Amazon announced today that they are raising the price of Amazon Prime to $139 per year. But if I've taught you anything, your first question when you heard this was I wonder what that looks like adjusted for inflation?
Here it is:
$139 is about 10% of the US median weekly income. Only you can decide if that's worth it.
Happy as I am to bash Amazon (and I myself quit prime a few months ago because it wasn't worth it to me) this headline is a bit misleading because Prime is not charged weekly but rather monthly. In other words, Americans make roughly $1000/week on average and Amazon Prime costs roughly $12/month. This you could kinda sorta say Amazon is costing $140/year, which, very roughly, is 10% of a week's salary. Amazon Prime is overpriced indeed, but was this apples to oranges comparison really the point?
On the contrary, I think it is greatly UNDER priced. Like college tuition, it has a long way to rise to meet market equilibrium.
I'm not trying to sell for Amazon - really. But consider the 2 big things that come with that price tag:
(1) Free and fast shipping on tons of stuff. The convenience alone is worth the tag for most people.
(2) Access to boatloads of streaming content. It's not as big as Netflix, but it's pretty darn big - and when it comes to streaming TV shows, it may even be better, depending on what you want to watch. And like Netflix, they have several exclusive (and popular) IP farms. And they recently bought MGM, so there might be even more coming to the service in the future. If you assume that Netflix's price point is fair value ($9.99/mo at cheapest), then you get basically that with Prime but you ALSO get free shipping and some other little goodies for an extra $40 per year.
...yeah.
What I'm trying to say is that, because it is actually still under priced, it is going to see more large increases in price that outpace regular inflation/price growth.
A lot of people don't seem to know that if your stuff costs more than $25 shipping is free. Of course, that's not 2 day shipping, more like 5 days, but in the big markets -- like Los Angeles, where I am -- it's much cheaper for Amazon to simply piggyback your delivery onto the 2-day deliveries for their Prime followers. (In other words, I imagine some B-school grad has shown Amazon it would be more expensive for them to run a separate 5-day delivery system for the non-Prime peeps.) Thus, whenever I order anything, Amazon first sends me an email saying "you'll get it in 5 days". Then, the following day, like clockwork, I get an email saying "we've upgraded you and you'll get your stuff tomorrow!". Would this work in smaller markets? I have no idea. Anyway, for me personally I have no need for Prime since 1) I buy books on Kindle, get them from the library, or, when I can, from the local bookstore I really don't want to see go out of business 2) I buy music as downloads, not CDs from Amazon 3) Amazon's video offerings are generally pretty bad, in my opinion, and if there's something I really want to see, I'll wait a few months then sign up for Prime for 1 month to watch my list of things, then cancel again.
If you don't have Amazon Prime, how do you know if their original shows are bad? They're not; I know that because I actually have Amazon Prime.
If you don't have Amazon Prime, how do you know if their original shows are bad?
Maybe not many of the titles appeal to them. I rarely force myself to try new video content that doesn't interest me. Sure, no doubt occasionally I miss something special. But sadly* the older I get, the more accurate my judgment is wrt what I think I'm going/not going to like.
*I write "sadly" because it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised once in a while by a movie or TV show, but I rarely am, at least on the upside.
Have had it in the past
I have Amazon Prime. Their original shows are bad.
Their original shows ... like "His Dark Materials." "The Expanse" (sure, it started on Skiffy, but then Amazon took it over)."Raised by Wolves." "Lovecraft Country." The "Watchmen" series. "Man in the High Castle."
To name but a few of the ones that appealed to me. Of course, if you don't care for sf, then these don't count.
I read somewhere they picked up The Expanse because Bezos wanted to see more of it.
I was very dissapointed in the resolution of that show. I'm willing to forgive innumeracy in sf -- of which there is a lot -- but to be more-or-less true to the books and then take an abrupt right turn is discombobulating, to say the least.
BTW; does anyone know why the DeDRM tools are no longer working in Calibre?
I've been meaning to take it up, I didn't realize they'd dropped a large part of the series, though I've never read the books.
um half the shows you named are HBO not amazon.
amazon has some good shows, and Bosch is great, all in all less than HBO or Netflix, but when you factor the combination of shipping plus content its still a good deal
For what it's worth, Amazon Prime funded a movie I really wanted to see, Asghar Farhadi's "A Hero". If you don't know Farhadi, he's an Iranian writer/director who has twice won the Oscar for foreign movie. Anyhoo, Amazon held that movie back from streaming to let it play in theaters for a while (possibly a requirement of a run for this year's foreign movie Oscar). In my case that turned out to be a bad choice as I was in that small group of people highly motivated to see it, but not willing to wait for it to be on Amazon Prime (I think it was in theaters for about a month, before showing up on Prime, where you can see it now). Plus, of course, I live in a city where it's possible to see a low-budget Iranian movie in a theater. So I'm in a very small demographic. ????
Prime's video content is fantastic, they have the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Good Omens, those alone are worth it.
