Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon Named the "Most Reputable Company"

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-click-heroes dept.

Businesses 199

An anonymous reader writes "Amazon has been named the most reputable company in the US this year (up from 21st place last year), according to the sixth annual list of the 150 Most Reputable Companies from advisory firm Reputation Institute (RI), in partnership with Forbes Media. The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US. The ratings are analyzed from nearly 33,000 online consumer responses taken in January and February."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck you faggots! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740088)

In b4 some faggot whines about Wikileaks.

Also, CmdrTaco has a penis smaller than a Japanese fetus. Even with only a 1 incher you are like Mandingo in comparison to Taco.

MOST UNREPUTABLE companyy in the US this year.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740090)

Is what it should have been. With the exception of Johnson and Johnson to which I haven't used and Amazon.com who do what they are suppose to do, that list is like the complete opposite of reliable.

They obviously didn't poll any state governments. (2, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740096)

At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740138)

At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

One of Amazon's advantages is that they don't require sales taxes, which can often result in the product costing less even with shipping charges. Once they are required to collect sales taxes they'll lose that price advantage and will likely lose sales because of it. It is not in their corporate interest to 'help' in the process.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (4, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740210)

Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (4, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740300)

There's not really any negotiation to be done with the states. The states believe that Amazon should collect and forward sales taxes for them, despite receiving no services from those states. Amazon thinks that lacking a physical presence in a state exempts them from that. There's not really a compromise position where they collect half the tax, or something. And as long as Amazon keeps its presence out of those states, they'll keep winning - there's no way to enforce a judgement against them, even in a court ruled that the state had standing to sue them.

Selling us a load of BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740344)

I'd believe that argument had some weight if they weren't pulling out of Texas because of a sales tax issue, if they weren't moving into other states because of promises to not make them collect sales taxes.

And I guarantee, it's just a matter of time before things DO happen, on a federal level, with some agreement or exchange system to make it happen.

Besides, you forget, it's the people who are supposed to pay those sales taxes, because of all the things their governments do for them. People who presumably, wouldn't be customers of Amazon without some of those services.

Go figure.

Re:Selling us a load of BS (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740416)

No, I don't forget - I'm aware that people are supposed to pay use taxes; they just don't, because they're vanishingly unlikely to be caught. Of course, those people also pay income tax, property tax, car registration, etc., to their state and local governments. And some of those state and local governments offer very, very limited services - remember the shitstorm here when the city fire department in a small town in rural Tennessee let a house burn down because its owner lived outside the city limits and had failed to purchase their fire protection plan despite multiple reminders? - and so it's kind of hard to understand what responsibility Amazon has to places that it doesn't get jack from. After all, while collecting and forwarding sales taxes isn't impossibly difficult, it's also not free.

Re:Selling us a load of BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740484)

Yeah, the fire department isn't funded by sales taxes in Tennessee. Go figure. Sorry, but bad justification there. All you're really saying is that people who don't get paid for something don't get the service. Big surprise! The city in question had its fire services paid for by property taxes, not sales. Nobody is asking Amazon to pay for them.

But hey, you know the thing about collecting sales taxes? Most places let you pro-rate how much it'll cost you to collect and pay the sales taxes, and if Amazon wants to negotiate for that, more power to them.

But they're not. They want to avoid it at all, because it gives them an advantage over their competitors.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (-1, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740332)

Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.

Yeah, clearly it means bending over whenever some state government thinks that a private company is their own slush fund to close their budget shortfalls with.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

Kurofuneparry (1360993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740760)

Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.

Drivel. Companies have a fiduciary duty to make a profit. "reputable" means how you go about trying to make a profit, not whether or not you prioritize making a profit. Then again .... I'm an idiot ......

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740392)

And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (3, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740502)

And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.

Actually, Use Tax [wikipedia.org] is applicable to products purchased out of state when no sales tax was collected (in states that have sales and/or use taxes).

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35741342)

And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.

If your state isn't providing any value to you, then you may have a problem, yes, but instead of not paying taxes, you should probably consider getting what you want out of the government. You do have a right to petition them after all.

Are they not providing enough law and order? Not stopping enough pollution? Perhaps not protecting your rights in some ways??

