That's pretty egregious. The fact that is says "0 of 1 purchased" implies that the person making the list asked for it which is a lie no matter how you spin it. Sounds like fraud to me.
Yeah if I saw that I would have just thought that it was sponsored to show up first in the list of items or something minor like that, and not that it wasn't part of the original list at all.
I could spin it as well-intentioned. Regardless of whether the list-maker requested the item, you don't want to buy something that's already been purchased by someone else.
I'm not willing to give Amazon that benefit of the doubt, however.
If that was the intention, then there could just be a counter indicating how many had been purchased by others, but it only needs to appear if that is non-zero. That seems like the far more obvious way to do it. I don't know how you get to the "0 of 1" strategy without trying to trick people. The 1 is completely made up.
It seems like Amazon may have violated California law, and under CACI 1903 the buyers of items on the baby-registry list could have standing to sue Amazon for negligent misrepresentation:
Fact: "the item was added to the list by the list's creator"
1. Amazon represented to the buyer that the Fact was true.
2. Amazon's representation was not true.
3. Amazon had no reasonable grounds for believing the Fact
was true.
4. Amazon intended the Buyer to rely on this representation.
5. The Buyer reasonably relied on this representation.
6. The Buyer was harmed.
7. The Buyer's reliance on Amazon's representation was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
The core of the issue to puzzle over: How was the buyer of the gift harmed?
The core of the issue to puzzle over: How was the buyer of the gift harmed?
The buyer demonstrated intent to purchase an item desired by the list owner, but was deceived into purchasing an article that did not meet that criterion. The buyer expended resources on this purchase that could have gone toward an actually-desired item, delivered at a socially-appropriate time (ie in time for a baby shower).
Happened to us a few months ago. We got a pair of baby bath kits we didn't ask for. We looked afterward, and saw the ads mixed into our list with no way to remove them. Incredibly slimy practice.
Same with my wife and I. We have already been hemming and hawing with our parents about buying high quality products as a general rule – nothing against Fisher Price or Greco, but we have just decided on nicer things – and in this spirit have intentionally selected a diaper subscription service rather than buying certain other brands via Walmart/Target/Amazon/etc. (In fact, we originally rejected the idea of a baby shower or registry so that we could just buy everything ourselves).
Anyways, we were surprised to see packages of Huggies showing up on our doorstep. Not only did we never add Huggies to the registry, we never added any diapers period. When we checked the registry again, we saw some Huggies ads spliced in discretely and almost imperceptibly. It speaks to our modern day lives that we simply said "wow, they put an ad in our registry... guess that's what Amazon does now" and just kicked off the return process. We've probably wound up with >$100 in Amazon credits based on returned Huggies at this point.
That's was initially my choice, but wife told me "a woman with STD will not be putting a diaper on my kid's ass". Then I looked up she was referring to Jessica Alba (the owner)
The net is full of terrible reviews but the whole company marketing scheme was based on pure fear mongering. They tried to argue that other diapers are dangerous for your baby. Then when that unsubstantiated fake news got popular, Honest deleted off the website related to it and redirected everyone to their home page. Slimy.
Yes and I recall a lawsuit, or something, about Honest being ironically dishonest about the “organic” things they offer. But I’m not willing to fight over this one, so unless they cause a real problem it’s probably going to stay that way.
We had a baby carrier on our list. It looked like someone bought it, but we never received it. I think someone bought it for themselves, and Amazon took it off our registry.
But the bigger thing that pissed me off was that they give you a $100 credit for diapers and wipes, but the only selection you could use it on was bottom of the barrel ones, and the wipes shipped to us were weeks/days out from expiration (we checked, same item bought at target expires 1+ year out).
Didn't buy diapers from them, cuz my sister got sketchy counterfeit pampers and boxes full of random shit. (I don't know what they saw wrong with the diapers, but all the big brands have serial numbers (for getting points or whatever), and their amazon diapers didn't show up in pampers system...
After all the problems with the counterfeiting etc., I wanted a straight up “shareable list” approach to a registry when my wife and I conceived.
I ended up pretty happy with Babylist, which is basically a nice centralized tool for clipping item URLs and sharing them. Their business mode seems to be an in-app store, but it doesn’t seem to privilege their store too much over third parties, and there don’t appear to be any ads in the actual registry shared with folks.
It’s as close to the no-frills solution that I originally wanted as I could find. I’ve been pretty happy with it.
I created DreamList https://www.dreamlist.com as a parent because I was appalled by the practices of baby registries and wish lists out there. Without naming competitors we saw:
- A major retailer hid the actual wishlist behind an "idea list" page that visitors saw first when they clicked on someone's wishlist link. The "Idea list" was full of high margin items that had nothing to do with the wisher (sometimes even targeted to the wrong gender).
- Multiple major registries indexed your name for SEO and thus a baby registry still showed as top result on google for female founders and executives who had babies in recent years.
- Multiple wikipedia and gossip press links boosting SEO of several universal registries by showcasing the wedding or baby lists of famous people (the SEO boost was substantial too). Privacy was non-existent at that point.
- Popular new baby or wedding specialized registries that are also retailers and would push gift cards for their own stores to registry guests where you'd often find 30%+ markup on common items. Etc...
So, as I was literally nursing a baby in one arm, I wrote code for DreamList with the other. It was architected to be actually private (no lists get SEO, unless users explicitly ask for it; no ads or promotional emails; etc.). It is not tied to a retailer, so you can add the lowest price items from anywhere (and link your other wish lists and registries). It lets you manage wish lists together with your spouse or team (we've served charity and disaster recovery teams in every disaster since Hurricane Harvey). More importantly, you can add large items and dreams you are saving towards such as a big trip to Disney, or 529 plans, so on special occasions family can contribute small amounts to help little ones get there sooner.
