Bargains

[vinteuil]

I like Dave's correct raising of possible moral issue here; I like hafod's sane response.

I think that there also does seem to be a difference in what our moral stance is likely to be when faced by an "error" in a large anonymous corporation and a local friendly entity. I confess I don't seem to have too many moral qualms when 'taking advantage' of what seem evidently to be errors in the systems amazon are using for pricing their products; I also know that when I have seen my small local independent grocer make a mistake in pricing, I have gone out of my way, not only to pay the 'correct' price but also to point out to them their error...

[Mandryka]

I like Dave's correct raising of possible moral issue here; I like hafod's sane response.

I think that there also does seem to be a difference in what our moral stance is likely to be when faced by an "error" in a large anonymous corporation and a local friendly entity. I confess I don't seem to have too many moral qualms when 'taking advantage' of what seem evidently to be errors in the systems amazon are using for pricing their products; I also know that when I have seen my small local independent grocer make a mistake in pricing, I have gone out of my way, not only to pay the 'correct' price but also to point out to them their error...

Which is exactly my position, too.

Let's remember this is AMAZON we're talking about - one of the most (if not THE most) profitable retail organisations in the world. Whatever infinitesimal blip this causes to their monthly sales figures, you can be sure it'll soon be obliterated.

And, yes, we all have done our bit to keeping the industry afloat, even when it didn't really need as much keeping afloat as it does these days (CDs were horrendously overpriced for a very long time, let's not forget).

[Curalach]

I agree with vinteuil. It is amazing how often I have to correct shopkeepers in their favour and put it down to the inability of most people today to do mental arithmetic. If the "computer" or "till" says it, it must be right, whether or not it makes sense. Clearly at Amazon, whoever entered the price for the Rubinstein set didn't connect the price with the product.
That said, if Amazon were to ask me to pay the full price I would cancel my order rather than force them to supply, although I would be within my rights to do so. Their choice not mine.
I think that would cover any morality qualms I might have. (Not that I have!)

[Barbirollians]

As a matter of law surely Amazon's price is an invitation to treat , the purchaser makes the offer which Amazon then chooses to accept.

Its software means it accepts automatically but I would not be surprised if its T and Cs had something to say about palpable errors in pricing . It may simply be with record collectors being very good customers they let them go !

[hafod]

Can I stress that when the Rubinstein item (and the Steinberg and Rheinberger for that matter) was first listed the price was comparable with competitors. Then inexplicably it suddenly nose-dived. It is how I picked it up because I put into a new issues wish list anything which would be a 'nice to have' but cannot justify (afford) purchasing. I limit the wish list to 25 so it takes seconds to scan when I check my emails first thing in the morning and last thing at night.

I agree that small businesses, local shops, indidviduals etc are quite a different matter and like others I always point out mistakes. I even tried to do so at Tesco last Saturday when they wanted to charge me 64p for the Guardian. I told them it should be £1.90. They rescanned it and insisted I pay the 64p demanded by the system. By that time I noted that the price marked on the front page was actually £2.10 although I didn't see a reference to the 10% rise anywhere in the paper although I may have missed it). The Saturday Guardian Money Section is always banging on that price increases should be prominently displayed. I would have expected them to practice what they preached.

[Dave2002]

A merchant offering an item for sale at a ridiculously low price through incompetence (it happens too often with Amazon for it to be categorised as a mistake), and the market place responding by paying that price is (imv) a million miles from looting. Big business for much of the time operates in ways that seek to put the customer at a disadvantage but when the boot is on the other foot it generates a preamble about looting. Each to his own though. On the question of morality I am reminded of 'caveat emptor'. What is the Latin for 'seller beware'.

There are people who subscribe to "property is theft", though feel this then justifies them stealing things. I once had a friend who stole books "just to find out what it felt like". Whether this had anything to do with one of his courses in Philosophy at the time I don't know. Some people might have stolen the books because they needed them and couldn't afford them, but I don't think that applied.

Will wait to see what happens with the Rubinstein. I'm not actually sure that I want that many CDs anyway. I still think there are some ethical questions here.

