Take Control. Restrict, Protect and Grow! Whether a manufacturer brand wants its products to be offered on Amazon or not, their products will most likely end up being listed on the platform by third-party (3P) sellers. The reality is that anyone that has access to product inventory can create a listing on Amazon and start selling. These independent 3P sellers, many of which are unauthorized, cause real problems for manufacturers.
This is especially true for MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) based brands. Amazon is a price driven marketplace where the seller with the lowest price wins. In order to compete on Amazon, many 3P sellers violate MAP policies to win the buy box and get the sale. Unauthorized 3P sellers are also typically creating listings with no input or approval from you, the brand, when it comes to imagery, messaging, warranty or claims made about the product. In addition, If you are a brand that allows select authorized 3P partners to sell your products on Amazon, sales for these MAP-abiding sellers are negatively impacted by these unauthorized MAP-violators.
Ultimately, your brand on Amazon suffers from price erosion, consumer confidence issues, product quality concerns and diminished sales, not to mention the significant channel conflict it causes with your other authorized online and brick and mortar partners.
What is the solution? Aggressively RESTRICT your sellers on Amazon, even to the point of a single authorized 3P seller. In this webinar replay, we discuss why this is so critical, the many benefits, and the process to achieve and measure the success of this strategy.
In this webinar replay, you’ll learn:
Online reseller agreements are a way of preventing unauthorized sellers from selling your products on marketplaces like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart. These agreements are between the original manufacturers of a product and third-party sellers.
It’s vital that you have one of these in place, and here are basic 7 tips to help you write the perfect online reseller agreement policy:
1. Clearly Specify Which Products Are Included in The Agreement
It’s essential that you write which products the resellers are allowed to sell on as part of this agreement. This is particularly important for manufacturers with multiple product lines. Be specific so no confusion can take place.
2. Outline the Sales Territory
Following this, you must consider the territory as well. This means where the 3P sellers can advertise and sell your goods. Some manufacturers create online reseller agreement policies that allow their products to be sold in one specific territory, or all over the world.
3. Specify the Duration of the Agreement
An online reseller agreement policy should only be in place for a specific duration of time. A realistic example of this is to have a policy in place for a year. If things seem to go well, and your business is profiting from this agreement, then include options to extend/renew the contract every twelve months.
4. Set Pricing Policies
A huge part of this agreement should revolve around the pricing strategies put in place. As the manufacturer, you can enact a MAPP (Minimum Advertised Pricing Policies) to stop the third-party seller from advertising your products at too low a price. You should also consider including an MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price) which tells the third-party sellers what you’d ideally like your products to be sold for.
5. Consider Orders & Payment
Of course, when you enter this agreement with a third-party seller, they need to get their hands on your products to sell them on. This means you should set some ground rules when it comes to how they order your goods. This could include information on how often the orders will go out, and how many units they can order in one go. Also, think about how much they pay you for your goods as well, and ensure the payment is in your desired currency.
6. Include Sales Targets
Ideally, when you agree to let another business sell your products, you want to ensure that they do a reasonably good job. This helps increase your brand exposure and establish your products in your market. Therefore, it’s a smart idea to include specific sales targets in your online reseller agreement too. This lets you see how well each third-party seller is doing – if you enter negotiations with multiple sellers. Plus, you can include terms in the policy that let you terminate the agreement if targets aren’t met.
7. Termination Terms
Speaking of termination, you need to have a clause in your agreement that gives you the power to end this contract in certain circumstances. For example, if the seller breaks some of the terms of the agreement, then you can legally end it at a moment’s notice. This stops companies from taking advantage of you.
Hopefully, these tips will put on in the right place to create an online resellers agreement policy that works for you. Manufacturers can expand their business and make a lot of money by entering contracts with third-party sellers, but you must have agreements in place to prevent unauthorized selling in online marketplaces!
Here at Howell & Associates, we deal with many manufacturers that have authorized and unauthorized selling of our client’s products. This causes a lot of confusion thanks to the first sale doctrine and the many laws surrounding it. Today, we want to take a deep dive into this doctrine, exploring what it is, and addressing one of the big myths surrounding it.
What is the First Sale Doctrine?