Or are you one of those types that believes you can do it all yourself?

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740500)

One of Amazon's advantages is that they don't require sales taxes, which can often result in the product costing less even with shipping charges. Once they are required to collect sales taxes they'll lose that price advantage and will likely lose sales because of it. It is not in their corporate interest to 'help' in the process.

I've about had it with companies this big looking to get out of paying taxes. We've got a congress that wants to cut a supplemental nutrition program for infants and pregnant women in poverty so Amazon can skip out on taxes, pay lobbyists and provide unfair competition to mom and pop bookstores.

I say fuck 'em. I've got no problem paying taxes and I've got no problem paying the stiff sales tax we've got here in Chicago. They like to use the nice internet the government made for them but they don't want to give anything back. Meanwhile, Borders is closing stores and the little bookstores where I shop can't even make ends meet.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (4, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740576)

In this case, the tax avoiders are the citizens who order things off the internet without paying their proper use tax. Not Amazon - at most, their duty is to collect the tax, not to pay it.

Incidentally, to the extent that the Internet is something "the government made for them", it's a product of the federal government - which does not collect sales tax.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740698)

Except that this isn't tax evasion by a big company, it's tax evasion by individuals. Many states have a use tax that you have to pay for items purchased out of state, but people don't seem too keen on paying them.

Corporate tax evasion is a serious issue, but Amazon not paying states it doesn't have locations in isn't an egregious violation. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about Exxon entirely dodging federal taxes by going offshore.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

__u63 (65413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741260)

The question at issue isn't what is in Amazon's corporate interest. It's whether Amazon merits the "most reputable company" designation that has been given it, in light of the fact that its business model basically involves evading state sales tax, which any company that sells out of a physical location is required to collect. That is a controversial business model, at a minimum.

Pursuing shareholder value and behaving reputably are obviously different things.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1, Funny)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740150)

Yeah, how dare they don't just bow down to all these lame cash grabs by various state governments! They should know it's their duty to make up for all the shortfalls of politicians who can't learn to cut their own spending habits! Maybe we should send their execs to gitmo to make them learn how a truly patriotic company should work!

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740382)

Maybe we should send their execs to gitmo to make them learn how a truly patriotic company should work!

Yeah! Like GE, IBM, Google, and others who moved much of their operations overseas so that they don't have to pay any taxes!

Fuck'n A Man! you're so right on!

There is honor among thieves (1)

clem.dickey (102292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740282)

Amazon does a very good job of looking after their customers' interests. Even when those interests include letting other people pay for police, fire suppression and education.

Re:There is honor among thieves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740324)

Cry me a river. They can find other revenue. It's all a shell game anyway, why do people get upset when amazon plays it better than everyone else?

Re:There is honor among thieves (2)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740486)

Amazon pays for police and fire protection for their warehouses via the property taxes. And it's not their responsibility to pay for the locals' education, it's the parents' responsibility.

Re:There is honor among thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740608)

I thought police was a city responsibility, not a state one, in the US?

Re:There is honor among thieves (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740854)

Not anymore. [dhs.gov]

Don't forget to check your daily Threat Level: [dhs.gov]

Recommended Activities:

  • Everyone should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency. See more at Citizen Guidance on the Homeland Security Advisory System (PDF - 1 page, 132 KB)
  • All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately.

Holy fuck! We're all gonna die!

Re:There is honor among thieves (1)

Damarkus13 (1000963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740890)

Cities get a portion of sales tax. State, county and city each add a percentage. If I purchase an item in a neighboring city I pay about 9.5%. If I have the same item delivered to my door, I only pay about 9%. That's how works in Washington state at least. Each state is, at least, slightly different.

That's why it's such a PITA to collect sales tax. It's a big enough headache to keep track of one states tax laws, and tax boundaries (which rarely correspond with ZIP codes).

Re:They obviously didn't poll Wikileaks either... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740298)

A quick reminder-- Amazon quickly and voluntarily pulled the plug [huffingtonpost.com] on Wikileaks after a talking basset hound [talkingpointsmemo.com] pressured them to do so.

I have my own little boycott against Amazon going and I invite you to join it. There are plenty of great places to buy things online. Give them a shot.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740342)

You make it sound like sales tax is some noble charity that they should be ashamed of themselves for jumping at the chance to pay. How about instead we end Sales tax for For both Online and Local Businesses?

