[sokoloff]

I don’t think comparison shopping is unethical; it’s what makes a market work.

I do think “thank you for letting me know this product exists and meets my need, but if all else is equal to me, I’ll buy it somewhere else where you don’t benefit from the effort to help me address my need” is not the standard that I hold myself to generally.

Further, I think many would object if I found a product through a small business directly and bought it for the identical terms via Amazon rather than direct.

[shiroiuma]

You have to find out about the product somewhere, whether it's from a small business, or from Amazon. After that point, then you comparison-shop. So how's the market supposed to work if you're only ethically able to buy it from the first place you saw it? Or do you think you're only allowed to comparison-shop for things you buy repeatedly (like milk and eggs) or things you learn about through advertising?

[sokoloff]

My personal belief system is "it's fine to buy it from the place that's cheapest/most convenient/otherwise best, but in the case of ties, you should buy it from the place that was most helpful".

[dylan604]

A lot of people would "shop" at brick-n-mortar stores with a mobile comparing prices online. They would look at the physical item right then and there, but purchase from online. At least, that was the early days of online when people were still actually getting off their couches.

[sokoloff]

I think price comparison is totally valid, even across channels. But if the online price is the same as brick/mortar, it seems only fair to buy it from the brick/mortar store if they provided you some knowledge/service that the online places did not.

[dylan604]

in the early days of online shopping, online didn't charge taxes && gave free shipping. so if you didn't need it right then, it could be at least 8.25% cheaper where I live