To begin, we should have a brief discussion on what the first sale doctrine actually is, and what it entails. Essentially, it’s a legal idea that revolves around copyright infringement. The aim is to limit the rights that the owner of a registered trademark has. Generally speaking, if you own the rights to something, you can take action when people use your work without consent. In a broad sense, imagine a business that has a copyrighted logo that gets used by another company, or is printed on a t-shirt and sold to consumers. In this scenario, the business can step in and sue for copyright infringement because they’ve not given consent to their logo being used in this way. However, the first sale doctrine prevents businesses from having complete and utter control over their copyrighted property. For example, a business that owns the rights to a certain product can’t stop other people from selling that product. This is where things get interesting from our perspective, as we’re very much dealing with this idea of third-party sales and 3P sellers. The law is that, as long as the copyright owner’s exclusive rights aren’t infringed upon, then someone can legally purchase their product, and sell it on. We see this type of thing all the time on online marketplaces like Amazon or eBay. Third-party sellers can purchase goods from manufacturers and sell them on to make a profit. It’s a pretty basic element of the business world, and the first sale doctrine is responsible for allowing this to happen.
Why does this present a potential problem for manufacturers?
While the first sale doctrine is designed to help encourage third-party selling and prevent manufacturers from having a stranglehold on their products, it does create possible problems. Most manufacturers like to enter an online resellers agreement with third-party individuals/companies. This agreement details everything from what products they’re allowed to re-sell, to the MAP (minimum advertised price) and even potential sales targets set by the manufacturer. These agreements are sought out to create a contract that basically makes someone an authorized seller. They’ve been fully-authorized by the manufacturer to sell their goods and can be held accountable if they breach the rules of the agreement. This is beneficial as it allows manufacturers to have some control over their products. However, there are still unauthorized sellers on the market that don’t have these agreements yet can still sell the manufacturers products. They’re allowed to do so thanks to the first sale doctrines, which means they can sell the goods as long as they don’t breach the exclusive rights. So, in theory, someone can buy a product online and sell it to someone else without being an authorized seller of that specific product.
The First Sale Doctrine Myth
This brings us to the primary focus of this article; the first sale doctrine. Now, many people assume that this doctrine allows them to sell products without needing to enter a contractual agreement with the manufacturer. They get their hands on the products somehow and sell them on, often advertised as ‘new’. You see this all the time, particularly from third-party sellers on Amazon. Just take a look at the Marketplace Items Condition Guidelines they have for sellers to describe their items: Amazon’s Marketplace, for instance, states: “New: Just like it sounds. A brand-new, unused, unopened item in its original packaging, with all original packaging materials, included. Original protective wrapping, if any, is intact. Original manufacturer’s warranty, if any, still applies, with warranty details included in the listing comments.” If you were a consumer, and you saw this description, it could persuade you to buy a product with the assumption that you’re buying a genuine item. You even have the warranty attached, so you’re covered in case anything goes wrong. However, this is where there’s a big myth surrounding the first sale doctrine, called the Material Difference.
What is the Material Difference?
The Material Difference is essentially an exception to the first sale doctrine rule. In simple terms, it means that trademark goods that are materially different than those sold by the trademark holder are not covered. In essence, the reseller can come under fire for selling things like this and be under trademark liability. There is some confusion as to what a material difference actually is, but it can cover a whole range of things. Legally speaking, it’s defined as a difference in the product that can sway a consumer’s decision to purchase that product. One massive example of this and the thing we’re going to focus on is the warranty. Most consumers will be more inclined to purchase a product if they know it’s covered by a warranty, or they’ve got a guarantee on the product that allows them to return it if issues occur. It helps them make a purchase with more confidence and is considered a way for companies to try and influence purchasing decisions. When you apply this to the idea of unauthorized sellers, there are plenty of people/companies out there that sell products with warranties advertised. Go back to the Amazon example earlier, and you can see that it clearly states a manufacturer’s warranty is included. Many third-party sellers believe they can include this if they purchase a product from the manufacturer or from an authorized reseller. However, this is a total myth as many manufacturers have rules in place that make warranties void when they’re sold by unauthorized sources. This is where a company comes into play, as many companies have a very specific warranty policy. For example, a warranty exclusively covers products that are sold by authorized retailers through authorized sales channels. As a result, if customers purchase a product from unauthorized retailers – or via an unofficial sales channel – they do not receive the warranties and benefits associated with genuine products. Consequently, thanks to the material difference exception, in the first sales doctrine, it is no longer considered a genuine product. Therefore, it’s not even covered by the first sales doctrine at all.
