You last visited: Today at 02:50 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|11-10-2012 01:55 PM|
Maybe you do know what you are ranting on, but it has nothing to do with what i said
So....yah, you have no idea what you are takling about "Business model and Data Analysis." .
Food for thought, departments are inter-related. Maybe that's a new concept for you.
|11-10-2012 12:07 PM|
How is that necessary?
From Amazon's POV, they have stated several times that the intention of Prime is not to necessarily turn a profit on the subscription. Rather, they want to be the FIRST place consumers go to shop.
As it stands now, Amazon's greatest weakness is that you need to wait 2 days for an item ---- even longer if you include holidays and the weekends where their retail B&M competition is almost always open. It's why Amazon is testing same-day delivery in select markets.
Also, Amazon is quite willing to take a loss on some items in order to be the number one in whatever they want to be. When Harry Potter books were coming out, some bookstores complained that Amazon's selling price with free shipping was lower than their distributor could get it to them for.
My point is, 24.99 is close enough, IMO, to get the free shipping b/c honestly, I'd prefer to buy through amazon because I can usually wait a few days.
Actually, I got a $20 promotional credit for Amazon b/c of an issue I had with an order. I am quite loyal to Amazon and have generally always had good experiences with their CSRs. But, this ridiculousness with FSSS being set at a hard $25 seems to fore-go potential sales for people that want to buy an item pretty dang close to the price.
If you have a Prime membership, you've probably noticed that they've become a bit more stingy about shipping benefits with it..... On some of their smaller items, you have to hit the $25 mark even with a Prime membership.
So yeah, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
|11-10-2012 11:39 AM|
So say we got 4 scenarios.
1. people refuse to buy - less the probability of - in store price are actually that much cheaper so they wouldn't consider economical time(convenience) /gas saving and just fork over the shipping charge.
2. people buy filler to bump to 25.30
3. people buy more stuff (food, daily items) to go over $25, ultimately give them an edge over Walmart type of grocery stores.
4. people got tired of it and ultimately fork over prime annual fee and reduce their overall shipping cost.
It's not that hard to analyze those data. While we don't even know their contract deal with UPS/Fedex are like. So I gotta say, you have no idea what you are talking about.
It has nothing with you being a cheapskate. It's just you lack concept of finding a profit point and sticking with it.
|11-10-2012 10:10 AM|
Completely agree, except some on here have nothing better to do than cry about me being a cheapskate.
FYI folks -- when I had prime, it was bad b/c I had amazon boxes delivered weekly. My orders were 150+ for the year.
Now that I don't have it, well let's just say I think I'm under 10.
Saving money is never a bad thing, and frankly, the Prime was a gateway drug.
|11-10-2012 10:08 AM|
But, refusing to ship a 24.99 item, but allowing a 25.01 order to go through? I'd allow like a 50 cent grace period.
Most people buying an item for 24.99 without prime would likely happily pay a nickle or quarter more to bump up to free shipping. Kohl's allows one to hit $48 and not the $50 advertised and still get their Kohl's cash.
|11-10-2012 10:05 AM|
|11-10-2012 06:36 AM|
Interested parties should head over to realclimate.org to continue this "discussion". Anyway...
I bought both Frozen Planet and Human Planet, even though they are not as good as PE, Life, Blue Planet. Thanks!
|11-09-2012 07:07 PM|
"Too much education."
|11-09-2012 06:59 PM|
|11-09-2012 04:29 PM|
|11-09-2012 03:33 PM|
so your saying that all scientists are constantly trying to disapprove each other to make money? please give me all of your evidence for this. And if this was true the amount of money they would get from disapproving global warming would be far less than the amount that could and is being made from promoting global warming.
And I think you have it backwards because many scientists are afraid to go against global warming or any other popularized idea because they don't want to get mocked or lose their reputation or funding. Science can be a very dirty business just like anything else.
And I really hate when people do what you just did. You claim that because a lot of scientists believe it than its right away true. But their has been many scientific theories and even facts in history which used to be accepted by majority of scientists that have been debunked. And another problem is that their is a lot of scientists who are against man made global warming. The same man made global warming has never been proven and that was popularized by a politician. And the scientists who are against global warming get ignored by the media and hollywood as well as get ignored by mainstream science. Because science like any other field like you said can be used for profit. And peer review as you talk about is not concrete because those peer reviews articles are also handpicked to serve their pro global warming agenda and other agendas so they can make money. How much press do all of those anti global warming articles get? very little if any at all because the people with the money and power don't like you messing up their chance for profit.
And here is something to think about if the government can get away with everything it has and if all throughout history leaders and all types of people could lie to the masses then why couldn't they in this present age fake man made fake global warming.
And if global warming is real why have many people including Nasa been caught faking evidence.
And the green industries dont have to beat out the coal manufactures because they still can and have made a lot of money without taking over. And going green is good in certain ways and for real reasons but man made global warming is not one of them
And I am not saying see their isn't any global warming but to say that its man made is ridiculous. And the earth warming ( if it is happening now) has happened before because the earth has always cooled and heated on its own without mans pollution.
Instead of wasting time and money on global warming why dont we focus on other problems we all know are true. For example fighting real physical pollution,helping the poor,sick,starving people,fighting against corruption,educating the uneducated and stoping rainforest destruction etc....
oh wait I just remembered this thread was about a blu ray
|11-09-2012 01:33 PM|
Ugh. Stick to talking about the deals people. Firstly this isn't the place to debate climate science. Secondly, roughly half of you are getting your "science" from talking points in the media. That isn't enough science to have an opinion that matters. If you really want to approach it with an open mind, go watch the potholer54 videos on climate science for a good but quick introduction and then get back to me with any other objections, if you have any.
Now that's not to say that things never get skewed nor that there isn't occasional dishonesty that seeps into scientific research, especially with a large enough profit motive. But the entire scientific process tends to weed this out and makes it *very* difficult to get away with, much less maintain, and ultimately your skewed perspective will be buried under the pile of research being done by intellectually honest scientists.
Also your premise that somehow the "green" industries could financially provide *any* competition for coal and oil industries is most likely absurd.
|11-09-2012 01:02 PM|
Without human cause for climate change, there is no need for a green industry. There is no need to sell green energy for a higher cost, there is no need for green auditors to rubber stamp all those green products sitting on the shelves, there's no need to develop low emissions auto parts, toyota wouldn't sell nearly as many Priuses, and most importantly there's no need for consumers to pay twice as much for the same product because it is green.
My point is not that humans aren't affecting climate change, it's that this bias for financial gain goes both ways. If you truly want to be objective, you need to understand that all research is funded by someone, and most people have an agenda for spending money. Just like statistics lie, so does science. There's a near limitless amount of assumptions, unknowns, manipulations, or mistakes that can occur in trying to nail down something the scope of determining causes of climate change.. especially since we have so little sample data to begin with.. our recorded history is infinitely tiny compared to the entire history of our planet.
|11-09-2012 12:44 PM|
BBC HIGH DEFINITION NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTION 2, includes Life, Nature's Most Amazing Events, South Pacific & Yellowstone
|11-09-2012 12:13 PM|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|