|
Will_L -> RE: Amazon Prime Controversy (6/10/2017 1:29:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: 76mm
2) It is well documented that many low-income areas are "food deserts", or more accurately "retail deserts"
--in other words, there are no real supermarkets or other retail outlets for neighborhood residents to shop
--only fast food, convenience stores, etc. Therefore, especially as Amazon expands into grocery delivery,
Prime could offer a real service to these residents--and a real market for Amazon--if the residents can afford
the membership fee.
Good rationale provided, 76mm.
Just a word about the 'food deserts' USDA has promulgated to feather its own nest. They've been largely debunked. What do I mean?
Note USDA's own conclusion (buried in their own in-house pub), which they didn't bother to redact or retract
publicly.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/500-million-later-usda-on-food-deserts
That doesn't mean that companies like Alphabet or Amazon don't fancy themselves 'social justice warriors' and
promulgate change where none is really necessary. I personally believe that Amazon is not doing this out of
the kindness of their own heart, but as a cold and calculated means of clawing back market share from Walmart.
Walmart has a very high brand utilization amongst the lower economic quartiles-much moreso than Amazon.
Any inroads Amazon could claim in the name of social good would be money well spent for Amazon.
The Walmart near me, in Valley Stream NY, gets the overwhelming majority of its business from lower income areas
in southeast Brooklyn & southern Queens. It was supposed to have (and should have) been built in East New York
(part of Brooklyn) but heavy resistance from the supermarket unions and politicians ended that possibility and all
the tax revenue generated by the store goes to Nassau County rather than NYC.
|
|
|
|