And their other content is massively idiosyncratic, way more so than other services, and rarely leaves. A while ago I watched the Jack Palance version of Dracula, and Warning from Space, a Japanese movie I saw when I was about 5 or 6 and deathly ill with something so for decades I thought I'd hallucinated it.
Interesting analysis.
If you shop regularly at Whole Foods, and get one of the free Prime credit cards for those purchases, you also get significant extra savings from being a Prime member. I figure my yearly savings at Whole Foods rebates back at least half the cost of the Prime membership, maybe more.
And Amazon Prime streaming has a lot of great content. I dropped Netflix (14 bucks a month) because I realized I was watching Amazon way more.
That plus being able to order pretty much anything on Amazon without thinking about the shipping cost makes it worth it for me, even at the new price.
I spend on the order of $1200-$1500 a month at WFM. 5% back (how can they afford this!) is about $800 a year.
That's why they call it "Whole Paycheck."
I shop mostly the edges at WFM, and for that stuff, they are no more expensive than other stores for the same item (e.g. organic XYZ).
If you are crazy enough to buy the organic processed foods, toiletries etc. they sell, then sure, maybe "whole paycheck" is more accurate.
They have gotten more competitive lately, with house brands and the like. You still have to shop carefully there but on some things, like fresh fish and cheese, they are way better than anyone else in my area.
this headline is a bit misleading because Prime is not charged weekly
Has Kevin adjusted the headline? Because otherwise it's not misleading in the least. Prime used to cost about 112 (2022) dollars for an annual subscription. Now this same item costs 139 (2022) dollars. That's a 25% increase.
Yes, the original headline was "Amazon Prime now costs 10% of the US median weekly income". That headline wasn't explained in the text or the chart, but I guess it meant that if you compared US median weekly income ($1000 or so?) to the annual cost of Amazon Prime ($140 or so?) you could say that the cost of Amazon Prime was 10% of weekly income. But median income folks were not (and are not) spending 10% of their income on Amazon Prime, which was the implication of the headline, I think.
Up until about four years ago it was 99 dollars.
Dude, take your meds. You're incoherent.
That makes it sound like it's something that is paid weekly. It's paid annually, though. So it's about 10% of 2%, or .2%, of the US median annual income.
So far, it is worth it but I wish they'd unbundle it. I'd like the streaming and the deliveries but I don't give two shits about anything else. It's like cable was. I have to subsidize other people doing things that I don't care about.
What else does Prime get one besides streaming and deliveries? Honest question (dumped my subscription when I moved to Asia).
Unlimited photo storage, though just 5gb for videos. There’s “free” books and music too but I guess that counts as streaming.
It really isn’t a bad deal if you buy a lot of stuff from Amazon. I rarely use the other stuff, but I do occasionally. And the photo storage is probably worth it on its own. I’m not sure you can really compare it to the original plan which was only for “free” shipping.
You're supposed to save a tidbit of money when shopping at Whole Foods.
The value is getting the Prime card. 5% back on Amazon and Whole Foods purchases.
I already shopped at Whole Foods, so the card pays for the membership pretty quickly.
And no, I couldn’t save more money shopping elsewhere, because when you’re are trying to eat somewhat sustainably, food costs are similar. Particularly for meat, poultry, etc.
I've found the only cost difference in meat is pork. Pork is vastly cheaper at the other markets, but is often Smithfield or some other factory producer. I'd rather get pork at Whole Foods were it is (allegedly) locally sources and humaine. But beef and chicken is more or less the same price.
Pork more expensive at Whole Foods?
Where is Shooter to tell us whether this is because Bezos is a crypto-Zionist or fighter for Sharia law?
He's drinking ... of course. Those drunk posts don't write themselves, ya know.
Indeed. I'm counting on the welfare rating/organ labels to be monitored by 3rd parties. But it's gotta be a step above just getting that ground chuck at Kroger's.
Before the pandemic, I used to shop first at my local food coop and then go to WFM to get the bits and pieces I could get from the coop.
I would always notice pricing while wandering around WFM, particularly for the things I had just bought at the coop. My overall conclusion was things mostly balanced out: some big savings at one store on one thing were matched by similar savings on another.
Having said that, the coop is not known as a cheap place to shop, so this is maybe not surprising.
“ $139 is about 10% of the US median weekly incom”
Dude, you have been vigorous in your critique of people being deceptive with numbers. Why on earth are you lying by comparing an annual charge to a weekly figure?
Dude: There's nothing even remotely "deceiving" about Kevin's use of numbers here.: an annual subscription to a particular service costs about one-tenth of a typical US weekly income. You could obviously compare the cost of prime to a typical *annual* income figure instead, if you prefer, that's true! That would be neither less nor more "deceiving" — but simply a different basis for comparison.
If anything, I'd argue Kevin's method should probably be used more frequently by more people, since using "annual income" as the denominator would obviously have a tendency to downplay the cost of items. But again, neither basis is intrinsically more accurate. Indeed, if one wanted to, one could state that a Prime subscription costs the median workers about, say, five hours of labor. That, too, would be a perfectly fine way to go about it.
Deceiving is perhaps too strong, but it is easily confused and Telephone Gamed.