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741096)

This entire situation has been hashed over, and over and over, since mail order buying began well over 150 years ago.

A state cannot require a retailer in another state to collect taxes for it. Period. Nothing has changed that would affect this.

Every bit of this idea is nothing but the same sh*t, different day. There is nothing to be seen here. Move along.

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741276)

A state cannot require a retailer in another state to collect taxes for it.

Unless, of course, the retailer has a presence in that other state. Which Amazon does, have affiliates all over the place.

That's besides the point, though. Quite aside from their tax strategy, given that Amazon is a bunch of patent-abusing censoring bastards [unreasonable.org] , no sane and informed person can call them "reputable".

Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741248)

They do responsibly collect sales tax. They collect sales tax for the state that they reside in and states that they have a physical presence in, just as they are supposed to. They do not collect sales tax in states where they have no presence and where the government has no authority to make them collect sales tax. However, despite what some people have said, e-tailers do not have any kind of price advantage over local stores as the buyer is still legally responsible to pay Use Tax on the items purchased. It is not the e-tailers fault if you break the law.
Heck I think it is wrong that states force retailers to collect sales tax for them. In my state, not only do they make me as a retailer do their job for them, but they charge me $50 a year for the privilege of doing their job for them.

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740098)

Burn the Amazon flag [flagburningworld.com]

Still not enough (5, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740142)

...to make me regret closing my account in protest at the treatment of Wikileaks.

Fuck Amazon.

Re:Still not enough (-1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740156)

Yeah, I'm sure they are so hurting over 1 random person who accounted for probably less than 1 millionth of a percent of their total revenue.

Re:Still not enough (-1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740266)

And who quit for a very dumb reason, probably getting a hearty "good riddance" on the way out the door.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703377504575651321402763304.html [wsj.com]

Wikileaks broke Amazon's rules. The fact that it also broke the law is beside the point. At least here.

Amazon enforced its rules. I guess enforcing the rules on Wikileaks is some sort of blasphemy or something, because I can't see why else to retaliate against Amazon. But I'm not religious, so I don't recognize blasphemy as having any inciteful value.

No worries. Nobody needs Amazon for anything, and they're borderline evil [inagist.com] ..

Re:Still not enough (4, Insightful)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740524)

Wikileaks broke Amazon's rules.

What rules were those? According to the article those rules were:

WikiLeaks "doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content,"

This is clearly targeted at copyright infringers. Any content written by a US government employee in the course of their job is public domain.

Amazon's terms of service also require that content "will not cause injury to any person or entity." Yet he said "it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."

Wikileaks has not release 250,000 cables. Today, after four months of redacting and releasing documents Wikileaks has released a grand total of 6,321 documents.

You have got to be pretty gullible to believe government pressure had nothing to do with Amazon's decision.

Re:Still not enough (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740582)

What laws did they break, Mr. Propaganda Man? Who you shillin for anyway? Heh, 'red cross'...You know Pablo Escobar built hospitals too?

Re:Still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740168)

Fuck Amazon.

Re:Still not enough (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740398)

Wikileaks went down for a couple of hours and are still releasing excellent information (Ecuador lately).

If anything they got the Streisand effect (not that Wikileaks needs that).

Amazon is a good retailer, especially with DRM free MP3 songs for $1. And good if not great prices on other things (always check SlickDeals first though...).

Re:Still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740522)

Ooh, you sure showed them! They'll be folding any day now with the lack of your minimum wage dollars.

Re:Still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740670)

Take the corn cob outta yer ass already.

Re:Still not enough (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740930)

Did you close your credit card accounts too?

Re:Still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740932)

fuck you

Re:Still not enough (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741126)

Yay! My sentiments exactly.

I don't know who decides what constitutes "most reputable", but they sure as hell aren't any of my friends, a large percentage of whom thoroughly dislike Amazon over its treatment of WikiLeaks. That disqualified them for any "reputable" list I might keep.

Wish we could mod articles (4, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740170)

I'd mod this one "+5 Funny".