The Material Difference in Action
There are plenty of examples of cases where resellers have ended up in a lot of trouble because they sold products that were no longer covered by the first sale doctrine as they were considered materially different. A good example of this is Beltronics USA, Inc. vs. Midwest Inventory Distrib. LLC. This was a case that happened in 2009, and the basic premise is that Midwest was an unauthorized seller of Beltronics equipment. Beltronics had agreements in place with authorized distributors to sell their products at an agreed minimum price. However, these distributors sold the products to Midwest, who then sold them on eBay as ‘new products’ that received a full Beltronics warranty. The issue was that the products they sold on eBay had their serial numbers either altered or removed by the distributors/Midwest. This is where the material difference argument comes into play as it’s Beltronic’s policy that only products with original serial number labels qualify for the warranties and other benefits like software upgrades, etc. I understand that removing the serial numbers is literally a physical material difference, however, it is also a nonphysical difference because of the warranty removal. As a result, Beltronics received numerous calls from customers that complained about defects and wanted replacements under their warranty, and so on. Beltronics asked for serial numbers and had to inform the customers that the products they purchased weren’t genuine and so they weren’t covered. This led to a lot of disgruntled customers, who ultimately took their annoyance out on Beltronics as it was their product. The consequence of this was Beltronics filing an action against Midwest. The defense from Midwest was that they haven’t done anything wrong as they’re allowed to re-sell goods under the first sale doctrine. However, the court ruled in favor of Beltronics, citing that the first sale doctrine was void “when an alleged infringer sells trademarked goods that are materially different than those sold by the trademark holder.” It was considered trademark infringement, and Midwest lost the court case.” There are countless other cases to explore as well that shows the material difference in action. What this proves is that it’s not entirely accurate that any unauthorized seller can re-sell goods via online marketplaces under the first sale doctrine. If the original manufacturer has a policy in place that voids things like the warranty or guarantee, then it means all unauthorized sales aren’t genuine.
Unauthorized Use of a Registered Trademark Is Actionable
It’s critical that you’re aware of the consequences that come when you’re not authorized to use a registered trademark. According to Section 35 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. ss 1117) any violation of our rights regarding registered trademarks can lead to the following: Potential recovery of all profits made via the selling of trademark goods – in essence, we could claim all the profits you made if you’re not authorized to sell our goods. Potential recovery of any damages we’ve sustained – if your unauthorized selling of goods that are materially different to the original items has led to damages for our company, we resolve the right to recover them from you. Potential recovery of any legal costs one sustains when pursuing legal action against you – essentially, you will have to pay all the legal fees for us. Not only that, but if you sell unauthorized goods that are materially different from the original versions, and you do so willingly, a manufacturer can possibly claim three times the profits/damages along with attorney’s fees. Why am I telling you this? To show you what happens when you don’t abide by the proper laws. Remember, goods are only genuine when they’re sold via authorized sellers and sales channels when you put these rules in place. Any other sales are not considered genuine as the warranty doesn’t cover them. By law, it’s considered that a change in warranty is a material difference, which means a product isn’t covered by the first sale doctrine. There are countless examples of court cases where similar things have happened to other resellers in the past. They sell things that are materially different, and the courts have no choice but to rule in favor of the original manufacturer. To save yourself a lot of worry and money, make sure you fully understand everything surrounding the first sale doctrine and material difference.
Warranty Is Just One Example of a Material Difference
We’ve used the example of a warranty here as it applies to products. However, there are many other examples of a material difference, not just this. In fact, there are somewhere around 75 non-physical examples of material difference claims out there right now. If a manufacturer states that they have a specific return policy for authorized goods only, then this doesn’t apply to an unauthorized item, meaning it’s not genuine. The same applies to if free repairs are offered only on authorized items, or certain post-sale services are included. All it takes is one material difference to trigger a trademark infringement.
We know that there’s been a lot of information disclosed in this article, and it can be a lot to take in. So, we’ll do our best to summarize the main points you should take with you after reading this:
We hope this helps condense everything down into more manageable chunks. If you’re a third-party seller, please be aware of the material difference exception to the first sale doctrine, and don’t assume you’re automatically covered. If you are a manufacturer, call me to make sure these things are put in place for your brand protection.
