Where did that bout of envy come from? It wasn’t there yesterday. Yes, good folk do regularly push us towards coveting our neighbors stuff, but that doesn’t make it “just the right thing to do” does it? Where did the “one room hut” come from? Nothing wrong with a clear view of the stars or a good cave is there [as long as they have HD cable and a front loading washer]?

As for social conidtioning, well, we all have to take responsibility for the things we allow to be done to oursevles. If people are conditioned by advertising, then they, at least, ought to be clever enough to recognize what’s going on. Frankly, though, I don’t see any difference between being conditioned by an ad and conditioned by envy over the neighbor’s Shiny New Toy. It’s just the way we work.

Trying to get me to buy something I may not actually need is neither.

Odd perhaps, but not inaccurate. Perhaps I see more gray in the definition of “shady” than you. If I thought it to be outright dishonest/untruthful/criminal I would have stated such, but since I do not see it that way I stuck with shady. Maybe that is not a new and improved way to see it but it is how my eyes work. Alas, trying to get you to buy what you don’t need can be both dishonest and criminal – not that I am saying this instance is in particular – but when first introduced neither were subliminal frames in film. One has to wonder though as pointed by others as well, about the social conditioning we have all been receiving in these areas; need, need it faster, status associated with having and having faster and the ultimate costs incurred along the way. I must stop here and go play with the lump of clean coal Santa brought me yesterday [via FedX overnight by 10am service of course].

That, MarkUp, is an odd way of defining shady.

Where I come from, shady means dishonst or criminal. Trying to get me to buy something I may not actually need is neither.

I’ve seen no evidence that Amazon Prime is dishonest or criminal. Is it intended to increase Amazon sales? Sure, but that’s not shady. It’s clearly explained that Prime applies only to items shipped by Amazon, and it’s also clearly explained that it does not apply to the many other vendors who sell on Amazon.com.

Bottom line: Amazon isn’t charging “Prime” members “twice” (or merely more) for shipping than non-Prime members because non-Prime members are never offered lower base prices for items than are Prime members for Amazon’s own items.

Furthermore, a Prime membership doesn’t just give members an upgrade to two-day shipping for free (not including the cost of the membership, of course), it also really is free shipping on all items that are eligible that would not otherwise have had free shipping (because they weren’t part of a sufficiently large order).

Some people have tried to understand your objection by assuming that you incorrectly thought that “free shipping” in the Prime membership meant that shipping from 3rd party vendors would be free. I don’t think that’s where your confusion lies. I think that your confusion lies in the fact that those 3rd party vendors have base prices that are less than Amazon’s. And from that you conclude that you’re paying for shipping implicitly in that price, and then also paying for it with your Prime membership.

And this may be the case. It also may not be. It might be the case that Amazon has higher overhead than the others’. The deeper problem here is in the assumption that there’s a discrete shipping price at all with any of these vendors, Amazon included…that Amazon’s base price is greater than the 3rd party vendors doesn’t mean the shipping is included in it any more than it means that the much higher cost at a brick-and-mortar retailer includes “shipping”. The cost is higher, for whatever reason.

Muddying the waters is the fact that all the vendors have retail+shipping totals that are the equal to the Amazon base price (which is what the Prime member pays, total). This is simply the result of the fact that they are competing with Amazon and each other to have the lowest possible price. Note that the non-Prime Amazon customer pays the highest amount (when shipping is included) in this particular example of this item. None of them are likely to actually be paying the amount quoted to their shipper. Again, it’s a mistake to think that there’s a discrete shipping cost on a per item basis that you can then quantify as being the amount you’ve paid for with your Prime membership. Another vendor I use offers “expedited” order fulfillment. Does that mean that the $2.99 I might pay for a particular order to be “expedited” is what it cost that vendor to “expedite” that order? Of course not.

The only comparison that has any relevance at all is the comparison between what Prime and non-Prime members pay for the same item, not including shipping. And it turns out, they pay the same price. Therefore, Amazon is giving you exactly what they said they’d give you for your Prime membership: free two-day shipping on many items that are sold directly by them. Whether that’s worth $79 a year depends entirely on how you use Amazon. If all your purchases would have qualified for their free shipping anyway, and you never wanted them shipped within two days, then it’s not worth it. If many of your purchases wouldn’t have qualified for the free shipping, and especially if you often choose two-day shipping, then it’s worth it.

