)品脫銷,。事實上,,有些商品并未缺貨,但商家為了避免卷入亞馬遜打擊哄抬物價的行動,,選擇了將商品下架,,盡管他們并沒有漲價。
亞馬遜在3月開始針對違反價格政策的行為發(fā)布模糊的自動警告,,后來持續(xù)到4月,,威脅要封殺哄抬物價的賣家。在此之前,,有媒體曝光該平臺上的賣家囤積居奇,,將兩瓶裝的Purell洗手液賣到了400美元的高價,引發(fā)關注,。但亞馬遜的警告并沒有具體說明公司認為什么樣的價格是合理的,,這導致賣家像在玩猜謎游戲一樣。他們要盡量確定扣除掉成本,、運費和亞馬遜的傭金(通常在15%左右)之后銷售某種商品是否依舊有利潤可賺,。
賣家能采購到這些商品,而且知道這些是亞馬遜消費者急需的商品,,但他們故意將商品下架,,因為商品銷售規(guī)則不明確,而且違法價格政策的后果對他們來說可能是毀滅性的,。在高度自動化的系統(tǒng)中,,商戶與亞馬遜員工之間幾乎沒有任何接觸,因此恢復被凍結的賬戶可能需要幾周甚至幾個月時間,。所以,,賣家會盡量避免被亞馬遜封殺,即使這意味著放棄銷售熱門商品,。這一切恰好發(fā)生在亞馬遜力推必要生活用品的時候,,比如清潔用品。
到底有多少商戶突然把產(chǎn)品下架,,這種做法在多大程度上加劇了物資短缺,?現(xiàn)在我們?nèi)匀徊坏枚9溨袛嘁彩菍е律唐啡必浀脑蛑?。但幫助賣家避免被封殺的顧問表示,,在亞馬遜打擊哄抬物價行為期間,,他們收到了大量客戶來電,。其中一位顧問是前亞馬遜員工克里斯·麥凱布。他說,有數(shù)百個賣家聯(lián)系他,。他建議數(shù)十個賣家停止銷售,,因為亞馬遜的規(guī)則不明確。他說:“亞馬遜的大規(guī)模清理讓許多人感到害怕,,他們不敢繼續(xù)銷售濕巾和廁紙,。”
亞馬遜的發(fā)言人表示,,公司的政策始終是禁止哄抬物價,。
她說:“我們的目標是保護消費者,打擊明目張膽的大幅漲價,。如果賣家認為我們的工作有失誤,,歡迎他們直接聯(lián)系我們,我們會展開調(diào)查,?!?/p>
亞馬遜在線購物平臺上有成千上萬個賣家,銷售的商品數(shù)以億計,。新冠疫情的爆發(fā)使該平臺陷入混亂,。沃爾瑪(Walmart Inc.)和塔吉特(Target Corp.)等大型零售商是按批發(fā)價采購大部分庫存,然后加價在門店銷售,,而亞馬遜上銷售的多數(shù)商品來自獨立的賣家,,由他們自行定價。在正常情況下,,亞馬遜利用技術手段能夠有效匹配供應和需求,。它會發(fā)布消費者在該平臺上的商品搜索數(shù)據(jù),賣家可以根據(jù)這些數(shù)據(jù)來了解當前的熱門商品,。
新冠疫情促使各地政府宣布緊急狀態(tài),,許多州頒布了打擊哄抬物價的法律,以避免災難之后價格上漲對消費者的影響,。但對于哪些行為構成哄抬物價,,以及哪些商品受到保護,各州都有不同的規(guī)定,。亞馬遜很難管理這種現(xiàn)象,,因為該平臺上的賣家和買家來自不同的州。
雖然該平臺利用復雜的算法來監(jiān)控價格,,但一個賣家是否違規(guī)取決于消費者所在的地區(qū),。有些州規(guī)定了構成哄抬物價的門檻,例如比正常價格高10%,。但有些州的規(guī)定卻用了“肆意”等模糊的字眼,。亞馬遜賣家在全國的售價相同,,他們也無法提前預知消費者來自哪個州。因此,,亞馬遜很難制定明確的規(guī)則,,導致賣家質疑該公司使用算法防止哄抬物價行為的做法過于激進。
在颶風等自然災害爆發(fā)之后,,亞馬遜曾經(jīng)遭遇過有關哄抬物價的投訴,。但這些災難中,進入緊急狀態(tài)的州數(shù)量有限,。而席卷全美的新冠疫情已經(jīng)持續(xù)了幾個月,,所以有關哄抬物價的擔憂變得日益突出。有多位議員呼吁通過聯(lián)邦立法打擊這種哄抬物價行為,,亞馬遜也在5月呼吁聯(lián)邦政府出臺解決方案,,強調(diào)了靠該公司單槍匹馬應對這種現(xiàn)象的難度,盡管亞馬遜有一支專門團隊和技術手段來監(jiān)督這種行為,。
美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)的一位前律師布萊恩·胡斯曼在5月撰寫了一篇博客文章支持聯(lián)邦立法,。他寫道:“各州之間標準不統(tǒng)一,給零售商協(xié)助執(zhí)法,、保護消費者利益和遵紀守法帶來了巨大挑戰(zhàn),。”胡斯曼目前在華盛頓特區(qū)負責主持亞馬遜的公共政策團隊,。
