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
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.