Amazon had the boxes the Potter books were shipped in coded (they were white instead of the usual brown, with a green stripe on them and the message "do not deliver before July 16"), and they may just have grabbed one and sent it to you instead of delaying shipment of the Stewart book until today (as would also have fit the relevant constraints) just so they didn't need to do any special re-packing.
And now that I think about it I see why they did it. Since you ordered the two together, and Stewart was already available, they would have had to hold THE ENTIRE ORDER until July 16 to avoid sending Potter out early, which would require them to hold the box with your order in it somewhere, or avoid processing your order until the 16th or later (and thereby risk having it fall through the cracks). Therefore, it was easier on them just to send you your Stewart book when it was ready, and to send out your Potter book separately, with all the other Potter orders.
I expect that amazon is good at keeping orders from falling through cracks.
Considering that I got a $1 credit from having ordered the HP book, I think amazon was thinking "We've got tons of money--let's see what we can do to make people love us".
expect that amazon is good at keeping orders from falling through cracks.
What makes you say that? Because they're doing such good business? That's like saying Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company because they write good software. :-)
Speaking for myself, I have found that Amazon is reliable and speedy only when I'm ordering something that's popular and easy to find elsewhere. If I order something that's hard to find or a specialty item, I end up waiting and waiting and getting wildly optimistic and false estimates of when it will arrive.
I suspect you're right that Amazon offered the $1 additional rebate on HP to see "what [else] we can do to make people love us." Which, IMHO, cuts against your theory that they're good at keeping orders from falling through cracks. :-)
I have no idea what their complaint rate is, but our lack of evidence of complaints is not proof that Amazon is unusually, or even averagely, good at tracking orders. However, they are notorious for wildly optimistic estimates of how soon a new book will become available and/or be shipped. :-)
The original point of my comment is that segregating multiple book orders that included HP6 from all other orders would impose increased overhead, which tends to increase the possibility of mistakes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
And now that I think about it I see why they did it. Since you ordered the two together, and Stewart was already available, they would have had to hold THE ENTIRE ORDER until July 16 to avoid sending Potter out early, which would require them to hold the box with your order in it somewhere, or avoid processing your order until the 16th or later (and thereby risk having it fall through the cracks). Therefore, it was easier on them just to send you your Stewart book when it was ready, and to send out your Potter book separately, with all the other Potter orders.
(no subject)
Considering that I got a $1 credit from having ordered the HP book, I think amazon was thinking "We've got tons of money--let's see what we can do to make people love us".
(no subject)
What makes you say that? Because they're doing such good business? That's like saying Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company because they write good software. :-)
Speaking for myself, I have found that Amazon is reliable and speedy only when I'm ordering something that's popular and easy to find elsewhere. If I order something that's hard to find or a specialty item, I end up waiting and waiting and getting wildly optimistic and false estimates of when it will arrive.
I suspect you're right that Amazon offered the $1 additional rebate on HP to see "what [else] we can do to make people love us." Which, IMHO, cuts against your theory that they're good at keeping orders from falling through cracks. :-)
(no subject)
It sounds as though they don't actually lose orders--they're just bad at estimating delivery times.
(no subject)
The original point of my comment is that segregating multiple book orders that included HP6 from all other orders would impose increased overhead, which tends to increase the possibility of mistakes.