Even the Newbie-wan Kenobi’s are, @ long last, catching on to Amazon’s self-serving shenanigans…
sadly this guy is barking up the wrong tree.
He is not wrong, but maybe it is time to start contacting our representatives and point out how amazon leaves no appeal and is filled with potentially fraudulent business practices.
I am a trifle kinder than that poster relative to @Glenn.
It is not clear to me that Amazon can hire people who can resolve issues correctly the first time around. And obviously, if the cannot hire such people they cannot define how to automate problem resolution.
IMO the Amazon Corporate Culture does not seek competence in other than financial analysis, and does not reward it when it appears by accident.
The past two administrations have had very different goals for the FTC and Amazon was still sued by both of them.
@Glenn follows the tradition of the OSFE mods and the Executive Response Team. They provided a path which resolved some of the many flaws in Amazon seller support.
Since I do not participate in the NSFE, I do not know Glenn but I will defend him this much.
By going to the Amazon has been sued he got himself black balled.
We all know the answer. It is cheaper for amazon to keep screwing up and getting away with it then doing things right the first time.
And they do not have anyone competent to show up the low quality of the majority.
Some of us who hold differing political positions can certainly agree that Amazon and many other large corporations are not meritocracies.
They only care about roping more Sellers into buying ads.
Sorry, this gets shut down here and now.
Zero people were talking about politics. This topic has zero to do with politics.
Your decision to suddenly inject a political statement is not only uncalled for but troubling.
Politics do not belong on SAS, especially in a topic that has nothing even remotely to do with politics, past, present or future.
1 Like
I felt my statement was non-controversial, and that included the main thrust the lack of meritocracy.
And I thought it was something we all might agree on.
The rule is not “no political discussion unless its
non-controversial”
Correct me if im wrong, but the rule is “no politics”.
It was not a political statement, no matter what you may think was behind it.
This thread has focused on the failings of Amazon employees which are rampant because merit is not required to be viewed as a successful employee. What is substituted for merit at Amazon has not been addressed and is unlikely to be political.
I read it as implying that everyone, from A to Z [mod edited] could see that it’s not a meritocracy.
You read it as I intended it be read.
Going back to the NSFE thread, I found this reply resonated with what we all experience and a shared frustration.
I still refuse to even log on to the NSFE, so I only know this Seller as “8x”:
And then looking more closely at the replies from the Seller in @Dogtamer OP (“J6”), you can see the frustration build up from over a month ago until this week. They are not wrong, either.
Thanks for alerting SAS to this NSFE thread, @Dogtamer !
ETA: Sorry for the “wigglyness” of my annotations; new phone, new stylus, new problems.
The salient point here is that the comment could easily have been made without mentioning politics at all. Meritocracies do not exist solely in government. The poster could have simply written: “Most of us probably can agree that Amazon and many other large corporations are not meritocracies.”
I wholeheartedly agree that politics have no place on SAS.
When the fines and damages are a tiny percentage of the marginal profit increase resulting from the illegal act, then the statute “prohibiting” the acts is a actually a license to do those things, with the fee to be paid made clear up front.
I agree; I’ve been following that NSFE discussion since the day its OP* created it, 071826.
I do this because ever since 2016, when certain seasoned & savvy forum vets first leaked word that Amazon was using “Holding Account” hoodoo in the FBA Reconciliation processes & procedures**, I’ve strived to keep a keen eye peeled for new developments on the underlying topic, Inventory Reconciliation, if for no other reasons than that:
-
keeping abreast of The River’s current “pulse” helps inform how our own employees interact with Amazon’s lower echelons of Support.
-
keeping abreast of The River’s ever-evolving flows, eddies, whirlpools, & currents - perhaps nowhere else better-exhibited than in the decades-long tinkering with its own accounting methods, and how they are communicated/validated to its ‘Selling Partners’ - helps inform how our own employees interact with taxing authorities
The subject of “Phantom”/“Shadow” inventory-reconciliation (in recent years, the terms “Virtual Inventory” & “Virtual Tie” have crept into official status, as evidenced in various examples of Seller Support-provided “Amazonese” nomenclature, especially on the AGL/AWD/GWD side of things) has been discussed right here in the SAS itself - e.g., here (link), and here (link) - regarding a particularly-galling aspect of Amazon’s accounting shenanigans, the infamous creation of “Amazon.Found.Bxxxxxxxxx” and “Amazon.Found.FBAXXXXXXX” SKUs/Offer-Listings, which is mentioned by the quoted user (in the post you’ve screensnipped above as “1”) in his/her 072526 reply to Angie_Amazon’s 072426 post.
I am on record, in both of the last-two pre-NSFE iterations of the ASF (“forumese” for “Amazon Seller Forums”) - the “Age of Jive” and the “Age of Discourse” in “Dogtamerese” - and the SAS alike, as agreeing with the seasoned & savvy vets who assert that Amazon’s Inventory-Reconciliation process usually have an error rate, for any given year, somewhere south of 1%.
I’m also on record (link, 032326 SAS post, Members-Only) as to why I still consider it prudent for members of our Seller Community to do due diligence in ALL interactions w/ behemothic corporate entities like Amazon.
*
The NSFE discussion’s original OP, unlike the 3P Seller whose biting reply to Dougal’s post I quoted to start this thread, is NOT a Newbie-wan Kenobi.
I think it likely that many of the old hands would likely recognize the actually-used forum handle, because the first-shown post in the NSFE Profile’s Posting History (made 032018, about 6 weeks after the 020218 launch of the OSFE’s “Age of Discourse”, & responded to by another seasoned & savvy forum veteran whose handle many probably recognize) is simply a reflection of where Amazon drew the line on continuing to maintain Full Posting History records, for a given ASF/Amazon Seller Forums user.
Unlike as was the case with previous iterations of the ASF when Amazon switched to a different forum-hosting/moderation Software Suite, that line was drawn right there - w/ the 012623 advent of the NSFE, EVERYTHING form the Age Of Jive, The Days of Aces, and previous iterations was dropped from publicly accessible view.
The same is NOT true of me own archives; no one’s mustered up enough courage & temerity to call me “Internet Pack-Rat” straight-to my face, but me ears be long… 
**
During the crescendo of the following (2017) year’s Holiday Season, Amazon - perhaps begrudgingly? - began publicly publishing this explanation of the “Holding Accounts” in certain places, which I first-archived 123017:
There’s a reason why my ‘spidey-sense’ tingled when I first saw that, dammit…
Nail, meet nuke.
Agreed and point again to the comments from the NSFE users.
Amazon could easily fix this and avoid punishment.
This is how I interpreted the statement @lake made. I read that as “no matter who you are, Amazon cannot be viewed as a meritocracy.”
I respect the no politics policy, but it appears that we cannot even use the word “poltical”, even when not arguing a political point but merely referencing what might be a common agreement that transcends the highly divisive political and cultural divide? That is what I am gathering from your remark…
Is that what you are stating, @Pepper_Thine_Angus ?
I don’t think it is entirely the intelligence, or training, of who they hire. They won’t give them the adequate training, tools or authority to fix things on the first round(s). How many sellers give up, accept the losses rather than mount the frustrating fight (time is money after all) to what may never be resolved correctly. There’s an additional savings for Amazon in support hours besides the benefit of keeping ill-gotten gains from pathetic or non-reimbursements.