Amazon: A Job Well Done (4, Interesting)

ThorntonAZ (780964) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740176)

Amazon really is a great company to buy from. I have been purchasing from them more than any other etaler now it seems. I have even replaced some items that we would buy at Target or Costco and purchase them from now. I have had to deal with customer service a few times and it has been a pleasurable experience. I also stand with amazon as far as sales taxes go. I also run a small business online and I cant collect taxes from hundreds of counties across the US. I could be for a flat national sales tax maybe though.

Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740490)

I'm not as much of a fan as you seem to be, but I can touch on the Sales tax issue they are dealing with that most normal people don't understand. If you have a physical store you sell out of, you have one set of sales tax to deal with and that's all. It never changes. Well, it does (when it goes up) but it doesn't change very often. When I had to look at setup up sales taxes for a business last year that had offices in multiple locations it quickly become a nightmare to deal with because you have different rates based upon the state, and sometimes even the county, and even the city. What all these different places want is for Amazon to collect their individual rates and submit them to each of them. If we had some sort of flat tax on a federal level perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. But it would have to replace all the local sales taxes and would have to have some very simple means to allocate amounts (per capita for example, not per sale). The volume of these transactions and the differences on what is and is not taxed is insane. Some places tax everything, some have exceptions for certain categories. After that project, I started to understand just why Amazon is fighting it. And it has very little to do with the price advantage they get now.

Things aren't fair now (Amazon gets a advantage vs local retailers) but they wouldn't be fair the other way, either (local retailers have one simple tax to deal with per purchase and Amazon has a million). There should be a compromise somewhere that's far to everyone.

What is your definition of reputable? (3, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740184)

I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740270)

Amazon's primary business concentration (and by extension, their largest paying customer base) is in distributed computing services, not Internet retail. In the former arena, they are exceptionally successful and popular. In the latter arena, it's my understanding (please don't shoot me if I'm wrong) that they are really only a middle-man for other distributors and as such do not control the base price or handling costs of merchandise sold.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35741340)

You are exceptionally wrong, almost all of Amazon's revenue is retail.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (0)

gilbert644 (1515625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740356)

You ran across a book that was to expensive and that means they suck? A store that sells millions of different products and acts as a middle man most of the time? What ridiculous expectations.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740972)

You must be a very lonely person.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740370)

I'm sure that some of this is just the regular screwing that Canadians get for being a small market that nonetheless has its own copyrights and legal minefields to wander through. However, are there any other possible reasons? I had always wondered why European (e.g., with British being among the worst) prices on so many consumer goods were so much higher than what we pay in the US, until I learned about their consumer protection acts, which (in the UK, as I've been told) lets you get a replacement or refund on something that breaks within two years (or maybe three? long time, anyway) from the seller. In the US, nearly anything past 30 days will be a manufacturer's refund/warranty, rather than retailer's. Does Canada have similar laws? Because three-year point-of-sale-replacement warranties definitely aren't cheap.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740860)

Similar return policies on both sides of the border. What is interesting is if you purchase something from say Best Buy in America, they won't warranty it in Canada and vice versa. Legally they are separate entities in the two countries, but I bet the money only goes to one place. :) This has bit me too.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740504)

Well, if I was to make a simple 2D chart of stores I think my two axis would be price and reputation. Too low prices tend to go with cutting corners, unserious business practices, stock and shipping date cheating, problems with returns and so on. Then there are companies that I consider reputable, as in everything will be in order but their prices are far too high.

I'm not sure I'd rank amazon as #1 but they work well enough and their prices are typically good. That said I typically order DVDs and video games from them, kinda hard to screw that up. They very often have games a lot cheaper than Steam, their weekend sales may be cheap but their overall prices are often high.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (0)

Mad Leper (670146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740736)

I shop in Canada from both amazon.ca and amazon.com. Sometimes an item is cheeper on one site or the other, so guess what? I just buy from the cheaper one.

Can't really see with this would be labeled as "disreputable" behaviour on Amazon's part

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741016)

Consider the source.

Reputable in the context of this dumb article means "Firms that paid Reputation Institute" to put them on the Reputable list.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741122)

I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.