Given what I’ve written above, if you still have objections, could you try to explain them more clearly?

Shows how closely you’re reading the comments. Plus a cute naivete about the idea that all correspondence about an issue occurs in the comments to a Crooked Timber blog thread. I mean, sure, there are some great discussions here, but conversations do actually occur elsewhere, too.

a simple note to Amazon would have cleared up your original misconception

You didn’t read my original post very closely, and I quote: “I sent Customer Service three notes already, but nothing helpful has come back so far.” I didn’t write this post until it was clear I wasn’t getting anywhere with Customer Service.

The thread has definitely been useful regarding my confusion, because it clarified that the results were due to different vendors. The idea that not everything is eligible for Prime shipping wasn’t news to me, I already knew that. Instead of assuming that I’m clueless, you could go back and read my comments and try to understand where I’m coming from (or try to understand Prime enough to know where I’m coming from, clearly some of the comments above don’t get the details of Prime and that’s why they don’t understand my point).

By the way, if you don’t think your comment is worthwhile enough to sign your name and email address then I’ll have to assume it’s also not worthwhile enough for our attention.

Shady? How so? It’s the best thing since sliced bread. I only wish Amazon would tweak their search function to allow it to return only items that are “Prime” eligible.

No, ground shipping is already included in the price – orders under a certain threshold have an added charge and some items after paying an added fee get additional service[s].

Prime Shipping is a shady product…

That’s an unwarranted accusation.

Most marketing ploys are “shady” in that they strive to get one to spend more, often on items not needed.

“I’m not going to engage in that activity since stating the same thing repeatedly doesn’t seem to change people’s mind too much.”

Uh, isn’t repetition one of the main tools in the marketers box, be they selling DSLR’s or political candidates? I mean, read my lips; trust but verify lest I feel your pain and then will be reduced to needing to change my way of thinking to a faith based system of hope™.

There’s nothing shady about this. Amazon is following a simple and sensible algorithm here:
1. IF Amazon doesn’t directly supply the product AND user is a Prime member, then show the lowest priced supplier that supports the Prime shipping option.
2. IF Amazon doesn’t directly supply the product AND user is not Prime member, then show the lowest price supplier.
3. In both cases, show all supplier options, showing the lowest price available before the click-through, so that consumer can choose from the full range of options.

What on earth is shady about that? Moreover, showing lowest price available from all suppliers pre-click-through goes the extra-mile to be transparent about choices and alerts you to potentially better deals. It also certainly does not, as you claim above, “leave prime users paying more.” Prime subscribers have the same lowest-cost options as everyone else. They just have the additional option of an outside vendor who is willing to honor Amazon’s prime shipping.

Usually these price discrepancies/third-party vendors happen with products outside of Amazon’s core products (book, music, movies). Usually when this happens, I’ll go double-check the price on buy.com or froogle or similar sites. Sometimes I get a better price, sometimes not. If not, I then go directly (not through Amazon) to the 3rd-party vendor listed by Amazon—sometimes the price/shipping combo is cheaper that way.

When ordering larger electronics stuff it’s almost always better to go through good-rep specialized retailers (B&H, Crutchfield, etc.) since you can deal with them directly if there’s a problem. For rinky-dink $20 stuff, the big benefit of ordering from Amazon (even with the higher price and prime shipping) is that you’re getting a very reliable retail experience 99% of the time—two days, tracking info, email notification, decent packing. Not so much with the third party vendors—when I’ve ordered low-price stuff from these third-party people, shipping was variable, sometimes taking 2-3 days just get the item into the mail, and sometimes the packaging sucked (eg, a cell phone battery not in a box or even a bag, just rattling around the packaging material).

Moral—I don’t think Amazon should offer 3rd party vendors—it dilutes their rep for reliability (and evidently “fair” pricing [for some])—and if you don’t like the whole shipping/price combo for that item, use froogle, etc. to get the bestest price and save 79¢ or so.