[baybal2]

I very much doubt they did marketing by themselves.

In China, it's usually outsourced to specialist Amazon wizards, people who are kind of in rank with "SEO consultants."

[LeonM]

I think you comment is underrated.

It's not just China, everywhere I look I see companies partnering with shoddy marketing/SEO 'consultants'. They are rarely transparent about their tactics, and often resort to click farms, fake reviews, keyword stuffing etc. The company doesn't understand the risk to their brand, because they don't understand what the consultant is doing in the first place.

The problem here is, I guess, that these tactics do actually work on the short term. So the consultant gets paid, the team reaches their targets and the manager gets promoted.

By the time eBay, or any other platform supplier, implies sanctions (and rightfully so, imo) the 'consultant' is long gone, and everybody loses.

[pessimizer]

> The problem here is, I guess, that these tactics do actually work on the short term.

Let's be honest: these tactics work over the long term. When they blow up, you just start again with a new name. Use the same consultant if the last one was good, a better one if a friend of yours did better than you did.

[chii]

> everybody loses

well, except for the consultant! And the business which made some sales. So it's only the customer losing...

[SCLeo]

And their competitors who decided to play fair.

[arkitaip]

Of course the company knew about the fraud. The fact they outsourced the actual work to a third party just means they can claim plausible deniability.

[alangibson]

If they knew, they're guilty of fraud. If they didn't, they're guilty of incompetence.

[Closi]

Either way they should be judged/policed by their actions rather than their intent, because intent is too hard to prove or disprove.