Wow, they finally figured out that they never should have done that to start with?
Brilliant!
That was the dumbest program ever.
By ending commingling, Amazon is signaling a stronger commitment to protecting brands on its marketplace, while further distancing itself from resellers.
I applaud the move, and I am a little worried that any seller that isnât the brand owner might find themselves pushed out.
The sad part is:
took years of complaints from FBA sellers for TPTB to change their tiny corporate minds! More of the beaurocratic mind-set " I know whatâs best for you peonsâŚ"
Incoming crying from some sellers: âbut why do I have to sticker EVERYTHING???â
But I agree with eliminating commingling!
Nah, this was never about what was best for anyone but Amazon. Comingling allowed them to stock different sellersâ stuff in different warehouses then sell it all as the same thing, meaning they didnât have to ship items between warehouses as much. It was all about reducing their distribution costs.
20 hours ago, the FMT-CMT announced the upcoming âAsk Amazonâ Q&A session âAsk Amazon: GET ANSWERS on FBA Commingling on October 22â (link).
It will be interesting to see what the FBA Team has to say when (& if) this event goes live - if for no other reason than a first-blush take suggesting that yet again, one hand doesnât know what the other is doingâŚ
Maybe Amazon will allow UPC converts from FNSKU for items that were being resold + brand owner listings. We have a couple examples of that where we wanted to convert to UPC but couldnât because we had a couple products with a distributor years ago and they ended up with competing offers.
Steveâs not going to make that mistake again. 
Amazon staffers monitoring SAS and saw this.
They they sent a memo to management â
GAME ON â CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
But Commingling is good!!!
I am sure there are many brand owners who would prefer such sellers be pushed out, and other brand owners who do not want to deal with Amazonâs buyers directly.
Or was it about treating all orders which came in through the Buy Box as sales by the Buy Box holder - usually Amazon.
Well, to play devilâs advocate, I did find some value in being able to send products with the manufacturer barcode. Even when risking having a customer receive a brick, we were able to fight violations relatively easy with the manufacturer invoices, and saved a ton of time just relabeling master packs and pallets, without the need to relabel every single unit. For small shipments, this wasnât a big strain, but it certainly was for larger ones.
At the risk of going off topic (when would I ever do that?)
Does anyone else see a trend which is reduction in the number of Amazon sellers without a reduction in product selection.
Every seller requires some amount of Amazon cost. Every duplicate offer creates downward price pressure - reducing seller and Amazon profits.
Amazon appears to me to be reducing the number of items offered by Amazon retail, either relying on sellers who are large enough to compete with Walmart and Target, or losing the sales to those sites because they are no longer competitive.
Amazon has not been competitive on Unilever products recently because of 3P seller reliance. But Unilever is also reorganizing and selling off product lines. So there is some lack of clarity.
I have seen it play out on some products, but others are getting more and more. All in the same category. TBH, the only reason I know is because I look at my own PDP frequently in Q4 and the latter part of Q3.
I rarely look to buy anything from Amazon as I can usually find stuff less expensive or higher quality elsewhere.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.