How to have a True Successful Global Online Brand Protection & Channel Compliance Strategy!
Over the last few years, I have been tactfully but aggressively speaking to “Brand Protection Basics” and the key strategies to fight bad faith activity online. I understand the term brand protection today is vague, from domain names, intellectual property infringement, channel compliance to counterfeit activity and just about everything in between. To be clear what I am speaking to here applies to all aspects of any type of brand protection programs one may have. Years ago I solely and creatively coined the phrase loosely as the “Three Pillars of Brand Protection”. From speaking engagements to webinars, I have been echoing this in one form or another. Let me explain in some detail: for any brand protection program to be effective one should first employ active online digital monitoring, second apply intelligent investigation/research and lastly targeted effective enforcement strategies. I stand by the fact that if any one of these areas are excluded your brand protection program will surely fall short of effective.
One must look at it from this point of view, if we implement an active digital monitoring solution to find infringements online and act upon the data as accurate for enforcement, you will at best be 20% to 30% effective in reaching the true infringer. Taking any such automated data at face value with the large amount of anonymity online today, aenforcementnts will be effectively going into a black hole. A waste of time and resources that most brands cannot afford. However, if one were to take the same data set and employ a level intelligent investigation and research one can increase their effectiveness in excess of 80%. In my professional experience that percentage is considered by most a “WIN”.
Now think if we remove active monitoring, the first pillar of the equation. How will a brand find bad faith activity affecting them? Are they only acting on what is brought to their attention by employees or even worse, their customers? This is will most defiantly not solve any brand protection issues as one can imagine, who truly knows what they are missing if one is not actively looking in the right places?
This leads us to the enforcement aspect of brand protection, the third pillar if you will. One can think this is as the most basic aspect if we don’t act on the bad faith infringements we are not going to solving the problem. As one can image, I without hesitation agree with this, however, I also cannot count how many times in my career a brand neglected, on my recommendation to act on actionable data until the further damage was already done. Fundamentally, taking the appropriate action in a timely manner is key to solving these problems.
I strongly emphasize that a brand should be proactive and not reactive to what is happening to their intellectual property online. This is a bit of an oxymoron if you think about it, as something does have to happen online to be able to react to it, being as proactively reactive as you can. Hard to comprehend at first but accurate nevertheless.
In the last few years, more and more of the brands I have worked with started to notice a surge specifically in products that are not meeting their standards; being sold as legitimate and sanctioned, online. These unauthorized sales are causing a host of issues, ranging from illegitimate warranty to market dilution with severely underpriced goods, and many times, these items are of counterfeit, seconds, expired, remanufactured and of inferior quality.
There is no doubt that this is an activity that needs to cease for a brand to stay competitive. A company cannot suffer brand dilution, price erosion or consumer confidence issues to maintain market dominance. This leads me to the second pillar of brand protection that I innovated within my last organization from conception to successful implementation.
So in recent years, I have personally taken this ability one step further and innovated a process as I will describe briefly below, the investigation and research aspect of brand protection. I wrote a detailed article last month on the process of the investigation.
Attempting to identify who is illegally offering or selling your goods, whether counterfeit or gray market, is an uphill battle at best, and outside the ability of most companies’ area of expertise; add to that a hidden or aliased bad faith seller, and the attention and labor commitment becomes unsustainable for most businesses. I strived to make this a realistic goal, and as a more advantageous option for a brand to undertake themselves.
This brings us back to the issue of the hidden, masked or aliased bad faith sellers. Based upon a range of client’s needs, I have created what I call a virtual deficiency check program that does not require an expert investigator to process; third-party marketplace sellers, Asian sellers and other assorted hidden identities to name a few, can be uncovered with a high degree of accuracy and accelerate the enforcement process. This type of due diligence allows brands to get to the individual or individuals responsible and hold them accountable, and thus begin the appropriate escalation or enforcement. I am a firm believer that the responsibility to conduct such diligence rests on the brands.
I have created a fairly detailed action list where one can start this process and how to disseminate the data. Again knowing where to search is only part of the battle, knowing how to search and what to do with the data will take some time for one to learn truly what to look for. Working close with brands with this service has created a sense of self-reliance and empowerment to research and solve such problems.
