Honestly, while I have my doubts about this succeeding, it nevertheless feels like the big tech suit most likely to succeed.
Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default.
But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets, easy to split up without huge adverse effects, and FB purchasing them was clearly done to neuter potential competitive threats.
So if any suit is going to succeed, this feels like it would be the one.
Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items.
Amazon promoting its own brands is completely different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. You're confusing a bazaar with a retail store; the two are nothing alike legally or economically.
The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold). Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand.
In contrast, Amazon not only sells alongside its third-party sellers, it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that.
The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer.
That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then they will start buying less of yours.
Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that.
Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves.
The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
None of what you wrote is really relevant to the point the parent was making. They were highlighting the upfront risk of paying for the inventory itself. Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. The vast, vast majority of other retailers do. Consignment arrangements are the exception, not the rule.
Slotting fees, like buying ads on Amazon, have absolutely nothing to do with inventory costs.
>Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
There's exceptions to everything and the parent explicitly mentioned that.
This is a bit extreme. “Shipped and sold by Amazon” is indeed a large part of their online retail and many people try to buy only directly from Amazon.
We seem to have come full circle back to the original point.
Amazon chooses which products to stock and sell direct based on the risk/reward ratio of each individual product. They determine that ratio by analyzing their 3rd party merchants data.
See the problem? Amazon can eliminate/minimize their own risk based on data from their supposed "partners".
That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then they will start buying less of yours.
You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals...
It's about market fit. Price sensitive customers would generally not buy name brand because it's too expensive, and the brands don't won't lower-priced products to "sully" the image of the brand. Hence, they sell white label (aka store brand) products to retail stores that are generally lower quality and thus cheaper.
Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves.
Yes, some do. For new products that they wouldn't otherwise stock on the shelves, because it's in lieu of the anticipated lost revenue from saleable products that would otherwise have gone on the shelves. Note that slotting fees are used alongside consignment arrangements.
Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
Yes, but they've still paid for those products in the first place (in the legal/accounting sense). Refunds come in the form of discounts or credits on future invoices.
Retail stores are not paying upfront. Name a single major retailer that does this. I've yet to hear of a single one doing this.
Amazon is a bookstore. Go to any other bookstore or even distributor, and ask how quickly folks get paid who sell into their market. These folks drag the absolute HELL out of payment.
And yes, the local bookstore can return the books. They are generally not taking inventory risk.
Same thing with a grocery store. Want to get on shelf? Pay a fee? Want to sell in store? Until you prove sales volume so risk is gone, you will need to be willing to accept product returns and pay fee to cover whatever you replaced.
Want data on how your product sold at store level / by day / time etc? Be prepared to PAY for that. BTW - amazon merchants get most of this for free.
The time to pay for a product that sells in a retail store and amazon is different, and much WORSE for the retail store. You can get next day payout availability for FBA from amazon. If you sell a product through a distributor into retail - if you think you are going to get next day payment - dream on.
Retail stores are not paying upfront. Name a single major retailer that does this. I've yet to hear of a single one doing this.
I don't claim that the companies "pay upfront" because that's not how B2B invoicing works. Companies pay invoices on a net-terms basis (ranging between 30 and 180 days after the underlying good or service is provided or received). But they have signed the legal contract agreeing to pay before they received the inventory (and indeed before the inventory was even queued for delivery), and so legally, they are required to pay.
For financial and tax purposes, they are treated as having paid (because the expense has accrued) even if, economically, they have not actually forked over the money.
And yes, the local bookstore can return the books. They are generally not taking inventory risk
This is not true. The local bookstore has taken on inventory risk. B&N takes on inventory risk. They can, however, ask the publisher for discounts or credits for unsold books, and publishers generally give those out like candy.
Same thing with a grocery store. Want to get on shelf? Pay a fee? Want to sell in store? Until you prove sales volume so risk is gone, you will need to be willing to accept product returns and pay fee to cover whatever you replaced.
Yes, and I've never claimed otherwise. If you want to replace items on the shelf that are selling, you need to pay the store for the risk of your replacement product not selling. But once you have established that record of sales, they buy future inventory. Note that for most retail stores we are talking about here (grocery, gas stations, Target, Walmart, etc.), these trials last a day or two; maybe even a week for slower-selling product types; trials may last longer for specialty stores.
“30 and 180 days after the underlying good or service is provided or received”
+ “But once you have established that record of sales, they buy future inventory.”