It starts with little architectural decisions, but every detail matters in a family product, as it sets a tone for interactions and thus relationships of millions of families that live apart geographically. We've reached a time when we have to take online privacy and quality in our own hands, for the sake of our kids.
I run exactly 0 analytics and ads on Wishy.gift, nor do I plan to ever do so. Almost 300 users are using the service so far, and I have no idea who most of them are, where they come from, or how they found the service. There's a huge uptick in the number of registrations now before Christmas, but I'm really hoping that people might find it useful for birthdays, weddings and baby registries as well.
Another consideration: it looks like those of us without fb accounts probably can't even look at lists or buy for friends / family. This is a bummer on a personal level, but also limits usefulness in cases where anyone who would see the list doesn't use fb or feel comfortable using it to log in.
To the developer: please consider adding email-based login, or maybe just unique links sent by email for viewers without fb.
Since yesterday, it's possible to view the items in someone's list without logging in. If you open your own wishlist in incognito mode you can see how this looks like :)
I get why it’s easier from the developer perspective, but I don’t have a Facebook account and certainly won’t create one for any reason, let alone such a service. Hopefully the developers/owners of the service recognize this and allow more because not doing so eliminates potential customers.
I definitively recognize this, which is the reason for the "Why Facebook?"-explainer on the site. It alienates a lot of users, especially in the HN-crowd, and I'm hoping to do something with it at some point.
Unless consumers/people get organized, and get laws passed (and enforced) to force companies to some minimal ethical standards, things will only get worse.
"Voting with your dollars" is just another way of saying to stay divided and alone, while companies unite and get ever more organized. How well has it worked so far?
Even after reading the article and specifically searching for the "sponsored" text, it took me minutes to find it in the screenshot. Extremely deceptive
I had the same experience. I was scanning the Amazon wish list page knowing what I was looking for and finally found it with CTRL+F. This is unethical design. :\
I've grown annoyed with Amazon's ad practices. I filter by for example price, and there is something like 4 ads per page, nearly identical to the properly search results. Makes scanning a page a much more cumbersome so that you don't click on the garbage products they advertise.
> Makes scanning a page a much more cumbersome so that you don't click on the garbage products they advertise.
Which, I imagine, is the entire point. The ideal outcome, from Amazon's perspective, is that you can't simply scan a page and tune out the ads. As long as people are just "annoyed" and not "leaving the platform in droves," the ad creep will continue.
My wife and I are having the same discussion. We had a stretch where 8 of 10 orders were late, damaged, or clearly repackaged.
Buying from Amazon use to mean getting a legit product, quickly, and in new condition. Now it's a complete crap shoot what fake junk we're going to get.
Couldn't agree more. A decade ago, you'd always be 100% sure with Amazon. There was no need to be cautious. If the product was fake, broken, or you just didn't like it, Amazon would fix it. Support was both rarely needed and amazing. Their default answer before they were even sure what the issue was would be to overnight more things to you.
But these days, you've gotta keep your guard up at all times. Whoops, this isn't for sale from "Amazon," it's some rando on their marketplace. Hrm, do they have lots of reviews? Okay, let's check a few and see if they look real or fake. Is this the sort of product that might be faked or be a weird, cheap knockoff? Is this the right product page for this product or a weird clone of the real one? I can still get my business done with a minimum of being taken advantage of, but it's a lot harder to do now.
I bought a phone recently and specifically didn't go to Amazon for this reason. After searching for the kind of Samsung phone I wanted, I would find several slight variations, all with slightly different prices. It looked really sketchy to me.
I've gotten this from ads in their normal search. I've been conditioned for years to trust that the search returns what I expect. Now when I instinctually click the first link, I end up with the wrong brand. My fault for not paying attention, but me being more careful means they've lost my trust.
I see this as a control group in the great Internet advertising experiment. It answers the question: "How often will someone click an ad, given that the advertised product is certain to be unwanted?" That is, how often will someone mistake an ad for a real result?
So the ASA can say, "we told them they'd been naughty, job done".
Aside: do people in the UK do "baby registries"? I've only ever seen it on USA media. Mind you we do seem to get USA culture eventually. My kid said he had "math" the other day ...
Is there no way out of the antiquated gift registry idea? Could we have baby showers and weddings in which everyone contributes cash (and absolutely no gifts) to offset the event costs? Any excess cash becomes a gift to the parents or couple.
Gifts served a purpose in the distant past because people needed "things" to start their life, but that's no longer the case. Most people have way too many things, and most of their expenses are operating costs anyway (like mortgage, rent, education, health care, and transportation).
Baby showers were extremely helpful to me because experiences friends and family with babies shared items I didn’t even know about, but were useful.
Personally, I don’t like to give cash because it’s impersonal and doesn’t allow me to express creativity of something relevant to my friendship or affection. I rarely get it perfect, but a gift let’s me interact with the recipient to find out how they are doing, what they need, what I think will help best.
If I don’t know someone well enough that I can’t help with an item and would only send cash, I use that as a filter for whether to send a gift.
I also don’t like receiving cash from friends, but appreciate gifts.
Nothing deceptive about pushing your own brands over third parties then letting third parties buy back those sales with advertising then deceiving the users to click on those ads...
There are quotes from people interviewed who removed the sponsored ads from their own listings. Did no-one think Amazon's behaviour was so unacceptable that they abandoned it, and used a different service?
Or is Amazon such a monopoly that this wasn't even considered?
