Hi, Susan. Lee here. Has Amazon considered incentivizing us on selling items over 1yr old with temporary lower fulfillment fees instead of charging $.50/unit per month L/T fee this fall? I mean, Amazon probably makes alot more money by fulfilling all those orders if we blow out stock at a lower price via 50% fee discount, or even by expanding the “add on” program item (super cheap shipping as a “rider”, than a single item shipped, and super low fees for us). The alternative for every seller on here to blowing the older inventory out at discounted fees is sending them ALL back home, at “dead weight” shipping cost to us and Amazon. I personally would rather lower prices, and SELL OUT of those “aged” skus I have excess of, than send them back. IF we had a substantial “aged inventory fee sale week” or something it would incentivize us to drop prices and move those items quick. Or even if they said, "Hey, we know you dont want to pay storage fees all year, and neither do we, so IF and ONLY IF you drop your price below “x” threshold, we will cut that fee in half on items over 11mos old, for 1 month to help you move it FAST. They already have “fee discounts” on some items based on trending prices, but I am referring to a larger discount, based on age dates, where we drop aged inventory we have already paid substantial storage on, to a certain price threshold, that will help us move it on out, and fees won’t be so high that we won’t have any proceeds.
Example, I have 2 or 3 Media skus that I sell for $9.99 range, that FBA total fees are literally $7.00 per unit. I only net $2.99 proceeds after fees, which is already below my break-even. So if they either put the items in the “Add on” program, where fees for the above $9.99 item example drop from $7 to $4, OR just discounted the fees to the “add on” rates, temporarily on SKUs over 11mos old, I could drop price to $7 price, and sell through, quickly, at same $3 margin. Obviously when sellers ship these lower price items to FBA, our HOPE is ALWAYS that prices go to a profitable range, but for some skus, it doesn’t happen due to competition. Unless they expand the “add on item” program which has lower fees, or do a substantial temporary fee discount for aged items, my choices are to liquidate at $7, (the exact cost of fees meaning ZERO proceeds, giving our items out for free), or just send them home until price goes up. Amazon may be able to make up for the price diff. via volume, by selling units that have sat in their warehouses for a year, taking up space. It clears warehouse space, AND generates Revenue for Amazon AND us! A wise man once said you can catch alot more bees with honey than with vinegar, or in our case, EXTRA storage fees. LOL!
Also, as stated on another IPI thread, they could help us on the front end (how much Q we send in), by consolidating our shipments to all one warehouse on small quantity items as they do with larger quantities. This will incentivize us to ship smaller quantities rather than large quantities to get the bulk shipping discount. Some sellers have been very helpful by mentioning the Inventory Placement Program, but that doesn’t fit with the larger quantity skus I ship along with the lower quantity ones. Larger bulk shipments tend to go to one place anyway because of the bulk quantity, and that extra placement svc fee on a large quantity of 50 units or more would eat up the savings. I have MANY skus I would like to ship just 3 or 4 of, that WILL sell in 3 months. I don’t want to just drop those ALL those skus entirely, but if I ship them in small quantities, they end up getting split up to 3 different warehouses, at a profit killing cost of $3-5 per item vs $.25-.30 per unit shipped all in one box. So shipping ALL quantities to 1 warehouse (whether 1 unit or 100 units) incentivizes us to ship those small “test” quantities that don’t take up warehouse space that I believe Amazon wants on slow moving items. Inventory placement has it’s place, but with the mixed volume I and many other sellers do of 3 to 100 units per sku, that’s hard to do. Any thoughts on that, ma’am?