Holiday Bots Are Stealing Christmas, Driving Up Prices

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The biggest enemy of toy companies this holiday season? “Grinch” bots. Online bots are going online and buying out all of the popular holiday toys, leaving parents having to shop on secondary sites for much higher prices.

US Senator Charles Schumer is calling on retailers to crack down on the "Grinch bots" that are spoiling the holiday season. Schumer wrote a letter to the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association asking for their help investigating the bot issue on their members’ websites, urging them to try to ensure consumers are given fair access to popular merchandise.
 
Lol. Just what the senate needs to look into, bots that buy goods! What a waste of time, money and space. We have so many issues but lets focus on something ridiculously stupid.
 
How dare someone take advantage of capitalism.... We need to make this a crime.


There is a much better private solution.... JUST DON"T BUY OVER PRICED ITEMS FROM SECONDARY SITES!!!

The toy companies could also largely stop this by not releasing such a "limit" stock.
If they where to flood the market with enough product to meet demand, the people behind the bots would give up after loosing money.
 
nutzo said:
How dare someone take advantage of capitalism.... We need to make this a crime.


There is a much better private solution.... JUST DON"T BUY OVER PRICED ITEMS FROM SECONDARY SITES!!!

The toy companies could also largely stop this by not releasing such a "limit" stock.
If they where to flood the market with enough product to meet demand, the people behind the bots would give up after loosing money.
Click to expand...

You are a bit ignorant on "limited stock". Most toys are produced in advance of a season based upon projections. If they have a winner they sell out...if they don't, they left holding the bag. Production on demand doesn't work for holiday shopping when shipping is 2+ weeks during a 5 week season. The issue is arbitrage. It has been happening since the dawn of time and actually how people made livings for 100's of years. What made it bad is computers allowed one person to become 100's if not 1000's of times more productive at doing it.
 
So capitalism is thousands of high speed computers connected to fiber lines scanning millions of websites every second to buy up entire inventories of high demand goods so that they can sell them at inflated prices?

Awesome!!! This adds so much value to society! I need me some more capitalism.
 
TAP said:
So capitalism is thousands of high speed computers connected to fiber lines scanning millions of websites every second to buy up entire inventories of high demand goods so that they can sell them at inflated prices?

Awesome!!! This adds so much value to society! I need me some more capitalism.
Click to expand...
I think people have been doing this for years. Ever hear of import export businesses? Ever hear of ebay?
What part of having bots do the same job as humans is illegal? Because it's not fair or something? Ever heard of ebay snipers?
 
nutzo said:
How dare someone take advantage of capitalism.... We need to make this a crime.


There is a much better private solution.... JUST DON"T BUY OVER PRICED ITEMS FROM SECONDARY SITES!!!

The toy companies could also largely stop this by not releasing such a "limit" stock.
If they where to flood the market with enough product to meet demand, the people behind the bots would give up after loosing money.
Click to expand...

It's not "taking advantage of capitalism," it's exploiting a weakness in sites to purchase way more goods than you would be able to buy in a brick--and-mortar, and way faster.

I don't care what markup you charge once you have your purchase. But you're not supposed to be able to buy an entire shipment in a single click.

Unfortunately, I don't think that making it illegal is going to do anything. How can you hope to prosecute this shit when sites can't tell machines from humans? Work on identifying the machines before you try to prosecute.

Unfortunately, I see this taking all the fun out of online electronics purchases.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that my comment on "capitalism" was in response to the tool in the 2nd post who thinks this is "capitalism".

This is NOT what anyone including Friedman had in mind with regard to the definition of free markets.
 
nutzo said:
How dare someone take advantage of capitalism.... We need to make this a crime.


There is a much better private solution.... JUST DON"T BUY OVER PRICED ITEMS FROM SECONDARY SITES!!!

The toy companies could also largely stop this by not releasing such a "limit" stock.
If they where to flood the market with enough product to meet demand, the people behind the bots would give up after loosing money.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they artificially limit demand in order to create a frenzy. Nintendo has learned this from many toy companies.