I think your issue might be more with book prices in general than with Amazon specifically. It's long been a North American book publisher tradition to print USD and CAD prices on books with seemingly little regard to the current exchange rate. According to Exchange Rates Revisited: U.S. Dollar and the Cost of Books [seekingalpha.com] , in 2009 the CAD prices printed on newly published books were as much as 27% higher than the USD prices. This was at a time when the US and Canadian dollars were at parity. I would guess the price that Amazon pays to the publishers for the books is similarly skewed.

Although, I suppose Amazon could just order a whole bunch of books in USD, and then sell those to Canadians. But, then I'd also suppose there's some draconian clause the the agreement between the publishers and Amazon not to do that. Maybe Canadians are just used to seeing a higher numerical price for their books so the publishers figure they can still get away with it. Or maybe Amazon does pay the same price to the publisher whether a book ends up going to a Canadian or an American, it's just Amazon and not the publisher figuring they can keep screwing Canadians.

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (0)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741238)

Oh no, a company charges a price they think will get them the most profit. Curse them!

Re:What is your definition of reputable? (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741264)

I believe you are mistaking charging the market price with reputable -- just because they are a reputable company does not mean that they should discount all profits from a free market enterprise.

Oh? And Who the F is the Reputation Institute? (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740186)

Howcome they didn't rate in the top half on their own poll?

Re:Oh? And Who the F is the Reputation Institute? (1)

leachlife4 (638543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740680)

"largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US"

Rationality (2)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740222)

While it is disheartening that Amazon shafted WikiLeaks, they are free to do as they wish with their private enterprise; most likely the decision was made by those with a financial stake in the company, not by those with a strong sense of idealism regarding freedom of speech. There very likely would have been no issue in the eyes of Amazon's stakeholders if their government weren't so heavy-handed and secretive.

So, I say don't shoot the messenger. Amazon does incredible things and has contributed a great deal to the evolution and adoption of improved technology in business through their various services and open source efforts. It is a narrow mind that cannot take the good with the bad in a world run by balding apes.

Re:Rationality (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740340)

While it is disheartening that Amazon shafted WikiLeaks

Shafted? Wikileaks broke their rules and thus according to the agreement they had with Amazon they lose access to Amazon's service. Maybe they shouldn't have agreed to terms that they couldn't follow?

In b4 some Wikileaks troll mods me down again.

Re:Rationality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740874)

Wikileaks broke no rules or law. Yo tarded?

love amazon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740230)

i love amazon. I've been using them for many many years. They have never done a single thing to make me think otherwise. I use so many of their services, Kindle, prime, Amazon mom, etc. Everything is a smooth, easy and cost saving transaction. If Amazon ran a meat market, I'm pretty sure I'd buy meat at Amazon.

Re:love amazon (1)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740432)

If Amazon ran a meat market, I'm pretty sure I'd buy meat at Amazon.

Have you considered Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz [amazon.com] ? It gets rave reviews! It's a kind of human milkiness, a great party beverage, and it has been known to save lives. Nearly everyone agrees, Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz is well worth the fifty bucks.

While you're at it, consider tossing a Three Wolf Moon [amazon.com] shirt in your shopping cart.

Re:love amazon (2)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740464)

I use so many of their services, Kindle

And at no extra charge it comes with the complementary erasing of controversial material!

Re:love amazon (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740672)

their food is expensive, even by NYC standards, and often not very fresh; i think that the logistics for books and electronics just don't translate well. i wouldn't buy, say, vegetable oil at amazon, much less meat or vegetables.

as far as non-food items, i mostly agree.

It's been earned... (3, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740236)

First, it's pretty hard for people to get an unfavorable opinion of Amazon from anything that doesn't happen directly to them (as opposed to, say, BP getting unfavorables based on Deepwater Horizon from people who live nowhere near the Gulf of Mexico). Second, their customer service is pretty good. My wife's Kindle, which I bought about two years ago, had an untimely meeting with a Diet Coke back in October. I had bought the extended warranty, which came with a one-time we-don't-care-why-it-died replacement clause, mainly because her electronics have a surprisingly high rate of mysterious death. Despite the fact that the warranty is technically sold by another company, not Amazon, I got ZERO runaround - instead I was seamlessly transferred from Kindle support to the warranty processing people, who pulled up all the necessary information. The replacement stopped erasing its screen properly this week, so I called Amazon again yesterday - and again, got a no-hassle experience (the only stupid hoop to jump through was that they wanted me to reboot it once). The replacement's replacement will be here tomorrow. And they've paid the shipping both ways, every time, even including a prepaid shipping label so that all I have to do is drop it off at a post office.

