Amazon UK free delivery minimum spend doubled to £20

[HEXUS]

Amazon made a $57m (£36m) loss in its most recently reported quarterly financials.

Read more.

[Saracen]

Bit slow off the mark this time, HEXUS.

There's about a four of five page thread in GD from last week ....http:// http://forums.hexus.net/gene...ery-spend.html

[Jowsey]

Bit slow off the mark this time, HEXUS.

There's about a four of five page thread in GD from last week ....

I've thought this a couple times!

Also, Mr Hexus, what a very weird product you appear to purchasing... It's not even tech related!!

[shaithis]

I wish they would stop ramming prime down everyones throats....

[Saracen]

I wish they would stop ramming prime down everyones throats....

Ditto.

Prime, modestly-priced, as a delivery option for regular users? Fine. At anything like the current price, with all sorts of stuff (streaming, etx) I have NO interest in? No use to me at all.

If they want any chance of getting me interested, or presumably, like-minded folk, perhaps they need a basic Prime for us, and a Prime Plus with all the extra guff.

[crossy]

nother theory is that Amazon's strategists think that the £20 minimum will push more people to sign up for the £79-a-year Amazon Prime service. Prime brings not only free delivery on over nine million Amazon warehoused items but you will also benefit from faster 'one day' delivery speeds.

In that case those strategists are wrong - "incentivising" folks to sign up for the £80/year Prime is just going to dissuade from buying from Amazon. Heck, when I was looking for a new router, PC World was actually cheaper overall than Amazon for two day delivery.

I wish they would stop ramming prime down everyones throats....

Prime I'm fine with but, as I've said to Amazon themselves in a recent survey, forcing people to accept the whole bundle is a stupid thing to do. I know I'm not the only one (because I remember Saracen saying similar) that a Prime that was expedited delivery and nothing else at an attractive price (hint: £30?) would be looked on favourably, the current Prime is a waste of money since it includes that awful "Instant Video" money drainer.

Actually maybe I should thank Amazon, because before they slapped in IV and upped the price I was buying a LOT from them. Now that I'm no longer a Prime member I'm saving money because I'm having to factor in delivery costs - which makes some purchases a definite "second or even third thoughts".

If Amazon want to look at loss of revenue then they might want to consider better customer service, although at least the returns policy is still pretty solid. I bought a new router from them recently (it was the same price as PC World, but Amazon had stock). Opened the Amazon box and what I got out looked like it'd been used, (cables not bundled, ripped plastic bags, etc). Worse still, no setup manual AND the previous owner had changed passwords etc - so if I'd not been able to Google for "Asus RT-AC68U factory reset" then I would have had a paperweight. Went to register with Asus (because this router has a 3 year warranty from Asus if you register with them) only to be told that it was already registered. Amazon CS's attitude was "we warranty it for a year, what's your problem?" (when they got back to me eventually). It's going back today and a replacement will be here tomorrow. Unfortunately, Amazon were cheapest so they got the repeat business, but if anyone else had even come close then they'd have got the money instead of Amazon. Really not happy and vowing to avoid Amazon if possible in future.

EDIT: and now I see Saracen's come online to back up what I was saying - Prime for deliveries etc only = good, Prime with music and video setups = bad.

[virtuo]

With reference to the news item, I can't imagine many people being affected by the minimum price rise. For the things I'd buy off Amazon I'd almost always be looking at spending over £20 anyway, and if it's less I can find something to bulk the order out to meet the requirements. Surprised it's made so much news if I'm honest.

[AlexKitch]

Agreed with previous posters.

If Prime were sensibly priced such that it was worthwhile for occasional shoppers like myself, they'd probably have my money - £30 would be fine. At its current cost, it's just not worth it for most people, unless you particularly want the Instant Video nonsense that comes with it - which most people don't.

Even a multiple-tier Prime subscription would make more sense than the current one. A 'Silver' and 'Gold' package - one with just expedited delivery, the other including Instant Video. Job done.

[Jowsey]

Even a multiple-tier Prime subscription would make more sense than the current one. A 'Silver' and 'Gold' package - one with just expedited delivery, the other including Instant Video. Job done.

But then you wouldn't be forced into purchasing something you don't want and a company would be giving your the product or service they actually want. No incentive for Amazon at all...

/sarcasm

[shaithis]

But then you wouldn't be forced into purchasing something you don't want and a company would be giving your the product or service they actually want. No incentive for Amazon at all...

/sarcasm

This seems to be the way a lot of people are going, especially when large corporations like Sky TV have used it to such devastating effect.

[Saracen]

....

EDIT: and now I see Saracen's come online to back up what I was saying - Prime for deliveries etc only = good, Prime with music and video setups = bad.

Not so much that "Prime with music and video setups = bad". More bad for me.

It's probably good for those wanting the music, video, etc, services. I just don't, is all.

The price of Amazon bundling it all up at £80-ish is a definite disincentive to thosr, like me and it seems, you, not interested in the bundle.