Means very different for products with a limited shelf life. The cost to “replace items that are selling” doesn’t just cover the risk, it also covers the items actively sitting on the shelves. A store is only buying new items after the old items have sold, so that continues indefinitely. A store is thus better off of if an item stops selling in 1 year than 1 day, as the replacement item is also subsidized.
You can safely leave off the leading paragraph about how other people in the thread are not smart and you're in the right—that's the default motivational assumption that surrounds making comments online
> You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals...
It's the same with Amazon. They may not be using the "name brand" manufacturer all the time, but Amazon doesn't own factories that make Amazon brand products. They use OEM's like everyone else. They don't own farms and dairy mills for their grocery products.
> You do know that the companies that make the name brand cereals...also make the store brand cereals.
If my brand is diluted then there's no reason to keep using me to create the store brand. Being the manufacturer of the store brand is just signing my own death sentence.
> it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products.
Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it.
> Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product;
Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that.
> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it.
Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers.
Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that.
I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER.
I repeat, the store brand is just a different SKU offered under the name brand's white label product line. For example, Home Depot's RIGID tool like is made by the same company that makes Milwaukee and Ryobi. Those store brand cereals are made by General Mills. The store brand milk comes from the same regional dairies as the local regional name brand. Every single one of Costco's Kirkland signature products is made for them by a supplier that makes their own name brand products.
Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
> I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER.
But we are asking how is Amazon different? All of their store brands share manufacturers with name brands. They haven’t developed their own textile mills and coffee roasters...
> No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
One can always make the argument then, that just use Shopify and don't come to Amazon. Amazon can even make the case for Google and FB having sufficiently big audience size for customer acquisition.
Unlike an app which needs to go through AppStore to end up on an iPhone, a product being sold on Amazon doesn't need to go through them for customers to purchase it.
> Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers.
So does Amazon, but both don't limit themselves to just this use case.
i don't see what's hard to understand, get access to your competitors data, use that data to cherry pick and create competing products on your own platform with an inherent home field advantage. boom competition dead.
I get that completely and it is scary, what I don't get is the argument that somehow physical retailers are above this. There is nothing new in what Amazon is doing, retailers have been playing by this book for long. Whatever regulation is being asked for Amazon, should have been asked for other retail behemoths as well way before.
> Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer.
Supermarket economics are more complex. Brands have to pay to go on promotion, and they have to pay to appear in the catalogue. I've heard placement fees for mailbox catalogue placements can be a significant bulk of revenue for some companies.
My wife recently started in a new company with retail products and was appalled at what goes on, but it's normal. The supermarket wants to promote your product? Pay up. Per product. They choose which, not you. If you don't, there's a good chance your shelf space gets replaced by a competitor next time it's under review. If you do, you'll often lose money while it's on sale. It's a very predatory arrangement enabled by the duopoly here in AU.
Thank you. This is the first time I've seen my thoughts on this explained so clearly. This is something I felt was unfair but couldn't quite pare it down in a succinct argument like that.
It just feels so obvious. What leads someone as smart as Bezos to ignore this line of reasoning? Even if it turns out that it's not "illegal," I feel like deep down, people inside the company just know what they're doing is slimy, or at least, unfair.
Wouldn't it be in the best interest of Amazon to call itself a marketplace (or 'bazaar') to avoid future legislative action?
It’s not accurate though (see other comments). The one I’m amazed by is the assertion that “ The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold)” which is leaving a lot of money off the table
Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers. Supermarkets don’t just pay for product as a textbook marketplace
> Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers.
I don't see how this invalidates the analogy. Brands paying for eye-level placement is the same as 'sponsored products' on Amazon. Any Amazon Seller has a right to do this and Amazon has the right to sell this access. Just like any brand has the right to meet eye-level requirements.
Yes, supermarkets have a store brand. Yes, they may also place store brand items at eye-level at no cost. But! I think there are two key differences:
1) In most cases, supermarkets buy from the existing product manufacturer at wholesale in order to be able to slap their brand on the product and use other cost saving measures (ie: bland, cheaper packaging, etc) to sell the same product at a lower price. In cases where they don't buy from the manufacturer, the copy of the product is likely not covered by a patent or is different enough as to not infringe on the patent/trademark.
2) Many Amazon Sellers are small independent companies, just look at their success stories page [1] to see the extent to which they market to small business owners. These businesses likely can't afford to patent their products and when Amazon decides to copy their product (based off the data they collected [2]), they can't defend themselves and their product effectively.
Not all Amazon brand products are a problem. The biggest issue is the exploitation of companies in a certain 'sweet spot' on its platform. These small businesses have taken on risk to provide a good product that sells well, but aren't big enough to patent the product or hire lawyers.
Maybe Amazon is just a symptom caused by the imbalance of power in the economy right now. Either way, it's unfair and should be fixed. I think separating Amazon "the marketplace" and Amazon "the competing store brand" would help (as long as Amazon "marketplace" sells store data to Amazon "brand name" at the same price it offers everyone else).
A law requiring store brand items to be made from an existing manufacturer in it's "marketplace" would also help. Supermarkets would be mostly unaffected, Amazon would need to a) buy the product from it's Sellers at wholesale volume (like a supermarket) and b) compete based on other merits like faster shipping, customer service, etc.
Supermarkets do not pay for product as you describe. Manufacturers and/or distributors pay the supermarkets slotting fees to get their products on the shelves. Additionally, slotting fees are higher for ideal shelf location, and in some cases proximity to competitor products. For example, the bottom shelves are undesirable. And then you have end caps which are highly desirable.
Slotting fees are real, but of course supermarkets pay for the product. How else would the manufacturer be paid? The fee is basically paying for the right to shelf space, but the supermarket still buys the product to fill the shelves. Also, not all supermarkets, including not all large chains, have such fees.
Sure. I didn't say anything differently. The parent though was mistaken to believe supermarkets do not have similar structures to Amazon in terms of product placement/promotion. In other words, Apple pays Amazon in some form in order to have Amazon prioritize Apple products based upon user search. Supermarkets are paid by Starkist to get Starkist tuna on the eye-level shelf as opposed to the first shelf from the floor. Starkist and Apple still get paid for products sold, otherwise neither company could exist.
Many big chains like Walmart and Best Buy don't own a significant portion of inventory on shelves or in warehouses. The manufacturers own the inventory up until the products are paid for by the customer.
This is simply false. Chains like Walmart and Best Buy own their inventory (i.e., they hold legal title).
They simply might not have forked over the cash yet, which is very different--for a variety of reasons, the actual transfer of cash can take place weeks or even months later. (This is how invoicing works with most companies. If you are an independent contract, you know exactly how this works.)
Very few products in retail are sold on a consignment basis (meaning, when the product sells). Generally, only new products or slow-selling big-ticket items (like refrigerators) get sold on consignment (or similar) arrangements.
Legal title isn’t the end-all depending on how the entire contract is structured. e.g. A home owner may hold legal title to a home, but the mortgage is a side contract that may show that the bank may hold more than half of the entire home value.
Legal title is just one of many arbitrary constructs that get applied, typically in a way that’s most advantageous to the more powerful party in the relationship.
Forking or not forking over cash can be a key component of who really holds the business risk (rather than just legal title).
> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.
Antitrust law only considers consumer welfare. It's perfectly legal to use monopoly power to squeeze third-party suppliers. Especially if any of those cost-savings are passed along to consumers in the form of lower prices. (Which is pretty indisputable with Amazon.) Antitrust only exists to protect consumers, not other businesses, competitors or suppliers.
This kind if rebadging has been happening in many industries for a very long time. I bumped into this first, way back in the heyday of CD burners, deep diving on all the info and comparisons I could find. The high end Sony and some bargain brand were identical units apart from the case and badge. A real aha moment in my life.
With cars, there are often just superficial differences to create a much larger perceived value difference between an Audi or VW or a Lexus or Toyota (on some models).
I find this topic quite fascinating, as it relates to human psychology.
White labeling is frequently more profitable than selling a name brand product because you don't have to spend money on marketing, but due to the different level of quality in most store brand products, the suppliers generally prefer to leave their brand off the package and put only the legal minimum identifying info require. As a result, unless you actually work for one of the brands involved (the store or the supplier) it's extremely hard to know who the supplier is. But every store brand product you buy in a major U.S. retail chain is made by a manufacturer of a name brand product in the same space.
They might make it, but it’s generally a different, cheaper, product. You can easily see this with food - the ingredients and nutrition information will usually be different.
