Amazon Grocery - two months on and still rubbish

31 August 2010

amazon-logo In early July, Amazon kicked down the gate of the online grocery paddock and jumped in, expecting to hoover up all the money and then do a little celebratory dance. But sadly, they went about it in the most cack-handed manner imaginable, like someone decorating a room by getting pissed and hurling a tin of paint around.

Now the stern judges at Which! have given Amazon’s grocery offering the once-over and the news isn’t good. They ordered what they described as a ‘regular grocery shop’ costing £72 and observed that…

The total postal charges came to £60. Not all items are offered directly from Amazon, and so postage charges are applicable when ordering from third party sellers.

The order came in eight different consignments over the course of a week. The Which! member who carried out the test, Rachel Hutchings, missed two parcels including one that contained meat. Unlike online supermarkets, Amazon don’t offer pre-determined delivery windows.

Rachel’s conclusion was: “Amazon Grocery is not user-friendly for the usual home-shopper and I couldn’t see any benefits whatsoever”

So there you go. Amazon Grocery is a load of old bollocks. Which we already suspected. Have any of you actually used it yet? Seriously?

TOPICS:   Technology   High Street News


  • piggy
    No. Yes.
  • Richard
    I've had a look at the Spanish serrano and iberico hams but you might just as well order them from Orce, the Amazon supplier.
  • The B.
    Who the hell buys food on-line anyway? Do people not mind getting mangled fruit and veg? F**k me, I wouldn't trust the staff at my local Sainsburys to tie their own shoe laces much less pack bags.
  • David d.
    I'm always wary of who I let pack my meat. I wouldnt let any old meat packer pack it. Fudge is a different story though.

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment