Meta hutcheson Posted June 2, 2004 Meta Posted June 2, 2004 Read my post again. I grant you, Amazon and allposters are generally easy to spot, although I'm running into people going to more and more trouble to try to hide that information. It is SMC that is pure evil; their affiliates lie about what they are, and SMC lies about what it is -- and you repeat the lie. It is not a wholesaler. They do not sell to retailers, they do not ship to retailers, and they do not provide any services to retailers. It is a retailer in drag. As you say, unlike an honest company (amazon or allposters), SMC doesn't host its own storefront. But to say that it doesn't provide one is extremely dishonest. It seduces co-conspirators to host tens of thousands of copies of its storefront, giving a false name as the business entity which provides the product. Experienced shopping editors know the SMC product line, and yes, if they spot one or two unidentified SMC products on a website, that is good and sufficient cause for immediate rejection. At that point, we know what kind of "business" the website is fronting for, and further details are really unnecessary. It's time to reject it and move on. -- there's no reason for editors to waste time wondering "Does this website have 30,000 SMC products as well as one bit of klitch they make themselves and sell nowhere else on the internet?" So the only way to keep a "mixed-source" site from being immediately rejected is to identify the sources, so editors can ignore the non-unique ones, and review the possibly unique ones. And yes, I have heard that SMC does not allow its affiliates to give true information about the source of the products they are advertising -- and that is another mark of the beast. This is not a negotiable ODP policy. At one time, SMC was unique among all the distributed-denial-of-service-spammers in that ODP staff had attempted to reject all SMC affiliates automatically. That didn't work, but that will give you an idea of the attitude that is inculcated in the ODP community.
respree Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 Read my post again. I grant you, Amazon and allposters are generally easy to spot, although I'm running into people going to more and more trouble to try to hide that information. It is SMC that is pure evil; their affiliates lie about what they are, and SMC lies about what it is -- and you repeat the lie. It is not a wholesaler. They do not sell to retailers, they do not ship to retailers, and they do not provide any services to retailers. It is a retailer in drag. As you say, unlike an honest company (amazon or allposters), SMC doesn't host its own storefront. But to say that it doesn't provide one is extremely dishonest. It seduces co-conspirators to host tens of thousands of copies of its storefront, giving a false name as the business entity which provides the product. Experienced shopping editors know the SMC product line, and yes, if they spot one or two unidentified SMC products on a website, that is good and sufficient cause for immediate rejection. At that point, we know what kind of "business" the website is fronting for, and further details are really unnecessary. It's time to reject it and move on. -- there's no reason for editors to waste time wondering "Does this website have 30,000 SMC products as well as one bit of klitch they make themselves and sell nowhere else on the internet?" So the only way to keep a "mixed-source" site from being immediately rejected is to identify the sources, so editors can ignore the non-unique ones, and review the possibly unique ones. And yes, I have heard that SMC does not allow its affiliates to give true information about the source of the products they are advertising -- and that is another mark of the beast. This is not a negotiable ODP policy. At one time, SMC was unique among all the distributed-denial-of-service-spammers in that ODP staff had attempted to reject all SMC affiliates automatically. That didn't work, but that will give you an idea of the attitude that is inculcated in the ODP community. You speak very authoritatively about something you know little about. However, you have been patient, so I will educate you on what is reality so your perception of what is happening can be clarified. - "It is SMC that is pure evil" FALSE. I'll admit they are very aggressive in obtaining customers who market their products on the internet, but pure evil, as you so eloquently put it is not the same thing as being aggressive. "their affiliates lie about what they are" FALSE. Once again, you are mistaken about the word affiliate. They have no affiliates as far as I am aware of. What you are calling affiliates are, in fact, wholesale customers who buy product from them. They just happen to drop ship directly to the the end consumer. An affiliate is commission is paid to the referring site. The company itself, processes the order, collects the money and pays a referal fee. "SMC lies about what it is" FALSE. This is based on the incorrect assumption that the E-Tailers marketing these products are affiliates. SMC is up-front that it is a wholesaler, who has a drop-ship product fulfillment service. "and you repeat the lie." FALSE. Assuming you are correct, yes, I have repeated the lie. However, that assumption is false. "It is not a wholesaler." FALSE. I would not call them a traditional wholesaler, which large quantities must be ordered and shipped directly to the Retailer. Their business model is different. They will sell an E-tailer one unit and drop ship directly to the end consumer. Be that as it may, they are a wholesaler. "They do not sell to retailers" FALSE. The fact is, it is just the opposite. The 'only' sell to retailers. You and the general public cannot buy directly from SMC. That's the definition of wholesale. "they do not ship to retailers" FALSE. They do ship to retailers. However, on the Internet, it does not make sense to invest money to have inventory on hand. That is what makes their drop ship business model attractive. "and they do not provide any services to retailers." FALSE. The service they provide is they drop ship products to end customers, they process retailer orders, provide customer service, etc. These services are all provided to retailers. They will not provide these services to the genera public; again the definition of being a wholesaler. "It is a retailer in drag." FALSE. I've been involved in retail for 20 years now and have never heard that term. Are you making this up? A retailer, by definition, collects funds from the end customer. They do not. To be frank, I really don't even actively market these products. Whether they sell or not, I really don't care. My main business is prints and posters. They have been left on my site only as a matter of selection to my customers who are shopping for art. Of course, I cannot speak for any the marketing tactics of other merchants who offer these products, but it seems wrong to indiscriminately view 'anyone' marketing these products in the same light. By your argument, if Amazon.com were to sell these products, would they be delisted?
flicker Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Respree, if all of what Hutcheson says is as false as you say it is, then surely you wouldn't have a problem with identifying the source of each product on your own website as he suggests? After all, if SMC is merely a wholesaler as you say it is, then they couldn't possibly object to this, could they? And the product identification would help customers--as a frequent online shopper, I *hate* trying to scroll through stuff I've already seen on other sites. E-stores that legitimately sell products from many different wholesalers nearly always try to make this more convenient for their customers by allowing them to shop by brand as well as by object type. (Amazon.com's clothing sales are a good example of this.) Looking for product information on an online shopping site is hardly an unreasonable policy on the ODP's part--we are trying to provide our users with a similar level of convenience and freedom from drudgery that these excellent e-commerce sites provide, by *not* linking to the muddled-up ones that will make them page through all the same stuff repeatedly and exert their memory to keep track of which ones are unidentified SMC stuff if that isn't what they're looking for. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
tshephard Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Actually, he does have one good point. Amazon and probably 95% of the retailers you guys list do drop ship from other retailers. Most retailers on the web are going to want to cross sell products that aren't necessarily in their inventory. Why send the profit to someone elses website just because of a minor technicality? What you guys are trying to do is noble but probably deserves a bit more thought to make it fair for the little guy.
motsa Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 >>By your argument, if Amazon.com were to sell these products, would they be delisted? If the bulk of their products started coming from dropshippers, yes, we might well delist them.
Meta hutcheson Posted June 3, 2004 Meta Posted June 3, 2004 I am content to let my representation of SMC stand. I should mention tshephard's usual disengenuity: this has nothing whatsoever to with "stores offering items that are not in their inventory", it's about non-stores with no inventory not to have items in.
Meta hutcheson Posted June 3, 2004 Meta Posted June 3, 2004 flicker, it's not a matter of "accidentally forgetting to give the source." SMC requires their participation in the scam to be concealed -- the exact opposite of a legitimate company with pride in their brand name. And even so, they've had to change their name at least twice in the past five years: for the wicked, a reputation is a hard thing to have hanging over one's head.
flicker Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 That's precisely what I was trying to ask... if these folks were the legitimate wholesalers Respree says they are, then why wouldn't they permit their partners to label their goods with their business' name, as most reputable salesmen who carry other people's products do? Amazon.com not only lets me know I'm buying a skirt from Newport News, they'll let me search within their Newport News inventory if that's what I'm looking for or search excluding Newport News if I have no interest in that line. Full disclosure AND convenience to their users. If I physically go to Target, they won't hide from me the manufacturers of the toaster ovens I'm looking at. If SMC were real wholesalers and their distributors were real retailers, surely this wouldn't pose a problem? I really can't see any reason why the ODP should *ever* list a site that fails to provide the true identity of *any* of its products; not even if it's only one of thousands. I can't think of any legitimate reason for such duplicity. Either the sellers are trying to hide the fact that they're affiliates of the manufacturer, or else the manufacturer is involved in dodgy things they don't want the law or consumer advocates tracking them down over. Or both. Leaving sites like that out will only improve the directory... and my shopping experience as a user of the directory.
respree Posted June 3, 2004 Author Posted June 3, 2004 Let me ask a few questions. Where did Amazon.com buy this book? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0143035002/ Or this CD? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000DZTOM/qid=/br=1-/ The largest online retailer on the planet doesn't list the brand. Don't you think Amazon has invested millions into creating a formula that would present its products in a manner to create the most favorable marketing experience possible? I think its fair to say the topic was debated and it was deemed to be a non-issue. A Warner Brothers DVD is no better and no worse than a Universal Studios DVD and does not help the customer to make an informed buying decision. In short, it serves no purpose (in this example). The fact is SMC does not prohibit using its name and I could easily list my products as SMC, but what would be the purpose? If I did, now that would be deceptive. They are a wholesaler who purchases products from hundreds of overseas manufacturers that you would not recognize by name. There is no "SMC brand" products. It would be the exact same thing if I started a wholesale company called Respree Wholesale. With enough capital, I could set up an operation exactly like SMC purchasing products from the exact same manufacturers SMC does, but it would both wrong and unethical to respresent these products as a "Respree Brand." A wholesaler is not a brand. They are middlemen, logistically moving product from manufacturer to retailer. Isn't the goal of ODP to serve its visitors? Let's step back from this thread for a moment. Close your eyes and imagine the following. You visit an online store through ODP. You find a product which interests you, serves to fill a need or for whatever reason you decide to make a purchase. You call customer service with a question and receive service that is friendly, professional and helpful. Questions are answered on this website giving you information to make an informed buying decision. All the facts are disclosed. The site does what they say they will do, shipping your promptly. You receive your purchase promptly in perfect condition and you are happy with the product. Overall you look back on the overall online shopping experience you just had and conclude you were very happy to deal with them. Because of this, you revisit the time and time again because you like shopping there. They offer great value and service. Here's the question: In the customers eyes (the person ODP is trying to serve), what difference does it make whether a brand was listed with the product or whether the item was drop shipped? In this case, the retailer is happy. The wholesaler is happy. The customer is happy. Why is ODP unhappy?
brmehlman Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Where did Amazon.com buy this book? Penguin Or this CD? It's not a CD, it's a DVD. Buena Vista Home Video. Enough. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts