not necessarily, thanks to the joys of commingled inventory! "GNC Storefront" goes in to the same bin as the rando person who put a label on some melamine powder, since it has the same UPC. In fact this also applies to Amazon stock as well - with the exception of Amazonbasics since they don't allow third-party sellers of their own products.
Correct me if I'm wrong but while there is a way for sellers to pay for non-commingled inventory... this is not signaled to consumers in any way either, this is a benefit to the seller to avoid increased returns, not to you as a customer. So you have no way of knowing where any particular "sold by amazon" or "fulfilled by amazon" item comes from. Probably by design... it would not surprise me if "no discussing commingling" was a rule too. It's in Amazon's interest to keep this opaque so that consumers treat them all as interchangeable commodities rather than favoring one storefront or another. Consumer loyalty would be detrimental to amazon's leverage over sellers.
everyone hates the non-prime items because they come slower and frequently incur large shipping costs... but those are the only items that are guaranteed to come from a trustworthy supply chain (if you trust the seller). Prices are actually often higher than a direct transaction with a vendor because they pay large fees to transact on amazon's platform too, and the shipping costs are often more sensible as well.
You really need to price it out because between prime costs, platform costs, shipping costs, etc, amazon is often not that much cheaper than directly transacting with a merchant, and then you would get a trustworthy supply chain by default.
I know you are correct about the seller being able to pay to avoid commingling. The fact that they refuse to show which products paid to the consumer seems hard to justify
> "GNC Storefront" goes in to the same bin as the rando person who put a label on some melamine powder
If toxic products are getting into consumer food I would hope the FDA or some other regulatory agency would sue Amazon to oblivion. The USA is supposed to be better than this.
Correct me if I'm wrong but while there is a way for sellers to pay for non-commingled inventory... this is not signaled to consumers in any way either, this is a benefit to the seller to avoid increased returns, not to you as a customer. So you have no way of knowing where any particular "sold by amazon" or "fulfilled by amazon" item comes from. Probably by design... it would not surprise me if "no discussing commingling" was a rule too. It's in Amazon's interest to keep this opaque so that consumers treat them all as interchangeable commodities rather than favoring one storefront or another. Consumer loyalty would be detrimental to amazon's leverage over sellers.
everyone hates the non-prime items because they come slower and frequently incur large shipping costs... but those are the only items that are guaranteed to come from a trustworthy supply chain (if you trust the seller). Prices are actually often higher than a direct transaction with a vendor because they pay large fees to transact on amazon's platform too, and the shipping costs are often more sensible as well.
You really need to price it out because between prime costs, platform costs, shipping costs, etc, amazon is often not that much cheaper than directly transacting with a merchant, and then you would get a trustworthy supply chain by default.
reply