We order a lot of stuff, so Prime is helpful, and the added video access and sometimes discounts is nice. It was even better at the (half price!) student rate, but they only let you have it for four (4) years, regardless of how long it takes you to earn your degree.
...but they only let you have it for four (4) years, regardless of how long it takes you to earn your degree.
That Bezos guy was born on a Thursday, but not last Thursday.
They won't believe I'm a student no matter who many times I tell them I'm enrolled in Xavier Institute's home studies program.
I believe you need a ".edu" email address.
!
I'd been going with '.mut' .
I have a bad hip and can't really shop at Wal-Mart or any other store, so Amazon is it. I use it all the time, and the free shipping is truly worth it. I also use the video service, easily worth $10/mo, very often. I also toss a toss a ton more money their way because I use Amazon Music Unlimited (now with lossless streaming, in both CD and HD Audio formats!).
When I started, I just used it for CD's and DVD's. Now I use it for everything except prescriptions, shoes and groceries. Oh, and books. I will always buy books from my locally owned bookstore.
Now I use it for everything except prescriptions, shoes and groceries.
Have you tried *Zappos? It's great. Back in the day when when people who live in China could still travel internationally, I'd typically order a few pairs of shoes just before I flew to the States, so they'd be waiting or me upon arrival.
*Owned by Amazon.
Wait--did the headline change???
I think so. Judging by some of the comments.
Archive dot org early.
Archive dot org often…
Value is in the eye of the beholder. My work has me on the road constantly so not having to spend my limited time at home on retail excursions is a huge plus. My phone, laptop and tablet give me media access via Prime. I don't mind spending a few extra bucks for the convenience.
I’ve never used Amazon. The idea of paying money to get discounts is a very strange one indeed. I guess everyone who pays that fee thinks they are better off for having done so. One thing is for sure… Amazon is better off when you just give it money.
Now you know Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.
So ... not a Costco member?
Probably just Troll Tips of the Month.
Not Costco either. I have a very nice store less than a mile from home.
It's not the discounts . . .
You're not paying for discounts. You pay for free shipping. The items remain the same price either way. If you want, you could insist that this is still a discount, but most people don't think of it that way.
One exception: if you shop at WFM, you will get bigger discounts on items already on sale if you have Prime.
In addition, if you shop a lot at WFM, the 5% back credit card associated with Prime pays for the cost of Prime many times over.
I would argue that free shipping is the same as a discount. It's fine for people to do this. I use discounts when they are available too. Amazon gets to be a preferred supplier so they get sales they might not have otherwise. I'm just surprised that everyone is convinced they are getting something they couldn't get otherwise. It's very effective marketing which, I assume, makes them more profitable. And they raise the price every couple of years and no one blinks. It's a case study in human psychology.
Amazon Prime cost is per household. So, at $139 a year, about .2% of median annual household income (which is ~$68,000 right now). Not sure what weekly income for a single individual has to do with it.
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that the increase was only 23%, Bezos only made 75 billion more last year.
Surely that $75B would have been enough to let him, say, AIRLIFT his big new three-master sailing yacht over that bridge, instead of making them take the bridge apart so the darned thing can sail through??
And airlifting the big boat would have been even more "conspicuous consumption-y".
I still want to know why the thing was built where it was in the first place.
There are precious few shipyards in the world that could build that boat. Google the phrase Superyacht Builders. Find the list of the top 10 luxury superyacht builders as documented on SuperyachtCrewAgency.com
From the top, they are in: Netherlands, Germany, Netherlands, Netherlands, Germany, Netherlands.
And if you follow the ever-growing superyacht population, you'd find a high degree of loyalty of owners going back to their same builder for their next even bigger yacht. When you're spending that much money on a custom-built one-off, you tend to have confidence in the folks you've dealt with successfully in the past.
I simply don't get why anybody would buy a boat for any reason.
What do you do? Sit and float?
Well, other than a little boat for fishing (Used to fish a lot at the Lake of the Ozarks) or a somewhat larger one for sailing, you're right. There's something very calming about sailing.
Where else can you convincingly pretend to be Dr. Evil for such a small investment?
I would be pretending, Jeff Bezos . . .
You'd think he'd want everyone to have a good look at it by flying it over.
Costs of bridge reconstruction in Netherlands is bigger than expected, though.
Well, as long as the incredible "The Expanse" series has been cut three books short, I should consider cancelling.
The discounted products on Amazon sort of cancels out the expense of Prime. Some things I order from Amazon are 10-20% cheaper than elsewhere, often more.
There's lots wrong with Amazon (killing the quality of Whole Foods for one), but the price of Prime is probably the least of it.
Since I can't edit I will add that prior to Amazon's takeover, Whole Foods was the best market in my area. The meat and produce were hands down superior to anything at Stop and Shop or Shaws. I didn't mind paying a premium for what I got there. But that's no longer the case.
Used to cost $90. So no way too much. I'm not making an objective statement. Regardless of a supposed objective value, to me it is not worth it.
If you buy something on a good deal you might save money. If you don't buy it at all you save much more.