Pre-orders generally allow me to get what i want, when i want it. No pre-order, i'll find something else to spend my money on.
 
It's supply and demand. If you can buy the supply cheaper and resell it for a profit it's basic capitalism. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

The counter to it is my little snowflake child isn't getting what they want for Xmas, and I am fine with it. I didn't get everything I wanted for Christmas every year, but I got everything I needed and that was more important looking back on it. People need to stop with the inflated demands. Trying to get everything everyone wants for Xmas is like trying to please all people all the time. In the end your going to fail and be miserable at the same time.
 
maybe celebrate Christmas for what it's ment to be, not what it has become ... it's Christ's birthday so why does everyone give each other presents? That's exactly the same as my throwing a birthday party for you and all of us who are there exchange gifts amongst each other while you just sit there and watching ...
 
_l_ said:
maybe celebrate Christmas for what it's ment to be, not what it has become ... it's Christ's birthday so why does everyone give each other presents? That's exactly the same as my throwing a birthday party for you and all of us who are there exchange gifts amongst each other while you just sit there and watching ...
Click to expand...
You know, Hobbits give *other* people gifts on their birthdays...
 
_l_ said:
maybe celebrate Christmas for what it's ment to be, not what it has become ... it's Christ's birthday so why does everyone give each other presents? That's exactly the same as my throwing a birthday party for you and all of us who are there exchange gifts amongst each other while you just sit there and watching ...
Click to expand...
Well the Holy Spirit is in everyone so giving each other gifts is like giving the Holy Spirit *MANY* gifts.
 
Some of you guys are whacked. If miners take all your cards and jack their prices up leaving you zero options, shit everyone's up in arms, Fuck the miners!

Now its xmas and the children want their toys and suddenly its ah too bad for you, parents should know better. smh...
 
serpretetsky said:
What in this process is against free markets?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked. When a network of bots enters the market and buys up all of the supply, they artificially inflate the demand and price thus interfering with the open market. They also create monopolistic practices which is completely against free market principles.

This is no different than what oil traders did from 2004 -2008. They bought up oil to choke off supply and raise the price.

Its like paying protection money to the mafia. If you think you'd enjoy paying someone money that provided you with no value in return then perhaps this is right up your alley.
 
TAP said:
I'm glad you asked. When a network of bots enters the market and buys up all of the supply, they artificially inflate the demand and price thus interfering with the open market. They also create monopolistic practices which is completely against free market principles.

This is no different than what oil traders did from 2004 -2008. They bought up oil to choke off supply and raise the price.

Its like paying protection money to the mafia. If you think you'd enjoy paying someone money that provided you with no value in return then perhaps this is right up your alley.
Click to expand...
I would first of all disagree that they inflate the demand. If anything they might deflate supply by limiting how much they sell. If they are giong to sell all of the product as fast as they possibly can at higher prices than they didn't affect the supply or the demand. They readjusted the prices to what they ACTUALLY should be according to supply and demand. Whoever originally sold the product was selling far below what supply and demand dictated.

I suppose this could be considered monopolistic, could you argue that the product that they are buying has no alternatives?

edit: I would also like to point out that if a company sells products at actual prices that coorelate to supply and demand that someone buying out all of the stock is actually doing somethign incredibly risky, there is a good chance they will not be able to sell the product they bought at any sort of profit.
 
Trepidati0n said:
You are a bit ignorant on "limited stock". Most toys are produced in advance of a season based upon projections. If they have a winner they sell out...if they don't, they left holding the bag. Production on demand doesn't work for holiday shopping when shipping is 2+ weeks during a 5 week season. The issue is arbitrage. It has been happening since the dawn of time and actually how people made livings for 100's of years. What made it bad is computers allowed one person to become 100's if not 1000's of times more productive at doing it.
Click to expand...