所以,,亞馬遜迫切希望監(jiān)管機構將其視為打擊哄抬物價的盟友,而不是違法者,。亞馬遜稱自疫情爆發(fā)以來,,該網(wǎng)站已經(jīng)刪除了50多萬件商品,凍結了6,000個違反價格政策的賬號,。該公司一直在配合多個州的總檢察長,,包括提供被指控惡意提高價格的賣家的信息等。
亞馬遜與其賣家合作伙伴關于打擊該平臺上的假冒商品或征收銷售稅的責任歸屬問題,,一直爭論不休,。如今,哄抬物價的違規(guī)行為到底應該由誰來負責,,已經(jīng)成為雙方之間新的爭論點,。代表電商賣家的行業(yè)組織電商賣家協(xié)會(Online Merchants Guild)在5月提起訴訟,請求阻止肯塔基州總檢察長丹尼爾·卡梅倫對亞馬遜賣家執(zhí)行該州的價格管制法律,。起訴書中表示,,總檢察長執(zhí)法的對象應該是亞馬遜。
與此同時,,賣家表示,,他們沒有漲價也收到了自動警告,,這一事實表明亞馬遜的打擊面太廣。一位賣家在亞馬遜上銷售商品已經(jīng)有六年時間,。她說在3月收到有關哄抬物價的警告之后,,自己下架了約100款商品,,包括洗手液和廁紙等,。這位賣家的庫存來自為藥店和超市供貨的制造商和經(jīng)銷商。她說在2020年,,她的大部分商品一直沒有漲價,。
另外一位亞馬遜資深賣家在該平臺上銷售辦公用品,包括洗手液和清潔用品,。他說他在3月收到兩封電子郵件,,警告他可能違反了價格規(guī)定,但沒有指明有問題的是哪些商品,。他銷售的商品多達數(shù)千種,。他詢問了亞馬遜賣家支持部門的代表,后者指出了幾種觸發(fā)警告的商品,,包括塑料餐盒,、廁紙和全身濕巾等。但這位代表沒有告知賣家到底能以什么價格出售,,所以他把可能導致違規(guī)的商品全部下架,。
代表亞馬遜賣家的紐約律師CJ·羅森鮑姆表示,即使亞馬遜賣家在疫情期間大幅提高售價,,他們也可以向監(jiān)管機構證明漲價并非剝削性定價,。許多亞馬遜賣家使用軟件設定售價,當庫存較低時,,軟件會自動上調(diào)價格,。這樣做是為了保護賣家在亞馬遜上的信譽,因為亞馬遜使用算法監(jiān)控賣家的業(yè)績,,如果賣家?guī)齑媪扛骟?,就會遭到亞馬遜的處罰。軟件還會在價格中加上額外的運費成本,,有些州打擊哄抬物價的法律允許這樣做,。但羅森鮑姆表示,對許多賣家來說,,與找律師對付監(jiān)管人員的成本和失去亞馬遜業(yè)務的風險相比,,繼續(xù)銷售亞馬遜已經(jīng)開始嚴格監(jiān)控的商品并不值得。
他說:“什么樣的價格才是公正的,?這個問題沒有確切的答案,?!彼a充道,為了避免被封殺,,有數(shù)十位客戶特意下架了部分熱銷商品,。“亞馬遜對待賣家的態(tài)度非常糟糕,?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
當美國人在亞馬遜(Amazon.com Inc.)上買不到洗手液、廁紙和消毒濕巾的時候,,許多人以為是居家隔離的購物者需求激增導致產(chǎn)品脫銷,。事實上,有些商品并未缺貨,,但商家為了避免卷入亞馬遜打擊哄抬物價的行動,,選擇了將商品下架,盡管他們并沒有漲價,。
亞馬遜在3月開始針對違反價格政策的行為發(fā)布模糊的自動警告,,后來持續(xù)到4月,威脅要封殺哄抬物價的賣家,。在此之前,,有媒體曝光該平臺上的賣家囤積居奇,將兩瓶裝的Purell洗手液賣到了400美元的高價,,引發(fā)關注,。但亞馬遜的警告并沒有具體說明公司認為什么樣的價格是合理的,這導致賣家像在玩猜謎游戲一樣,。他們要盡量確定扣除掉成本,、運費和亞馬遜的傭金(通常在15%左右)之后銷售某種商品是否依舊有利潤可賺。
賣家能采購到這些商品,,而且知道這些是亞馬遜消費者急需的商品,,但他們故意將商品下架,因為商品銷售規(guī)則不明確,,而且違法價格政策的后果對他們來說可能是毀滅性的,。在高度自動化的系統(tǒng)中,商戶與亞馬遜員工之間幾乎沒有任何接觸,,因此恢復被凍結的賬戶可能需要幾周甚至幾個月時間,。所以,賣家會盡量避免被亞馬遜封殺,,即使這意味著放棄銷售熱門商品,。這一切恰好發(fā)生在亞馬遜力推必要生活用品的時候,比如清潔用品,。