The end solution is still an aggressive enforcement strategy; I understand more than most that online enforcement can be a challenge when the “bad faith seller” hiding behind an alias or masked data. As I have always stated “The Who, What, Where, Why, When & How” someone is either in good or bad faith using your intellectual property or selling your products is critical to any success. I am honored to have had the privilege to innovate and think outside the box to be an active part of these types of solutions for so many brands in recent years.
I would enjoy the open conversation and more importantly the opportunity to help brands and manufacturers in these areas as well as create and implement a strong global brand protection strategy to help ensure success. Please feel free to reach out to me anytime.
This article was co-authored with Whitney Gibson, a Partner at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.
Lately, I have received many questions and some curiously raised eyebrows regarding my decision to join a large law firm this past year. After all, I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve typically worked with brand protection technology and investigation firms.
Well, the answer is simple. I want to be part of a team that I believe is best positioned to solve product diversion and price erosion problems for its clients.
As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been speaking for almost 20 years about online brand protection strategies, product diversion issues, and the three pillars (technology, investigations and effective enforcement strategies) needed to help solve these problems. Last year, I had an opportunity to discuss these issues with Whitney Gibson, a partner at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease and head of the firm’s online seller enforcement group.
Whitney shared his team’s unique approach, which is presented to brands in a single unauthorized third-party seller enforcement program. The program includes legal tactics designed to assist with the reduction of gray market sellers and the integration of technology and investigation. Ensuring brands have a strong legal claim within their enforcement effort is essential. We also discussed the importance of strong reseller/distribution policies that support enforcement claims and not just their selling policies.
It was the first time I had come across what I felt was a comprehensive approach to pursuing bad-faith, third-party sellers. So, when the opportunity presented itself, I made the decision to join the team.
Below I share more information about Vorys’ novel approach to MAP and unauthorized seller enforcement. I’d love to hear what you think as well. Be sure to leave your comments or direct message me if you would like to receive more detailed info.
As online marketplaces continue to grow in both size and number, an increasing number of products are sold online. The problem? Brands are only benefiting from a small and decreasing percentage of those sales. For every legitimate seller, growing numbers of unauthorized sellers emerged for nearly every product – from batteries to skin lotion and from air conditioners to work boots. These unauthorized sellers of online goods were destroying revenues. They caused legitimate sellers to drop prices, the perceived value of products to erode, and angry authorized retailers to refuse to continue doing business with a company.
Vorys entered a market full of separate entities spinning their wheels to help in any way possible. Vorys’ innovation was combining novel legal tactics with the abilities of cyber investigators and the efficiencies of technology. Our program – for seemingly the first time – not only helps remove unauthorized online products for sale but also can stop them from returning by identifying and pursuing the source of the goods.
Vorys represented its first client in the space two years ago and now supports more than 100, many of which are global brands. Our clients repeatedly say they were starving for a way to tackle this problem, and we discovered a way to help solve it.
E-Commerce is Quickly Consolidating Within Marketplaces
In the last decade, e-commerce was the fastest growing sales channel, with online sales growing 16-20%. In addition, third-party marketplaces now comprise 31% of all e-commerce. As a result, a tsunami of unauthorized sellers emerged. Nearly every brand has authorized sellers and channels. Unauthorized sellers are those who are – for a variety of reasons – not permitted to sell a product. Some gained access to the inventory illegally, while others were simply not licensed to sell.
Third-party online marketplaces traditionally have done little to help brands to stop unauthorized sellers. Brands naturally turned to the technology companies that had previous success monitoring authorized sellers. But authorized sellers were documented and easily tracked; unauthorized sellers are unpredictable and undocumented. Brands also approached their legal counsel, who struggled to act quickly enough to stop the whack-a-mole from continuing. Finally, brands failed to consistently identify and locate the person behind the screenname selling the goods. And, even if brands were lucky enough to identify an offender, the offender’s sale was often protected by the First Sale Doctrine.
Each sale by an unauthorized seller translated into a brand’s lost revenue. The stakes could not have been higher.
Innovation Born Out of Necessity
Our innovation was two-fold. First, Vorys realized that attorneys – acting alone – could not end this cycle. We needed to use the strengths of both technology companies and cyber investigators. We worked with technology companies that developed software to monitor and track many of the online usernames selling brands’ SKUs online. Secondly, we worked with cyber investigators to identify and locate the unauthorized sellers.
