> How is that different from Walmart selling their Great Value store brand?

Well for one it’s different in that store brands are often made by the same manufacturing/processing plant as the regular brand.

So not only is consent implicitly build in because the producer agreed to make the store brand variety, it’s another income stream.

And secondly the store brands typically go out of their way to differentiate themselves from the main brand to such a degree that if you hold the two boxes next to each other you wouldn’t mistake one for the other.

Thirdly they significantly undercut the other brands and sellers.
They can do so because they don’t have to pay themselves a commission and all the other fees, which in turn forces the other brands and sellers to match or eek out a small price difference in which they’re cheaper in the hopes to get some sales, cutting into the already thin margins that are left after paying Amazon’s fees.

Amazon is also in a better position because of the vertical integration, they have a direct relationship with the manufacturer which cuts out the margins of the middle men (the sellers and distributors), regular sellers on Amazon have the distributor’s margins to deal with and then their own margins and as opposed to Amazon they can’t sell their items as a loss leader.

As for Walmart and similar retail, it’s a whole different situation.
The manufacturer sets the price and within it, their margin. The retailer then purchases it at that price and tacks on their margin, but if it’s on the shelves then the manufacturer has been paid so there’s no risk for the manufacturer because the retailer carries the risk.

There are some nuances and exceptions, such as manufacturers sometimes being able to force a MSRP onto the retailer or a retailer being big enough to leverage a better price or a risk shifting agreement where the retailer doesn’t have to pay for delivery until the items are sold, nevertheless, in general the relationship is entirely different from the relationship Amazon has with its sellers.

And lastly, Walmart doesn’t hire people to walk beside you in the store to swiftly grab a Great Value variant and push it in your hand each time you so much as think of buying something.

The cereal factory that makes Kellogg’s cereal also making Great Value cereal is therefore not comparable to Amazon.

Amazon typically makes their Basics items look identical to the most popular brand and place it at the top of search results.

Now the original brand is forced to pay to get their item at the top of the list, and even then it’ll get second place, underneath the Amazon branded one (often barely above the fold).

Take this example of me searching for a padlock[0][1].

Not only is the Amazon branded lock identical to the one below it, it’s placed prominently at the top of the results in such a way that it’s the only product that can be seen in full.

The one immediately below it doesn’t get top spot despite being “sponsored” (i.e. paid to be prominently displayed) and if you look at the price they’re trying to be a little bit cheaper than Amazon in the hopes to generate sales but given how minor the price difference is with the Amazon branded lock, it comes across as a painful thing for them to do because it seems to me as a meaningless difference (but admittedly that’s me reading into things).

The issue is that when you’re the platform holder that sets the fees for sellers, controls what people see, have insider knowledge on sales and you use that to benefit your manufacturing and sales division, then you have too much control and are abusing your powers imho.

Brick and mortar retailers don’t have this much control over and information on their suppliers.

0: https://pasteboard.co/AZRfDpAtXw4f.jpg

1: https://pasteboard.co/VEFULgwx2IgB.png