Amazon Keeps a Low Profile
Other corporate titans, from Disney to Nike to Walmart, have received greater scrutiny as they’ve became larger and more dominant in the marketplace. Amazon now appears to be facing similar questions and critics. The surprise, at least to some, is that the company just isn’t offering much of a response.
The Seattle Times recently completed a comprehensive four-part series covering Amazon’s apparently poor record on local philanthropy, its aggressive pricing war with book publishers, its state-by-state battle over taxes and sweaty working conditions in its warehouses. The investigation largely followed up on known charges heard over the last year. Amazon offered little cooperation with the piece.
But the local online reaction was loudly negative to the piece, which some, in hindsight, said shouldn’t have been surprising given the large number of Seattle citizens now employed by Amazon.
The uproar prompted Times executive editor David Boardman to defend the series in a column last weekend. With the aid of hundreds of interviews, "we were able to shed light on largely hidden aspects of a company that is as secretive as it is successful," he wrote.
He added that as one of the city’s largest employers, "It seemed not only natural, but imperative, that The Seattle Times, as the major journalistic entity in Amazon’s hometown, would examine the company’s practices as a corporate citizen."
Those in favor of the series said Amazon should be held accountable and faulted its lack of support for Seattle’s community.
The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times found the lack of cooperation with the piece from Amazon as particularly noteworthy. Both claimed it followed a "low-profile" pattern seen by Amazon over the years given the limited access it offers to media and how it often skimps on financial details. That includes offering vague details around Kindle sales compared to full-disclosure of iPad sales by Apple.
Describing Amazon as "more like King Kong in the jungle, a powerful, largely invisible and vaguely threatening presence," the AP also pointed to the fact that no Amazon logos can be found on their many local buildings in Seattle. The fact that Amazon’s new headquarters broke ground in 2009 with the mayor and governor in attendance but no Amazon executives was seen as one of many examples of Amazon’s secretive nature.
In response to the Times article, Amazon only offered a brief statement, "At Amazon, if we do our job right, our greatest contribution to the good of society will come from our core business activities: lowering prices, expanding selection, driving convenience, driving frustration-free packaging, creating Kindle, innovating in web services, and other initiatives we’ll work hard on in the future."
- Behind the Amazon.com smile: About this series – The Seattle Times
- Amazon series draws torrent of negative reaction online – The Seattle Times
- Amazon exposed: The book behemoth is scrutinized – Los Angeles Times
- Amazon.com: Is Internet giant sleeping in Seattle? – Los Angeles Times
- Amazon offers to serve as tax collector — for a price – Los Angeles Times
- Amazon workers left out in the cold – The Morning Call
Discussion Questions: Should Amazon be more transparent about its business practices? What effects, if any, may Amazon’s secretive nature ultimately have on its reputation with consumers?
Take Our Instant Poll
Loading ...
Join the Discussion!
9 Comments on "Amazon Keeps a Low Profile"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Secrecy has worked for them so far. Look, people don’t like Apple’s manufacturing practices but they still buy Macs, and iPods, and iPads and iGuessWhateverTheyWant.
“Should Amazon be more transparent about its business practices?” What? Like Lowe’s maybe?
Maybe I’m just feeling cynical this morning — it is rainy and overcast here in Chicago today — but to me, the most telling line in Tom’s write up is: “Those in favor of the series said Amazon should be held accountable and faulted for its lack of support for Seattle’s community.”
That sounds a lot like “Hey, they’re doin’ good over there and we want some of it!”
Looking at their ACSI scores over time (theACSI.org), they are doing fine. Customers love them. LOVE them. They provide what their market wants: good prices, selection, product availability, customized recommendations, reviews, etc. Unless we find out that they are doing something really horrible, the goodwill and loyalty that they have built up over time is likely to continue.
Amazon is living up to its values; again we have a problem where the news is not happy when they can not make news rather than report it.
They reported something and the public did not respond the way they wanted them to so they are trying to make something that most of the public does not care about into something they can report on.
Are there specific issues to be investigated? Examining the company just because it is large is hardly a reason. What would be revealed? What is the purpose?
The consumers, stock holders, and the many suppliers (many of them small businesses) are really the only ones with “skin in the game.” The press? They just don’t like to be ignored. Good for Amazon!!
Seattle should be aware that living in the shadow of a volcano is risk enough. Amazon has a viable business model and has the ability to move at will. While it isn’t quite as easy as putting a laptop on hibernate and hopping a plane, it still isn’t very difficult. I live in an area that is equal to Seattle and would gladly offer Amazon millions and millions in tax incentives to relocate here. Why should Amazon or any corporation have to put up with “investigative journalism” when these same journalist can’t/won’t investigate our government or the banks or Wall Street?