> Either the consumer is savvy and spent the requisite time considering their purchase, or they haven't. Retailers will always attempt to capitalize on this.

And the news media will always try to educate the unsavvy consumers; especially if it's an easy story to tell, like this one.

A lot of people, formed their impression of Amazon when it pretty much always offered a good deal (and didn't collect sales tax in the US). Many of them are still coasting on that impression, and shopping exclusively at Amazon in many categories under that outdated assumption.

I'm not a natural comparison shopping, so it took me a long time to figure out I can no longer I'm getting a good deal at Amazon anymore. I'm glad the BBC is reminding people to question their outdated decision-making assumptions.

It's not necessarily that "getting a good deal" is the reason that people shop at Amazon. Personally I think their customer service is pretty top-notch compared to most anywhere else and I know I'll be in good hands 99% of the time if I have any problems with a product. That's worth any minuscule price-disadvantage compared to competitors to me.

> It's not necessarily that "getting a good deal" is the reason that people shop at Amazon. Personally I think their customer service is pretty top-notch compared to most anywhere else and I know I'll be in good hands 99% of the time if I have any problems with a product.

Personally, I've had pretty good product return experiences with Amazon's brick and mortar competitors recently. They know they're competing with Amazon, and they're trying to adjust accordingly.

My main point was that Amazon and the rest of the retail landscape has changed, and if you formed your view that heavily favors Amazon 10+ years ago, it's probably outdated and should be recalibrated.

I shopped almost exclusively on Amazon for a long time. I've been pulling back from it and have been finding that my old, harsh judgements of its competitors are no longer true. They've gone a long way towards catching up, and Amazon has been resting on its laurels or even regressing in the areas I care about.

> That's worth any minuscule price-disadvantage compared to competitors to me.

It's wrong to assume the price-disadvantage is minuscule, especially when you're dealing with marketplace sellers.

If you get a fake product they will deny any wrong doing even with photographic evidence of said fake product

FWIW I've never had this experience, and either way it's a non-issue in the UK, because you can return items for any reason.

You can return in the US as well but it's annoying that they won't accept responsibility for failures

Consumers aren't savvy.

Close to a decade ago, JCPenny went to a get rid of coupons/sales and go to a low price all the time model.

It almost bankrupted them.

http://business.time.com/2012/06/01/jcpenney-is-already-goin...

Seemingly customers demand to get screwed over by the "this huge discount feels like a drug" effect.

I remember this

There were also great studies as a result from his case, e.g. what is the optimal "discount" off a list pricet

If I recall correctly 30% discount was the entry point and anything else was bonus on top

> I think the case could be made that sales tactics like this are common at nearly all major retailers

That's why these sorts of tactics need to be made illegal. The US desperately needs better consumer protections, the amount of scams and misinformation flying around is dizzying.

There are laws against this sort of thing in Canada. If you say something is "50% off!" the ordinary price you're comparing against must pass either a volume test or a time test.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/00...

I'm not seeing a strong indication that this is a scam, though. Prices vary and some sales are better than others.

What is the harm if a person pays $50 for something, and $50 for something with a 50% off sticker next to it? The latter just releases some chemicals in the purchaser’s brain maybe making them feel better.

Vendors don't put the 50% off sticker on it to make those happy who would have bought the item anyway. They put it on to trick people who would not pay 50$ for the article into doing so.

The fact that they paid $50 for it seems to negate the claim that they wouldn’t pay $50 for it.