Well, the very reason they exist is for you to click on their links. Thats their business model. So really, for them to write such an article is really to bite the hand that feeds them, which shows some gumption. But they would never cut off all their income by removing the links.
I’m not sure how it works with counterfeits on Amazon, will the same product id or same link sometimes be the real thing and sometimes not?
> I’m not sure how it works with counterfeits on Amazon, will the same product id or same link sometimes be the real thing and sometimes not?
Correct. Say for the moment that Nike decides to sell their shoes on Amazon through the Amazon warehousing program for really great service and delivery options. Then say that I send a bunch of counterfeit Nike shoes to Amazon using the exact same product details that Nike does. Now Amazon says, "if we put these two batches of Nike shoes together in the same bin, we will save money because fulfilling orders for shoes will be more efficient". But if they are in the same bin, then when you order from Nike you might get my knockoffs.
It's at least mostly true. They usually link to the official seller, so while it's possible they either get that wrong, or the seller starts shipping the wrong product it at least saves some of the work.
These official sellers are using Amazon order fulfillment. Amazon is mixing counterfeits into their inventory. Linking to the official seller doesn't matter if Amazon treats the product as a fungible commodity behind the scenes like it does.
Amazon is mixing counterfeits into their inventory. Linking to the official seller doesn't matter if Amazon treats the product as a fungible commodity behind the scenes like it does.
Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case? It's the opposite of what is said in the article - all the examples given are for non-official sellers.
Notably the article say "encountered a few instances in which a _seller_ switched in an authentic product but from a discontinued or lesser-quality line" and "The authentic ‘Ove’ Glove is available for purchase through a page indicating that it is sold and shipped by Amazon.com or sold by Joseph Ent, the Amazon storefront for Joseph Enterprises."
Also none of the sellers in the article that the Wirecutter contacted made this claim which would be surprising if it was the case!
"The goods may look real online, but there is no guarantee of authenticity — whether sold by a brand, a third-party seller or Amazon’s direct-sales arm."
> It's the opposite of what is said in the article
In fact it is _not_ the opposite of what is said in the article! Read it again. Nowhere do they say that you're safe from counterfeits if you buy from the right links. The article steers well clear of even mentioning inventory commingling. The most insidious aspect is that you believe that they've exonerated Amazon, when they just neglected to mention the other half of the problem.
In the last example, they give their credulity away entirely.
"We compared a recently purchased set of Tweezerman tweezers...the seller had swapped in a model that was different from what was listed on the page"
Who was the seller, you ask? The page they link to says "sold by Amazon.com".
I'm saddened that you don't see any middle ground between linking to a site with a very long history of actively facilitating counterfeits through product commingling and not getting paid at all.
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Only that a great deprivation has weighed heavily on us to the point that you need to ask what possible alternatives exist rather than knowing several already. I don't condemn you personally for it.
Maybe does their article imply that as long as you purchase through their recommended links you'd be safe(er)?