Customer service, in short, works.

Re:It's been earned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740566)

As long as it is something they sell directly. With all the other sellers that they serve as a middleman, it is quite a variety of return policies which have to be examined carefully without assuming anything like Amazon's "generosity". I have about given up considering electronics that they "pass along" for other sellers since most (that I have looked at) are far more restrictive. I prefer to deal with local stores (mostly of national chains like Target, Office Depot, Kohl's, etc) where I have found the policies to be more consumer friendly.

Re:It's been earned... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740630)

Well, duh. There's a reason that Amazon itself sells objects for more than the cheapo competition. When you're buying a book just to read it, that's not really important. When you're buying a TV, it is. I've paid more plenty of occasions to make the deal with a company I trust, like Amazon or Newegg. Saving $5 here or there isn't worth it, the way that saving $500 is.

Re:It's been earned... (2)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740730)

I too have had nothing but good customer service from Amazon. Twice I have had to return items that broke during shipment. Both were handled quickly and courteously. Yes, they do have actual people who will TALK to you about your problem. In one case, the replacement item got to my house just two days after I notified them of the problem, the same day I sent the broken one back!

Low prices, (usually) no shipping costs, no sales tax, great customer service...Amazon has earned MY business!

So very reliable (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740246)

The ratings are analyzed from nearly 33,000 online consumer responses taken in January and February.

2 months. 33,000 reports. Seriously? This "award" is worthless.

Re:So very reliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740410)

They also start by picking the top 150 companies by revenue. You could be shipping customers flaming garbage in a box and as long as your volume was great enough, apparently rank no lower than the 150th most reputable company in the U.S.

(Not that I'm not casting aspersions on whoever got 150th; I haven't even read the list.)

Re:So very reliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740446)

Rather, I'm not casting aspersions. One negative, not two. But neutral on whatever company got 150th, not negative on them. I'm positive they gave it their best.

Re:So very reliable (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740588)

Singularly or doubly positive?

Re:So very reliable (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740910)

Yeah-yeah.

Re:So very reliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740626)

Seems fine to me. At least from personal experience, Amazon has been great. I've had very few problems ordering things through them and the few that I have had Amazon corrected immediately and without question after I filed a dispute against the seller.

and they treat their employees like shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740306)

I worked for amazon for a brief time last year in a call center. I loved it at first. I've been a loyal customer for years and was excited to get a job there. I was even put on the fast track to be a supervisor while still in training.

A month later someone (else) posted a rumor about company policy on twitter and facebook. As a individual (ie not disclosing I was an employee) I stated it sounded fishy, especially since it was a 180 reversal and there was no mention of it on the amazon home page nor given to us as employees as a heads up.

The next day I was suspended and told I was under investigation. The next week I was fired for breach of the confidentiallity agreement. I got a copy of it and there is no way in hell what I said was in violition. I even took it to a lawyer and had him review it.

Long story short, someone higher up leaked info, but I got to be the scapegoat. Screw them.

Re:and they treat their employees like shit. (0)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740648)

"I've been a loyal customer for years and was excited to get a job there [at a call center]"

Wow. You're either droolingly stupid or amazingly naive (or this is a really weird troll). I hope it's just naivety, and that you learned something very important. hint: it's not just amazon; by this standard, all human collectivities (not just private companies) are guilty.

A bit ironic, I suppose (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740320)

The most reputable company is among the most tax-evading

Re:A bit ironic, I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740674)

fuck the constitution, I want to stick it to the companies. They're not evading taxes; they're following constitutional law. If you don't like it, get the constitution changed.