Next, Vorys created a graduated enforcement system that included efficiencies in our legal pursuit of unauthorized sellers. Packaged with the technology and investigations, our legal work became part of an all-inclusive program that was cost-efficient for brands.
Vorys also identified novel ways to help companies defend themselves against the First Sale Doctrine. The first step is ensuring there are material differences in the products sold by authorized sellers and the products sold by unauthorized sellers. These differences include warranties, service guarantees, etc. Then, the program follows a series of steps, including the mass and automated sending of electronic cease and desist letters, the sending of physical cease and desist letters, and – finally – taking further legal action.
The entire program is priced in a way that allows for customization and flat monthly fees, which allowed for consistent budgeting.
Brands and Manufacturers Replace Frustration with Success
The results greatly exceeded both our and our clients’ expectations. Soon after introducing our first edition of this program, our clients began seeing tangible and significant reductions in the number and size of their unauthorized sellers. Better yet, the unauthorized sellers were not returning to the marketplace. As a result, many of our clients were able to stop price erosion and see immediate increases in revenue.
We deliver a report each month that identifies a brand’s unauthorized sellers and what pursuit we have made. At the end of the month, we show our progress. We can’t guarantee results, but many of our clients have experienced improvements that are even better than the following:
Meridian Idaho – Tuesday, March 6, 2018 – Leading Brand Protection and Channel Compliance consulting firm David G Howell & Associates is hosting an educational webinar with Amazon Expert, Tall Ridge to help businesses secure their sales and distribution channels within the Amazon.com marketplace. Ultimately, your brand on Amazon will or currently is suffering from price erosion, decreased consumer confidence, perceived product quality issues and diminished sales due to unauthorized third-party (3P) sellers. These issues also dramatically disrupt your authorized online retailers as well as your brick and mortar partners, causing major channel conflict. On this webinar, we will be educating you on how to address these problems and much more.
Join our webinar, Restricting Amazon Sales | The Only True Long-term Successful Marketplace Sales Strategy, and let us educate businesses on how to win on Amazon while protecting your brand. Attendees will learn how to take the steps to clean up your Amazon seller landscape; Resources and tools needed for success; and the Benefits of an exclusive 3P professional Amazon seller strategy.
The webinar will be hosted by David Howell, industry expert and founder at David G Howell & Associates and guest speaker John MacEntee, eCommerce veteran and President of Tall Ridge. Howell has provided online brand protection and channel management services to most of the Fortune 500. MacEntee has a proven track record in scaling eCommerce businesses with a focus on brand management and executing effective multi-channel distribution strategies. Tall Ridge has become a leading Amazon retailer, experiencing explosive growth over the last three years while helping manufacturers protect pricing and overall brand integrity.
The webinar will take place on Tuesday: March 20 at 1pm EST. Enrollment is free, but spaces are limited. http://www.davidghowell.com/webinars/restricting-amazon-sales/
“It’s our hope that businesses will quickly secure a spot for this informative webinar,” Howell said, “with the decline of traditional brick and mortar retail, businesses need to be sure that their online sales and distribution channels are clean, secure and free from outside threats.”
The estimated U.S. retail e-commerce sales for the fourth quarter of 2017 totaled $143.1 billion, an increase of 33.7 percent, according to The Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce. “What some businesses might not realize is that a large portion of online sales end up going to unauthorized third-party sellers. Sometimes these sellers are offering counterfeit or subpar products that end up damaging the reputation and price of the brands they’re attempting to imitate,” Howell said. “That’s one reason why businesses need to be vigilant about protecting themselves from grey market sellers.”
Registration for Restricting Amazon Sales | The Only True Long-term Successful Marketplace Sales Strategy is open online at http://www.davidghowell.com/webinars/restricting-amazon-sales/
David G Howell & Associates headquartered in Meridian Idaho is a Full-Service Online Brand Protection, Marketplace Channel Management, Strategy & Consultancy Agency. Combing 16 years of experience in the Who, What Where When and Why of such things as Amazon.com and helping companies succeed!
Tall Ridge (www.tallridge.com), headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois is top professional Amazon seller firm that drives revenue growth, brand control, and pricing stability for its clients. Tall Ridge works with a number of brands in the Outdoor category looking to sell direct on Amazon and other marketplaces. Tall Ridge celebrates active living and offer products for the quality conscious consumer.
To inquire about this Webinar or other related topics, please contact David Howell (208) 340-5866 email@example.com