Salmon writes, “Here’s a game you can play along at home: Pick a story, more or less at random, about any company that sells consumer goods and that is doing badly or worse than expected. Then count the paragraphs before the word Amazon appears. Take this story about Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Nestlé, for instance; the fourth paragraph has the requisite clause about ‘Amazon.com Inc.’s rising prowess in selling more household staples.’ But there are no numbers attached to that claim, maybe because Amazon, even if it’s growing, still has less than 1 percent of household-staples sales.
“And while Amazon’s entry into the fashion business is certainly noteworthy, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s ‘disrupting fashion retail,’ as the Financial Times would have you believe. That would be hard, with just $25 billion or so in revenues—just 2.5 percent of a $1 trillion market.
“A version of this game can even be played with Donald Trump’s tweets. When Trump rails against Amazon on Twitter, the proximate cause is probably personal animosity toward Bezos, who owns the Washington Post. But the broader context is that Trump has bought in to the narrative of an all-powerful, all-dominant Amazon. That’s why his allegations, even though false, have the ring of truthiness.”
Read more here.
CNBC senior vice president Dan Colarusso sent out the following on Monday: Before this year comes to…
Business Insider editor in chief Jamie Heller sent out the following on Monday: I'm excited to share…
Former CoinDesk editorial staffer Michael McSweeney writes about the recent happenings at the cryptocurrency news site, where…
Manas Pratap Singh, finance editor for LinkedIn News Europe, has left for a new opportunity…
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent out the following on Friday: Dear All, Over the last…
The Financial Times has hired Barbara Moens to cover competition and tech in Brussels. She will start…