[Dave2002]

Incidentally, can anyone tell me how selling a cd for £0.01 in the Amazon marketplace makes a profit for a non-trader?

Don't such items have ridiculously large postage and packing or carriage terms to compensate? By having as low a price as possible, it presumably minimises Amazon's cut. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "non-trader".

It infuriates me to see the low prices some market place people offer, then discover that the total price is much higher later. Complete waste of one's time having to check this out, though I think it's a bit easier now. Some while back you could even get through to Checkout before discovering a not so good deal.

[barber olly]

Don't such items have ridiculously large postage and packing or carriage terms to compensate? By having as low a price as possible, it presumably minimises Amazon's cut. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "non-trader".

It infuriates me to see the low prices some market place people offer, then discover that the total price is much higher later. Complete waste of one's time having to check this out, though I think it's a bit easier now. Some while back you could even get through to Checkout before discovering a not so good deal.

See my posting #342. There are Pro-merchants who pay a flat rate each month to Amazon, worthwhile if turnover is good. There are other sellers who pay amazon commission per item but receive £1.26 per item p and p. This charge is added to the price charged to buyers. Bearing in mind that 2nd class postage is 92p to send a single CD, much more for doubles and boxed sets in larger jewel-cases, the profits are not massive. It can be almost worthwhile for Pro- merchants to sell for 0.01p but certainly not for a small private seller. Read £1.27 for the cost of a £0.01 CD. If its one you really want - it/s not a lot.

[hafod]

Don't such items have ridiculously large postage and packing or carriage terms to compensate? By having as low a price as possible, it presumably minimises Amazon's cut. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "non-trader".

It infuriates me to see the low prices some market place people offer, then discover that the total price is much higher later. Complete waste of one's time having to check this out, though I think it's a bit easier now. Some while back you could even get through to Checkout before discovering a not so good deal.

About to post the following when the phone rang so to an extent overtaken by barber olly's respose. Seems a shame to waste -

By a non-trader I mean a private seller. Traders are charged less by Amazon. Postage and packing is £1.26 and Amazon takes a cut of that. A single cd posted to anywhere in the UK is 92p second class. Listing an item for £1.00 results in 95p being received from Amazon and from which postage then has to be taken leaving a measly 3p. Selling for 50p results in Amazon forwarding 53p to your bank account thereby leaving a loss after paying the postal charge. A 1p sale generates 13p before postage is paid.

It is precisely because of such avarice that when Amazon gets its pricing wrong that I have no qualms about taking advantage of it.

[Bryn]

When hmv.com similarly under-priced a boxed set of Vivaldi operas a couple of years ago, they refused to honour that price. They claimed that, in law, they had the right to refuse to fulfil the order at the advertised price since it was an "obvious error". With a discrepancy as large as that involved in the amazon.co.uk listing for the Rubenstein set, I think they may well adopt the same stance as hmv.com did. We will simply have to wait an see.

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

With a discrepancy as large as that involved in the amazon.co.uk listing for the Rubenstein set, I think they may well adopt the same stance as hmv.com did. We will simply have to wait an see.

They honoured the Real Chopin price, although it wasn't awry to the scale of the Rubinstein box.

[Mandryka]

HMV.com remains the only etailer in my experience who has ever refused to honour the contract for a mistakenly priced item. As they are going through troubles at the moment, I didn't quibble with this.

[Bryn]

They honoured the Real Chopin price, although it wasn't awry to the scale of the Rubinstein box.

Indeed, IGI, as hmv.com also did with the Momo Kodama 2 channel triple SACD set of Messiaen's Catalogue d'Oiseaux, which they had priced as if a single CD. There's an element of pot luck involved. By the way, amazon.co.uk make it clear that the order has not been accepted until they email the buyer confirming dispatch.

[barber olly]

I would guess that the speed with which they pulled it that they have had a small hit.

[hafod]

I would guess that the speed with which they pulled it that they have had a small hit.

.....not least from readers and contributors to these boards.