And yes, like you, I've bought far less from Amazon since. In my case, far less = nothing, though that's not entirely due to this. It's also due to a conscious decision to buy as little as possible online, and as much as possible, even at higher prices if need be, in person.

[Saracen]

With reference to the news item, I can't imagine many people being affected by the minimum price rise. For the things I'd buy off Amazon I'd almost always be looking at spending over £20 anyway, and if it's less I can find something to bulk the order out to meet the requirements. Surprised it's made so much news if I'm honest.

+1 from me.

[Lanky123]

Just a month ago Amazon posted a loss of $57m (£36m) for the preceding quarter

I can't be the only one that thinks a (relatively) small loss for a company the size of amazon sounds suspicously 'tax efficient' rather than being unduly worrying for them or due to too much free delivery... I don't think they're having any trouble making money, they just have a history of plowing any profits they do make into new markets they want a slice of.

And regarding the rise to £20 for free delivery I think I'm similar to others here - it's not a huge inconvenience to wait until I have £20 of stuff to order and if it stops me impulse buying something at ~£10 then it's probably saving me money to be honest.

[Jowsey]

I can't be the only one that thinks a (relatively) small loss for a company the size of amazon sounds suspicously 'tax efficient' rather than being unduly worrying for them or due to too much free delivery... I don't think they're having any trouble making money, they just have a history of plowing any profits they do make into new markets they want a slice of.

I've always thought this. They just don't make as much profit as I thought they were, and I was sceptical as well. Or is it cynical, I can't tell any more. But I think it's slightly more innocent then what it feels. I think it's mostly due to the bleeding edge super thin margins they make. Of course, they treat there staff like ...well... I may receive a forum ban if I express my opinions on this matter, in the pursuit of these margins. Which is just as big an evil.




And I'm sure they avoid tax as well. Remember ladies and gentlemen, evasion is illegal, avoidance is what rich people/companies do.

[crossy]

If Prime were sensibly priced such that it was worthwhile for occasional shoppers like myself, they'd probably have my money - £30 would be fine. At its current cost, it's just not worth it for most people, unless you particularly want the Instant Video nonsense that comes with it - which most people don't.

Even a multiple-tier Prime subscription would make more sense than the current one. A 'Silver' and 'Gold' package - one with just expedited delivery, the other including Instant Video. Job done.

Yes, it's always struck me as a strange way to do things - a case of "here it is, now take it or leave it" (so I did the latter). On the other hand with Bronze, Silver and Gold levels there's the "oh, but it's only x for the basic level" so easy to get the suckers, sorry "customers", drawn in. Then there's the possibility of "ah, but now you've got a Bronze wouldn't you like to upgrade to Silver for a mere y per month". Same for Silver to Gold. Classic bring-em-in-low-and-then-upsell tactics...

At the end of the day I was paying £39/year for "Prime Classic", now with "New Formula Prime" they're getting £0/year. I really don't care if it's "better value" - all I see is that I'm being forced to pay £40 for stuff I don't need or want. So I didn't...

Maybe people are getting bored of Amazon, the "you can get everything here" appeal is wearing thin?

[Saracen]

....

And I'm sure they avoid tax as well. Remember ladies and gentlemen, evasion is illegal, avoidance is what rich people/companies do.

Not just rich people and companies, but just about anyone with enough money to save even modest savings, and an IQ higher than a pot plant.

Got an ISA? Or had a TESSA? Or voluntarily put money into pension savings? Why? Because, due to tax efficiency, you're better off than putting it into a non-ISA standard savings account, which is taxable at your personal marginal rate .... and taxed at source at basic rate.

I saved about £80k in tax a few years ago by spending £100 on a simple legal document that changed the status of asset.

Who here wouldn't? Who here would rather see that £80k go to HMRC, than to themselves, for the sake on 10 minutes with a solicitor, and a simple change? What on earth is wrong with that?

And, by the way, about 3 years later, the government changed tax law to effect precisely the same result I got. Had my situation cropped up after that change, I could have saved the £100 and the 10 minutes.

Clearly, from subsequent government action, their intent was to not generate a tax liability in that situation. And, eventually, they acted to correct it. Meantime, who in their right mind wouldn't spend the 10 minutes and £100?

Tax "avoidance" is a VERY broad category, ranging from using an ISA rather than a stanard savings account, to the sort of highly complicated "aggressive" avoidance measures, often involving valuations of IO rights, highly questionable transfer pricing, etc. Osborne et. el. have been going after,

Never forget that a good part of government outrage over "tax avoidance" is actually a diversionary tactic, by giving the public a bogey-man to blame for our economic woes, just like blaming "bankers" for the collapse (when it was a small proportion of bankers responsible for SOME of the mess), or immigrants for peessures on the health service, etc.

In all the cases, it deflects the point that GOVERNMENT, of successive colours, is actually responsible for setting the banking regulatory system and policies, immigration policies and, yes, the tax laws under which those horrible rich people and companies "avoid" tax.