到底有多少商戶突然把產(chǎn)品下架,,這種做法在多大程度上加劇了物資短缺,?現(xiàn)在我們?nèi)匀徊坏枚9溨袛嘁彩菍е律唐啡必浀脑蛑?。但幫助賣家避免被封殺的顧問表示,,在亞馬遜打擊哄抬物價行為期間,他們收到了大量客戶來電,。其中一位顧問是前亞馬遜員工克里斯·麥凱布,。他說,有數(shù)百個賣家聯(lián)系他,。他建議數(shù)十個賣家停止銷售,,因為亞馬遜的規(guī)則不明確,。他說:“亞馬遜的大規(guī)模清理讓許多人感到害怕,,他們不敢繼續(xù)銷售濕巾和廁紙?!?/p>
亞馬遜的發(fā)言人表示,,公司的政策始終是禁止哄抬物價。
她說:“我們的目標是保護消費者,,打擊明目張膽的大幅漲價,。如果賣家認為我們的工作有失誤,歡迎他們直接聯(lián)系我們,,我們會展開調(diào)查,。”
亞馬遜在線購物平臺上有成千上萬個賣家,,銷售的商品數(shù)以億計,。新冠疫情的爆發(fā)使該平臺陷入混亂。沃爾瑪(Walmart Inc.)和塔吉特(Target Corp.)等大型零售商是按批發(fā)價采購大部分庫存,,然后加價在門店銷售,,而亞馬遜上銷售的多數(shù)商品來自獨立的賣家,由他們自行定價,。在正常情況下,,亞馬遜利用技術手段能夠有效匹配供應和需求。它會發(fā)布消費者在該平臺上的商品搜索數(shù)據(jù),,賣家可以根據(jù)這些數(shù)據(jù)來了解當前的熱門商品,。
新冠疫情促使各地政府宣布緊急狀態(tài),許多州頒布了打擊哄抬物價的法律,,以避免災難之后價格上漲對消費者的影響,。但對于哪些行為構成哄抬物價,以及哪些商品受到保護,,各州都有不同的規(guī)定,。亞馬遜很難管理這種現(xiàn)象,,因為該平臺上的賣家和買家來自不同的州。
雖然該平臺利用復雜的算法來監(jiān)控價格,,但一個賣家是否違規(guī)取決于消費者所在的地區(qū),。有些州規(guī)定了構成哄抬物價的門檻,例如比正常價格高10%,。但有些州的規(guī)定卻用了“肆意”等模糊的字眼,。亞馬遜賣家在全國的售價相同,他們也無法提前預知消費者來自哪個州,。因此,,亞馬遜很難制定明確的規(guī)則,導致賣家質疑該公司使用算法防止哄抬物價行為的做法過于激進,。
在颶風等自然災害爆發(fā)之后,,亞馬遜曾經(jīng)遭遇過有關哄抬物價的投訴。但這些災難中,,進入緊急狀態(tài)的州數(shù)量有限,。而席卷全美的新冠疫情已經(jīng)持續(xù)了幾個月,所以有關哄抬物價的擔憂變得日益突出,。有多位議員呼吁通過聯(lián)邦立法打擊這種哄抬物價行為,,亞馬遜也在5月呼吁聯(lián)邦政府出臺解決方案,強調(diào)了靠該公司單槍匹馬應對這種現(xiàn)象的難度,,盡管亞馬遜有一支專門團隊和技術手段來監(jiān)督這種行為,。
美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)的一位前律師布萊恩·胡斯曼在5月撰寫了一篇博客文章支持聯(lián)邦立法。他寫道:“各州之間標準不統(tǒng)一,,給零售商協(xié)助執(zhí)法,、保護消費者利益和遵紀守法帶來了巨大挑戰(zhàn)?!焙孤壳霸谌A盛頓特區(qū)負責主持亞馬遜的公共政策團隊,。
所以,亞馬遜迫切希望監(jiān)管機構將其視為打擊哄抬物價的盟友,,而不是違法者,。亞馬遜稱自疫情爆發(fā)以來,該網(wǎng)站已經(jīng)刪除了50多萬件商品,,凍結了6,000個違反價格政策的賬號,。該公司一直在配合多個州的總檢察長,包括提供被指控惡意提高價格的賣家的信息等,。
亞馬遜與其賣家合作伙伴關于打擊該平臺上的假冒商品或征收銷售稅的責任歸屬問題,,一直爭論不休。如今,哄抬物價的違規(guī)行為到底應該由誰來負責,,已經(jīng)成為雙方之間新的爭論點,。代表電商賣家的行業(yè)組織電商賣家協(xié)會(Online Merchants Guild)在5月提起訴訟,請求阻止肯塔基州總檢察長丹尼爾·卡梅倫對亞馬遜賣家執(zhí)行該州的價格管制法律,。起訴書中表示,,總檢察長執(zhí)法的對象應該是亞馬遜。
與此同時,,賣家表示,,他們沒有漲價也收到了自動警告,這一事實表明亞馬遜的打擊面太廣,。一位賣家在亞馬遜上銷售商品已經(jīng)有六年時間,。她說在3月收到有關哄抬物價的警告之后,自己下架了約100款商品,,包括洗手液和廁紙等,。這位賣家的庫存來自為藥店和超市供貨的制造商和經(jīng)銷商。她說在2020年,,她的大部分商品一直沒有漲價,。
