[Report File] "Stress because of'Coupang Winner'" Coupang, what about the explanation?

“My business is'picking stars',” said a seller who sells women's clothing in an online and open market.

It is said that winning stars is the essence of the business because customer evaluation and ratings are directly related to sales volume.

It's not just product purchases.

In various platform businesses such as delivery orders, cleaning, and laundry, the satisfaction and reviews of other users are a decisive criterion for selecting the product or service.

In Korea's largest open market,'Coupang', stars and reviews of multiple sellers are concentrated in one place.

The seller who calls'winner', the winner, has all of this.

Usually, a seller who puts out goods at a low price even for just one won enjoys this victory.

Coupang users can only see this Winner's product unless they click the button that says'Other sellers of this product'.

If even one won is sold at a high price, it will not be exposed to consumers, so sales will inevitably drop.

The principles of the Coupang Winner system are clear.

'Lower the price, so you can sell it.'

confuses users At first glance, it looks good, but Coupang users are bound to be confused.

A lot of stars and generous reviews, is it really an evaluation of what I am looking for?

A seller who offered women's coats for 60,000 won in Coupang improved customer evaluation and increased sales.

Other sellers who had lowered their prices soon appeared, and the Winner competition began.

The number of sellers increased to six, and later, the price dropped to about 28,000 won, which is less than half of the original sales price.

The good reviews so far were exposed on the sixth WINNER's page.

The seller said, "It has fallen to a price that can't be matched with the unit price," but it was.

One user left a review saying, "I liked the coat I bought for about 60,000 won, so I bought it again without hesitation, down to 20,000 won, but this time a garbage product came."

In Coupang, the answers for product inquiries are divided by seller, but the ratings and reviews of all sellers are exposed to buyers without classification.

From a consumer's point of view, whether they know the WINNER system or not, it is impossible to know what reviews are about WINNER.

It's got a lot of good reviews, but it actually means that the seller might be the first to sell.

Even if the Winner changes, the representative image of Coupang continues to be uploaded by the first seller.

I selected the product A in the representative image and looked at the detailed explanation, but when there is a B instead of A, that is why it occurs.

The Coupang Winner system can be set up by sellers, but Coupang selects itself and combines them into the same product to induce price competition.

Sellers complained of damage, saying, "Even though the price difference is more than double, they are combined into the same product."

It's all consumer confusion.

I am confused whether the product I will buy is in the representative image or in the detailed description.

Even if the price is unreasonably lowered, low-quality products that differ from the representative image or detailed description may be delivered.

Dissatisfaction from sellers is added.

It means that everything is taken away.

Winner complains that the representative image, as well as the response to customer inquiries carefully managed, ratings, and reviews are all taken by WINNER.

They complain that there are sellers who specialize in only taking the winners after paying attention to the products with high sales.

One seller said, "If Winner is stolen, a notification pops up in Coupang, but the moment you see it, your heart goes down and you can't live for a day," and said, "There are people around you who take antidepressants."

There are also great complaints that even copyrights are easily stolen.

A coupang seller who sells masks formally signed a portrait rights contract at a cost to a female model and created a representative image of the product.

However, it was soon stolen by WINNER.

The new Winner has no contract with the female model.

He complained, "Even if the seller who became the winner puts another representative image, my image with portrait rights will come out," and "Coupang is neglecting obvious infringement of portrait rights."

As the situation is like this, in Coupang, it is easy to see the various'angers' of sellers.

Even if the Winner is changed, the representative image remains the original seller, so the first seller who lost the Winner corrects the representative image.

Winner's representative image, which is being sold properly one by one, is trying to feed WINNER by giving false information to consumers as'illegal' or'out of stock' or '1+1'.

Anyway, even if the representative image is changed, if it is not Winner, it is not exposed and cannot be sold, so it is a anger at Winner who took her things in this way.

and

Winner system that causes confusion and dissatisfaction to both consumers and sellers is enforced by Coupang's terms and conditions.

The Coupang Terms and Conditions allow content provided by a seller to be used by Coupang as well as other sellers.