You mean like Nintendo that purposely limits manufacturing to create an artificial demand for the product?

Some holiday toys become unexpected hits so there are natural shortages. Other companies create shortages for marketing reasons.
 
nutzo said:
You mean like Nintendo that purposely limits manufacturing to create an artificial demand for the product?

Some holiday toys become unexpected hits so there are natural shortages. Other companies create shortages for marketing reasons.
Click to expand...
As opposed to flooding the market to "meet demand"? What planet do you people come from where business is done this way?

serpretetsky said:
I would first of all disagree that they inflate the demand. If anything they might deflate supply by limiting how much they sell. If they are giong to sell all of the product as fast as they possibly can at higher prices than they didn't affect the supply or the demand. They readjusted the prices to what they ACTUALLY should be according to supply and demand. Whoever originally sold the product was selling far below what supply and demand dictated.

I suppose this could be considered monopolistic, could you argue that the product that they are buying has no alternatives?

edit: I would also like to point out that if a company sells products at actual prices that coorelate to supply and demand that someone buying out all of the stock is actually doing somethign incredibly risky, there is a good chance they will not be able to sell the product they bought at any sort of profit.
Click to expand...
These people aren't helping anyone. They don't add any value to the product. In most cases they deprive the consumer of their warranty and return protections by acting as unauthorized resellers. And I doubt they are paying taxes. Buy low sell high isn't the only market principle out there. If it were up to simple-minded libertardians we would still be trading in slaves.
 
Last edited:
serpretetsky said:
I would first of all disagree that they inflate the demand. If anything they might deflate supply by limiting how much they sell. If they are giong to sell all of the product as fast as they possibly can at higher prices than they didn't affect the supply or the demand. They readjusted the prices to what they ACTUALLY should be according to supply and demand. Whoever originally sold the product was selling far below what supply and demand dictated.

I suppose this could be considered monopolistic, could you argue that the product that they are buying has no alternatives?

edit: I would also like to point out that if a company sells products at actual prices that coorelate to supply and demand that someone buying out all of the stock is actually doing somethign incredibly risky, there is a good chance they will not be able to sell the product they bought at any sort of profit.
Click to expand...

Sitting here chuckling to myself how I knew someone was going to justify this type of behavior as being free markety. You've clearly thought this out and it's appreciated. But middlemen who buy up supply who have no interest in the product were never figured as part of a free market system. Traditionally there are protections in place to prevent this type of behavior. In this case the bots are bypassing the protection.
 
aeliusg said:
As opposed to flooding the market to "meet demand"? What planet do you people come from where business is done this way?


These people aren't helping anyone. They don't add any value to the product. In most cases they deprive the consumer of their warranty and return protections by acting as unauthorized resellers. And I doubt they are paying taxes. Buy low sell high isn't the only market principle out there. If it were up to simple-minded libertardians we would still be trading in slaves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in this particular case they probably don't add any value. But this is not always true of middlemen. Middlemen can provide quick liquidity, for example, to people/companies that need to get rid of product quickly where otherwise there might not be a quick and responsive enough demand. Again, in this case that's probably not the case.

But my question then becomes: So what? Are they doing something that is detrimental to people's livelihoods?

I can understand regulation when companies are monopolistically controlling something that is considered a necessesity in a modern age. But regulating toys? I can't say that I see the need to regulate that. That's a perfect place for the freemarket to just do its thing.
 
Few ways to fix this. The hardest way is reforming/replacing our broken system. The easiest way is to use Google reCaptcha on all checkouts and let Google get even bigger...
 
TAP said:
Sitting here chuckling to myself how I knew someone was going to justify this type of behavior as being free markety. You've clearly thought this out and it's appreciated. But middlemen who buy up supply who have no interest in the product were never figured as part of a free market system. Traditionally there are protections in place to prevent this type of behavior. In this case the bots are bypassing the protection.
Click to expand...
My argument in the above post is addressed to you as well.
 