另外一位亞馬遜資深賣家在該平臺上銷售辦公用品,,包括洗手液和清潔用品,。他說他在3月收到兩封電子郵件,警告他可能違反了價格規(guī)定,,但沒有指明有問題的是哪些商品,。他銷售的商品多達數(shù)千種。他詢問了亞馬遜賣家支持部門的代表,,后者指出了幾種觸發(fā)警告的商品,,包括塑料餐盒、廁紙和全身濕巾等,。但這位代表沒有告知賣家到底能以什么價格出售,,所以他把可能導致違規(guī)的商品全部下架。
代表亞馬遜賣家的紐約律師CJ·羅森鮑姆表示,,即使亞馬遜賣家在疫情期間大幅提高售價,,他們也可以向監(jiān)管機構證明漲價并非剝削性定價。許多亞馬遜賣家使用軟件設定售價,,當庫存較低時,,軟件會自動上調(diào)價格。這樣做是為了保護賣家在亞馬遜上的信譽,,因為亞馬遜使用算法監(jiān)控賣家的業(yè)績,,如果賣家?guī)齑媪扛骟溃蜁獾絹嗰R遜的處罰。軟件還會在價格中加上額外的運費成本,,有些州打擊哄抬物價的法律允許這樣做,。但羅森鮑姆表示,對許多賣家來說,,與找律師對付監(jiān)管人員的成本和失去亞馬遜業(yè)務的風險相比,,繼續(xù)銷售亞馬遜已經(jīng)開始嚴格監(jiān)控的商品并不值得。
他說:“什么樣的價格才是公正的,?這個問題沒有確切的答案,。”他補充道,,為了避免被封殺,,有數(shù)十位客戶特意下架了部分熱銷商品?!皝嗰R遜對待賣家的態(tài)度非常糟糕,。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
When Americans couldn’t find hand sanitizer, toilet paper and disinfecting wipes on Amazon.com Inc., many assumed the products had run out thanks to surging demand from home-bound shoppers. In fact, in some cases the products were available, but merchants had pulled them to avoid getting caught up in Amazon’s price-gouging crackdown—even though they weren’t raising prices.
Amazon began issuing vague warnings about price policy violations in March that extended through April, threatening to kick merchants off the site. The automated warnings followed glaring headlines about greedy opportunists, like the merchant trying to sell a two-pack of Purell hand sanitizer for $400. But Amazon’s warnings didn’t specify prices the company deemed fair. That left merchants playing a guessing game as they tried to determine if they could sell the items and still make a profit after accounting for their own costs, shipping and Amazon’s commission, which typically runs about 15%.