Even if the seller ceases operations in Coupang, the content he provides can be used permanently by Coupang.

In addition, if Coupang is legally acted on by a third party with the content, the seller is responsible for all.

Platform Coupang means that you enjoy everything but take no responsibility.

Legal experts point out that Coupang's terms and conditions may violate the Terms and Conditions Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Yong-beom Kim, attorney at Law Firm O'Kims, pointed out, "The purpose is to increase the commission income from the sale of Coupang, so we only care about a lot of transactions, and it seems to be a side issue as to whether copyright or whether consumers can purchase quality products." did.

He is currently preparing a class action lawsuit against Coupang for damages caused by the damage to the sellers and the Winner system.

Coupang sent an clarification material asking for correction when the SBS report of this content went out.

At the time of the interview, he said, "The WINNER system is rather helpful for small-scale sellers who are difficult to shoot even representative images," and "a convenient method for consumers," adding a more detailed explanation.

Coupang said that the WINNER system "provides an environment in which consumers can select the most competitive products," unlike existing open markets.

Unlike other open markets that first expose products that paid promotion fees such as advertising fees, it guides the'WINNER', which was selected in consideration of price and customer experience.

It is a good system that gives sales opportunities to small-scale sellers who cannot afford to pay promotion fees, but it is not unconditionally cheap that it becomes a Winner, but it repeatedly argues that Winner is selected by considering various criteria such as fulfillment of promises with customers, delivery, and customer response.

It doesn't show that you paid a lot of advertising costs first, but because'WINNER' that reflects the consumer's comprehensive evaluation is guided, it means that consumers can shop optimally.

The picture above is contained in the Coupang clarification material containing this explanation.

Even though there are two products of 9,000 won, the product of 10,000 won became a winner.

Coupang emphasized, "There are many examples of winners being selected as winners even though they are not the lowest priced," he stressed.

Actually, I searched for the product in Coupang.

As you can see in the photo above, I couldn't find a case where a product other than the lowest price became a winner.

There were cases where the price of the product became a winner, but considering the shipping cost, it can be seen that the cheaper one became a winner.

If Winner was originally selected as a'comprehensive evaluation of sellers' as Coupang explained, so many sellers would not have prepared a class action suit and reported it to the media.

is

Coupang repeatedly emphasized that the points pointed out in the article are the seller's responsibility.

Regarding the case of the seller that the representative image created by writing the portrait rights contract was stolen by Winner, who had no right, "Coupang's policy prohibits posting individual elements such as models, and only the image of the product itself should be uploaded." And blamed the seller for the damage.

The seller's words are different.

He said he heard this policy for the first time.

After the representative image with the right of portrait was stolen by the new Winner, he sent a complaint e-mail to Coupang and said he had never heard of such a policy in the process of correcting it.

He said, "If many sellers whose copyrights are stolen protest against Coupang, it will eventually be corrected, but it will take a long time and the sales will drop sharply," he said. "As Coupang said, it was the first time that the policy to only upload the image of the product itself "I listen" he refuted.

Coupang also clarified the point that WINNER is taking both customer inquiries and reviews.

It wasn't taking it, it was'share'.

As in other open markets, it is not shown as'by seller', but is guided by'by product', so the evaluation of products is simply shared as one.

He drew a line that it was only the seller's fault for damage to consumers who received strange products after believing in the reviews.

Responsibility for buying and trusting reviews means that sellers and consumers are responsible.

"Even though there are many open market channels, the sellers voluntarily entered the store and explicitly agreed to this sharing method," Coupang said again and again that there was no legal flaw in the sales method.

The Fair Trade Commission is currently undergoing a review for the unfairness of the terms and conditions, and Coupang said that the results will be faithfully implemented.

However, for claims that content such as reviews is simply shared, the answer is replaced with a comment left on the article by a person presumed to be a seller.

"The review includes not only the product, but also the efforts of the seller, such as delivery or after-sales service."

For sellers, the reviews are'stars'.