Not taking a stance on the main topic, but this isn’t entirely accurate. I worked at gas stations and managed a grocery store during my early days. It depended on the product. With Frito Lay and Pepsi products, they’d often times put stuff on shelves and we’d only pay for what we sold. Similarly, for certain breads and packaged pastries and other items, anything that didn’t sell by the date on the package would get credited to the store. If the item didn’t sell, it’s not that we always just absorbed the cost.
None of what you said conflicts with how the transactions are actually characterized for legal, tax, and financial purposes.
Suppliers often credit stores for unsold inventory if they want to maintain a relationship with the store. As most B2B transactions are paid via invoices on a net-terms basis, this may mean discounts on future orders or credits against outstanding invoices. But you're store already acquired those products.
As I learned at my first company when we were sued for (bogus) anti trust reasons -- You do not need to actually be a monopoly to run afoul of anti trust laws. You only need the speak and act with the intent to do so. Using your market share to harm your competitors without a clear benefit to customers is enough to get you even if there are other large companies in the space.
I have my doubts, simply because the markets would be significantly disrupted if the government can retroactively “unapprove” a merger over a decade (or longer) after the fact - AFTER the government previously approved it.
You’re better off trying to right the wrongs through litigation that sets a better market environment.
It's not any different than splitting a company up into parts. Historically, that hasn't disrupted the markets as much as it's made sharedholders more money ... because the multiple, smaller entities are more valuable than the whole.
The situation reminds me of when Google bought Motorola[0], and then the Android phone manufacturers pushed for them to sell it again. Which eventually happened. Main difference here would be that it's the government pushing now, instead of (indirect?) competitors (which also happen to be customers).
[0] Good old times, I still have a Moto G3 from back then that works like a charm, except it can't "speak" to the 4G technology that got deployed in the country where I live.
Maybe, but I wonder if the difference in hardware vs. software makes the FB situation a tad more complicated.
Leadership made the push a few years back when Chris Cox left to merge the code bases as much as possible. Do you trust the government to know enough to dictate how that should be undone? You can't, like, just run a "git rebase" to undo years of merging by 10000's of engineers.
Then again, maybe that is just crazy enough to work???
> Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default.
But these aren't the complaints being bade, at least not the ones in the lawsuits we know of so far. The Google lawsuit, for example, targets its practice of paying companies to make it the default search engine in order to maintain it's monopoly on search. It isn't seeking Google divest from its ad business.
That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business.
> That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business.
I’m not aware of a business model that would keep a search company in business if they didn’t offer ads to go with it. On top of that, offering the ability to companies to target their ads to highly relevant consumers is incredibly valuable to our economy.
That really doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to answer. E.g. just look at Facebook: name the #2 broadly "generic" social network. Is there really any other alternative here, at all? It really was a winner take all effect here, evidenced by the fact that all their former competitors are basically dead. Same thing with Instagram - anyone remember Hipstamatic?
> But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets
A lot of companies are like that, one could think that it's "easy" to split up Google Maps from Gmail and Google Calendar, or Office 360 from Azure and Windows, or Salesforce and Slack and ...
How does cleaving companies apart into their separate unrelated businesses address monopoly practices or anti-trust issues? If Amazon has a monopoly on delivery, the parted-out delivery company will still have a monopoly on delivery. If AWS has a monopoly on cloud computing, making AWS independent changes nothing. AWS is not going to begin competing with Amazon's last-mile delivery business if the two are split off into separate companies.
Because internet search engine, video sharing platform, streaming entertainment content division, or a self driving car division of other competitors are clearly products belonging together.
Unfortunately there's literally thousands of social networking sites, chat apps and photo sharing apps out there, and many of them have millions of downloads which keeps Facebook on their toes. Facebook can easily win this based off of that technicality.
That's only a technicality in internet discussions. Actual antitrust law in the US does not have a binary definition of "monopoly" that lets large companies off the hook.
A high profile acquisition or merger within FAANG is extremely unlikely. These companies are already treading a careful line with antitrust and a merger would be unbelievably risky. There is also basically no point on either side; these companies are doing just fine. If anything the competition is probably good for them.
Netflix is probably the highest risk of being acquired by someone like Apple, or more likely traditional media owner like Disney or Comcast.
no one else can afford to host that much useless content except maybe the US government. the alternative would be that YT dies and nothing replaces it. sometimes there is no alternative to centralization.
Especially since YouTube is, according to what I usually read in the internet, is barely (or might not even be) profitable. Google probably keeps it around because it's a source of precious data.