Merchants had access to these products and knew Amazon shoppers wanted them, but they deliberately pulled them because the rules about selling them weren’t clear and the consequences for violations could be devastating. In a heavily automated system with little contact between merchants and Amazon employees, it can take weeks or months to reinstate suspended accounts. As a result, merchants do whatever they can to avoid being exiled—even if it means forfeiting sales of popular products. All of this was happening at a time when Amazon was prioritizing essential household items, such as cleaning supplies.
It’s unclear how many merchants yanked their products and how much doing so exacerbated shortages that were also fueled by supply-chain disruptions. But consultants who help merchants avoid suspensions say they were inundated with calls from clients during the price-gouging crackdown. One of them, a former Amazonian named Chris McCabe, says he heard from hundreds of merchants and advised dozens of them to stop selling products because the rules were unclear. “Amazon just did a giant sweep and they really scared a lot of people away from selling wipes and toilet paper,” he says.
Amazon, through a spokeswoman, said the company’s policies have always prohibited price gouging.
“Our objective is to protect customers from clearly egregious price increases,” she said. “If a seller believes we’ve made an error, we encourage them to reach out to us directly and we will investigate the matter.”
The Covid-19 outbreak roiled Amazon’s online marketplace, where millions of merchants sell hundreds of millions of products. Amazon differs from major retailers like Walmart Inc. and Target Corp. that buy most of their inventory wholesale and then sell it in their stores at a markup. Most of the products sold on Amazon come from independent merchants who set their own prices. In ordinary circumstances, the marketplace uses technology to efficiently match supply and demand. Amazon releases data about the products customers are looking for on the site, which signals the merchants what’s in demand.