Scams (2)

Shippu (1888522) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740378)

I've seen all sorts of scams running on Amazon and they don't give a fuck. A few examples that I've seen so far:
Counterfeit items.
Products advertised as £0.01 with the actual cost in a fake shipping charge.
There are hundreds of thousands of "books" which are actually auto generated pamphlets consisting of a main Wikipedia article and some linked articles, selling for £30+ and almost all rated 1 star by anyone who bought one. (Search for Betascript on amazon)
Crap watches selling for £10, supposedly reduced from £50 or whatever. I know someone who bought one of these thinking she was getting a bargain but the watch was barely worth £5 let alone £50.
I'd also include Amazon themselves automatically charging £50 for prime after the free trial. It was stated in the terms but they must have made millions from people who didn't notice.

Re:Scams (1)

parens (632808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740506)

I don't know that "people who didn't notice" counts as Amazon "not giving a fuck".

Sounds a lot more like the people who failed to notice the terms of the service they signed up for, didn't give a fuck.

Re:Scams (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740516)

In the U.S., sellers get fixed shipping rates, so when they charge $0.01 for something, they get the same cut from the shipping as when they charge $10. I wouldn't call that a scam.

The fake books thing is a bit of a thing, but other than copyright violations, what line are they supposed to draw?

And anybody who takes a retailers word for what something is worth and then pays the retailer less than that for the item should learn a lesson from it.

Random private think thank with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740406)

a fake reliable name rates other private organizations. i wonder where we have seen this before - ah - the private financial rating agencies which rated fraud hedge funds as AAA+ assets.

yes that works.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust [thedailyshow.com]

Terrible service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740538)

IFF the order isn't straightforward, the service becomes terrible.

I suspect the "Contact us" form is answered by a learning algorithm because the reply I received didn't make sense.

From the 150 largest companies? (3, Interesting)

maiki (857449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740564)

The "150 Most Reputable Companies" from a sample size of 150? Seems more like "the largest 150 companies sorted by reputation".

LOL (1)

ThisIsNotMyHandel (1013943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740578)

LOL@Google.

Conducting "Most Ethical & Respected" survey (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740600)

I am pleased to announce that I have just formed the "Most Ethical & Respected Slashdot Reader Institute." Please send your contributions to my paypal account, so that I many conduct a purely scientific, and completely unbiased survey. I will post the results in a slashdot article I plan to submit later.

Hey if Obama can win a Nobel peace prize, and Microsoft is rated as the 4th most ethical company, and Amazon is the most respected company in the world - how could my results be any worse?

Flying high (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740652)

Southwest airlines is up 0.64, putting them at 34th. I bet they're so happy they tear the roof off the plane... er, place.

Financial Institutions and other "Reputable" Co. (1)

selex (551564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740666)

Was going to ask where Goldman Sach, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mac, Citigroup and Comcast were...but after looking at the list they are down there with ExxonMobil and News Corp? But I can trust News Corp, Glen Beck told me so!

Selex

Wedding Dress (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740806)

Most brides want to go to the Wedding Dresses [ebridalgowns.ca] stores to pick wedding dresses. There are lots of styles for them to choose, which is the reason why brides love to go there. You can find styles like Sheath Wedding Dresses [ebridalgowns.ca] , Ball Gown Wedding Dresses [ebridalgowns.ca] ,Beach Wedding Dress [ebridalgowns.ca] ,Mermaid Wedding Dresses [ebridalgowns.ca] ,Bridesmaid Wedding Dresses [ebridalgowns.ca] , even Mother of the Bride Dresses [ebridalgowns.ca] . But to try on all can be a tough job.And it is really time-consuming.

Fuck... (1)

kyuubiunl (1747574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35740828)

This story on general principle.

Reputable because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740884)

Amazon makes your wish lists public by default? Yeah, that's real sweet of them.

European VAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740924)

Does Amazon collect VAT taxes in Europe on internet purchase?. If it does what is the rate?

shitz (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741090)

I am named the 'most reliable, honest and dependable person in the entire galaxy'. Oops, debt collect agency is knocking on my door, gotta flee from teh windowz!

Not Newegg? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741144)

Newegg gets my vote. I don't know about the rest of you guys/gals, but my experience with Newegg rocks! That's not to say that won't turn 180 and turn into total douche bags, but that's a hypothetical tomorrow. Today however, they have my love :)

Johnson & Johnson? (1)

OrigamiMarie (1501451) | more than 3 years ago | (#35741278)

So ah . . . #3 has been in a product recall death spiral for more than a year, hasn't it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?