I agree with the above. I’ll also add that apple and Amazon are two of the most loved American brands. I think Amazon has a higher trust from Americans compared to almost every institution except the US military
Doesn’t seem like a good political move to go after those companies in my opinion. By comparison, Facebook is loathed by both parties for different reasons.
Yeah, but I worry about the impact of this for rule of law generally, because those acquisitions were approved by the FTC. If something material changed or was omitted, I guess you could make the case for taking Facebook to court but if the issue is just the magnitude of the acquisition or the nature of the companies' business it seems like asking for a do-over.
Is it really that big of a difference? You still have to go to the one section of walmart where they stock the cheese or car batteries or whatever. Walmart can set up their own shelves to emphasize their own brands if they want.
If you pay with a credit card at walmart they can collect the same data about your purchase history as amazon would as well.
Walmart paid for the products on their shelves. Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon.
The difference, in case it's not clear: Walmart is the manufacturers' primary customer, so it's irrelevant from their point of view what products Walmart chooses to sell in its stores.
The third-party sellers are the manufacturer's customers. The manufacturers still get paid either way. But we're not concerned about the manufacturers; the antitrust issue is with the third party sellers. Since Amazon uses their data to come up with competing products that are sold in the same marketplace, it matters a great deal that Amazon competes with them, and how.
Walmart pays for some products on their shelves. Companies pay for product placement: Sometimes, it is a mix - deeply reduced prices for a holiday display, for example. Soft drinks are often serviced by the local distributor, and they pay only for what is sold: If wal-mart is anything like the pharmacy I worked at, magazines and greeting cards are similar (only pay for what is sold, credited for the rest, and a rep probably takes care of stocking things).
Walmart uses their data to figure out which Walmart brand products they are going to sell. Instead of using search terms, they use product placement, making sure to place their brand near the product it is imitating. Dandruff shampoo next to name brand dandruff shampoo: Mac 'n' cheese next to mac 'n' cheese.
In fact, it is quite amazing how much brick-and-mortar stores can figure out about people simply by analyzing receipts - in some cases, figuring out folks were pregnant before they knew. [1]
No, Walmart pays for nearly all the products on their shelves, except for new products which might be sold on a consignment basis.
Companies paying for product placement does not change the simple truth that Walmart has paid for the product (in the legal and financial sense, even if they haven't actually forked over the cash in the actual/economic sense), and the supplier is paying for product placement through discounts or other non-cash consideration.
If wal-mart is anything like the pharmacy I worked at, magazines and greeting cards are similar (only pay for what is sold, credited for the rest, and a rep probably takes care of stocking things).
No, Walmart and Target are not like the pharmacy you worked for. Target and RiteAid were former clients, I know exactly how they paid for their inventory.
Moreover, the market for books, magazines, newspapers, and other printed material is different from other products. With print material, publishers provide discounts or credits for unsold copies against newer books/issues because the value of the unsold periodicals rapidly drops to zero after the period passes, and book stores that get burned with unsaleable books generally refuse to stock new books from that publisher if they are not provided incentives (by the publisher) to do so. Note that publishers will usually not credit book stores for best sellers like Harry Potter, etc., because the threat to not carry future best sellers is more likely to backfire on the bookstore than it is on the publisher.
I'm so very, very sick of the target pregnancy story. Like, we have absolutely no idea how many people the model thought were pregnant, vs the number that actually were.
Based on my knowledge of market-basket analysis, this might work, but we really don't know anything except a just-so story about target and someone's daughter.
This is really, really not a good example of analysing receipts leading to better things.
And a portion of the products that can be purchased from "Amazon.com" (the seller) are JIT orders that Amazon places with the supplier. This is why some products on Amazon are perpetually never "in stock" until a future date on the store listing page; Amazon has made the decision based on sales data to only order those products on demand. In such cases, the supplier will usually ship to Amazon for transshipment to the customer, but depending on the cost of logistics, Amazon may have them ship directly to the customer.
I don't think this distinction actually justifies treating Amazon in a dramatically different way than Walmart. I agree that Amazon and Walmart have different strategies for managing inventory, in house branding and product placement. Walmart also operates an in house clone of Amazon in the form of their online store.
Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default.
But FB, IG and WhatsApp are clearly separate products, all very much monopolies in their markets, easy to split up without huge adverse effects, and FB purchasing them was clearly done to neuter potential competitive threats.
So if any suit is going to succeed, this feels like it would be the one.