The pandemic prompted governors around the country to declare states of emergency—which in many cases triggered price-gouging laws enacted to protect consumers from price spikes following disasters. But precisely what constitutes price gouging and which products are protected varies from state to state. It's a difficult phenomenon for Amazon to manage since the marketplace can match buyers and sellers from different states.
While the company uses complex algorithms to monitor prices, whether or not a merchant is in violation depends on where the customer lives. Some states set specific thresholds for price gouging, such as 10% above typical prices. Other states define it vaguely with words like “unconscionable.” Amazon merchants offer the same prices nationally and don’t know in advance where their customers live. All of this makes it difficult for Amazon to manage with clear rules, making merchants suspect the company got too aggressive in trying to prevent price-gouging violations with algorithms.
Amazon has weathered price-gouging complaints in the aftermath of hurricanes and other natural disasters where the state of emergency is limited geographically. The coronavirus outbreak swept the entire nation and has lasted for months, so price-gouging concerns took on greater prominence. Several lawmakers proposed federal legislation to prevent it, and Amazon in May also advocated for a federal solution, highlighting the difficulties of addressing the phenomenon on its own despite having a team devoted to watching for price gouging and technology designed to spot it on its web store.
“The disparate standards among states present a significant challenge for retailers working to assist law enforcement, protect consumers, and comply with the law,” Brian Huseman, a former Federal Trade Commission attorney who now oversees Amazon's public policy team in Washington, D.C., wrote in a May blog post supporting federal legislation.
Amazon is eager to be seen by regulators as an ally in fighting price gouging, not a perpetrator. The company says it removed more than 500,000 offers from its site and suspended 6,000 accounts for violating price policies since the pandemic started. The company has been cooperating with attorneys general in several states by sharing information about sellers accused of improperly jacking up prices.
Who is responsible for price-gouging violations has already become a new area of dispute between Amazon and its merchant partners, which have also sparred over who bears responsibility for policing counterfeits on the marketplace or collecting sales taxes. The Online Merchants Guild, an industry group representing e-commerce sellers, in May filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron from imposing state price control laws on Amazon merchants. Instead, the attorney general should enforce the laws against Amazon, the lawsuit states.
In the meantime, merchants say the fact that they received automated warnings despite not raising prices shows that Amazon’s crackdown went too far. One merchant who has been selling products on the site for six years says she eliminated about 100 items, including hand sanitizer and toilet paper, after receiving warnings in March about price gouging. The merchant, who gets the inventory from the same manufacturers and distributors that supply pharmacies and supermarkets, says she hadn’t raised prices at all on most of the products in 2020.
Another long-time Amazon merchant who has been selling office supplies on the site, including hand sanitizer and cleaning products, says he received two email warnings in March about potential price violations that didn’t even specify which of the thousands of products he sells were in question. He spoke with a representative in Amazon’s seller support department who identified several products raising alarms, including plastic food containers, toilet paper and a body wipe. The rep wouldn't say how much the merchant would be allowed to charge, so he stopped selling products likely to trigger a violation.
Even Amazon merchants who raised prices significantly during the pandemic can show regulators that the hikes were not exploitative, says CJ Rosenbaum, a New York attorney who represents Amazon merchants. Many Amazon sellers use software to set prices, which automatically shoot up when inventory is low. This is done to protect merchants’ reputation on Amazon, which uses algorithms to monitor their performance and punishes them for running out of stock. That software can also add extra shipping costs, which some state price-gouging laws allow. Still, the cost of hiring lawyers to fend off regulators and the risk of losing an Amazon business isn’t worth it for many merchants to sell the products Amazon started aggressively monitoring, Rosenbaum says.
“There was no clarity on what pricing was fair,” he says, adding that dozens of his clients deliberately avoided certain in-demand products to avoid suspensions. “Amazon treated sellers very poorly.”