Isn't this obvious? I mean I'm pretty cynical, but the first time I ever saw "amazon's choice" I figured oh - they have a higher profit margin on this or something - it's obviously not (necessarily) the best thing for me.
Is it obvious? People could just as well think it's something like Trader Joe's, where the first hurdle for selection is quality.
One of the big problems with e-commerce is trust, and I could easily see some bright spark at Amazon saying, "What if we did extensive testing, found the best-value item in each category, and gave it our blessing? We could reduce decision fatigue, increase revenue, and strengthen our customer bond."
We see Wirecutter out there making good money on doing exactly that, so it's not crazy to think Amazon would just do that themselves.
Quality is the first hurdle for Amazon's Choice. Trader Joe's does the exact same thing. They promote and sell stuff that makes them money. They offer don't even let alternate brands into the store!
Wirecutter sometimes recommends (on commission!) products in categories they specifically recommend against buying, like SFF PCs!
> Wirecutter sometimes recommends (on commission!) products in categories they specifically recommend against buying, like SFF PCs!
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Listing the best of the category, while also rating the category as a whole, means they're going above and beyond on what their job is! It's not a moral failing that their recommendations come with the context of "inside the category", that much should be obvious. And they can't tell you which products are """objectively""" worth your money, either.
There are plenty of times people think their guess is the obvious truth, but it falls apart when examined. Gathering and presenting evidence to better examine our own assumptions about a situation should be a positive act.