Chunder said:
Few ways to fix this. The hardest way is reforming/replacing our broken system. The easiest way is to use Google reCaptcha on all checkouts and let Google get even bigger...
Click to expand...

Or place limits like Microcenter has on miners.
 
serpretetsky said:
Yeah, in this particular case they probably don't add any value. But this is not always true of middlemen. Middlemen can provide quick liquidity, for example, to people/companies that need to get rid of product quickly where otherwise there might not be a quick and responsive enough demand. Again, in this case that's probably not the case.

But my question then becomes: So what? Are they doing something that is detrimental to people's livelihoods?

I can understand regulation when companies are monopolistically controlling something that is considered a necessesity in a modern age. But regulating toys? I can't say that I see the need to regulate that. That's a perfect place for the freemarket to just do its thing.
Click to expand...
No one says they're doing anything illegal. Schumer asked retailers in the organizations he contacted to look into preventing it on their end. In the end it's a non-story, heck, even a benign one, except for knee-jerk reactions from people whose conception of the free market is limited to the supply-demand trope.
 
So bots in a game devaluing digital currency is my problem, but some legislator couldn't buy a ton because a bot mined his preference out of stock and NOW its the PEOPLES problem....plz
 
I came in here expecting resellers defending their actions and I was not disappointed. They are the scourge of capitalism.
 
nutzo said:
How dare someone take advantage of capitalism.... We need to make this a crime.


There is a much better private solution.... JUST DON"T BUY OVER PRICED ITEMS FROM SECONDARY SITES!!!

The toy companies could also largely stop this by not releasing such a "limit" stock.
If they where to flood the market with enough product to meet demand, the people behind the bots would give up after loosing money.
Click to expand...

First of all, companies don't release products with "bots" or "re-sellers" in mind. Also, many companies often complain they are limited because of suppliers and in some cases, demand, company budgets, etc. If they don't get the buy orders then they produce less.

Also your logic is flawed. What if the secondary sites are the only locations that have these items? You're saying parents should just suck it up, embrace bots and buy these items regardless of the 2x or 3x cost? Sorry, parents will move mountains to get their kids Xmas gifts. There are plenty of times a hot toy will be sold out but in stock on eBay / Craigslist.

From what I'm reading you're seen to side with predatory practices. Which is what a Bot is. Bots buy concert tickets and do a lot more damage that the public is even aware of.

I flip stuff all the time so I do not have a not of room to talk but there is a huge difference between and guy like me and a bot that can purchase the hell of of everything in an instant with endless funds.

I think there absolutely needs to be laws against bots.
 
I'm not sure that everyone could agree what an equitable solution to the problem is, but let's define the problem.

Company N made X units. Y people would like to buy the units; Y is much greater than X.

N sells the units to distributors and retailers. N fixes the price (they don't want negative reputation for charging what the market will bear); N provides incentives to the authorized retailers to keep the price fixed.

How do you reasonably select which X (of Y) people get to buy the units at the fixed price? Captcha helps, but I'm pretty sure I can find humans who will take $10 (or less) to place an order for me, and still make a killing if I sold it for 2x the price.

I got one NES Classic, and one SNES classic myself, but I invested a fair amount of time in looking for where to watch, and got lucky on timing; if I valued my time, buying from a scalper could have been worthwhile (at least before they started selling counterfeits). I wouldn't pay more than retail, and so if Nintendo charged more for the NES, I probably wouldn't have got one -- they stopped producing before supply met demand; it seems like the SNES is probably going to meet demand though.
 
Christmas is just another timed-scenario, like what makes scalping concert tickets something people now do routinely (FUCK YOU, STUBHUB).....after xmas, demand for this crap goes way, way, way down...people know other people get desperate for the holidays...one day a year...get the right present, big-win...all that.....so they will scalp everything...SNES's, bean-bag animals, insulin......whatever, it's not a Capitalist thing, it's an 'everyplace demand exceeds supply by a significant margin" thing......SEE: Venezuela.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top