it seems like actual humans at Amazon reviewed the situation yet let the complaint stand and the original complaint poster now is informed that the complaint blamed the wrong party yet didn't take the effort to update her product review.
lol pretty dissappointed in the humans involved in those two situations and its hard not to be angry on behalf of the previously successful business that was victimized like this.
In what way did the complaint blame the wrong party? I guess "the company" can be read in multiple ways, I read it as blaming Amazon:
The diaper arrived used and was covered in poop stains. (See pics) Nothing could have been more disgusting!! I am assuming someone returned it after using it and the company simply did not check the item and then shipped it to us as if it was brand new. These were not small stains either. I was extremely grossed out. Thank god I saw the stains and didn’t put it on my baby! I will be returning this ASAP and I sure hope they check it out when they get it back but I wouldn’t be surprised if they just ship it to some other unsuspecting parent.
I can see it as an honest complaint originally I mean who wouldn't? But apparently she was contacted about the really disproportionate and innaccurate representation it left in readers minds and I guess thought it was not worth her time to pitch in and help clarify, so I'm disappointed in her value judgements. Amazon could have also just removed the complaint because it inaccurately portrayed the family business as willing to sell used diapers of all things, its not like they are that picky about which reviews to remove in the first place.
Not to mention just plain bad QA on Amazons part.
Any of the least little bit of help from anybody could have went a long way here. Disappointment all around.
I guess I don't fully believe the story about the single review causing such disproportionate harm. The entrepreneurs were said to be scaling up their business (was it too quickly, did they overproduce?) and if they were so successful, they were presumably drawing attention from competitors (what's the moat for a contract-made swim diaper with snaps)?
There aren't any hard numbers for the business in the Ars Technica story or the Bloomberg story it links to, Bloomberg just says "Sales plummeted".
If I search Amazon for "swim diaper snaps", the brand from the article (Beau & Belle Littles) is in the second row of results - the first row is all sponsored results.
This just feels like a case of folks having too many of their eggs in a single precarious basket.
I guess I don't fully believe the story about the single review causing such disproportionate harm.
I do, who's going to take a chance of receiving a biohazard lol
This just feels like a case of folks having too many of their eggs in a single precarious basket.
this is true, but Amazon's position in this space means their the default choice in many cases. It also rings true that due to their gigantic market presence, they don't have to worry about being outcompeted because of their own mistakes.
Comments
it seems like actual humans at Amazon reviewed the situation yet let the complaint stand and the original complaint poster now is informed that the complaint blamed the wrong party yet didn't take the effort to update her product review.
lol pretty dissappointed in the humans involved in those two situations and its hard not to be angry on behalf of the previously successful business that was victimized like this.
In what way did the complaint blame the wrong party? I guess "the company" can be read in multiple ways, I read it as blaming Amazon:
I can see it as an honest complaint originally I mean who wouldn't? But apparently she was contacted about the really disproportionate and innaccurate representation it left in readers minds and I guess thought it was not worth her time to pitch in and help clarify, so I'm disappointed in her value judgements. Amazon could have also just removed the complaint because it inaccurately portrayed the family business as willing to sell used diapers of all things, its not like they are that picky about which reviews to remove in the first place.
Not to mention just plain bad QA on Amazons part.
Any of the least little bit of help from anybody could have went a long way here. Disappointment all around.
I guess I don't fully believe the story about the single review causing such disproportionate harm. The entrepreneurs were said to be scaling up their business (was it too quickly, did they overproduce?) and if they were so successful, they were presumably drawing attention from competitors (what's the moat for a contract-made swim diaper with snaps)?
There aren't any hard numbers for the business in the Ars Technica story or the Bloomberg story it links to, Bloomberg just says "Sales plummeted".
If I search Amazon for "swim diaper snaps", the brand from the article (Beau & Belle Littles) is in the second row of results - the first row is all sponsored results.
This just feels like a case of folks having too many of their eggs in a single precarious basket.
I do, who's going to take a chance of receiving a biohazard lol
this is true, but Amazon's position in this space means their the default choice in many cases. It also rings true that due to their gigantic market presence, they don't have to worry about being outcompeted because of their own mistakes.