Amazon Prime Day 2025 racks up record sales figures, company says
The online retailing powerhouse – and tech giant – said Prime Day 2025, which ran from July 8-11, was its biggest ever, the company announced Saturday, July 12, in a news release.
Amazon's 11th Prime Day drove record sales and a record number of items sold, larger than any previous four-day period that included a Prime Day event, the company said. (The promotion became a two-day affair in 2019; this year, Amazon expanded it to four days for the first time.)
U.S. online spending during Prime Day's four days amounted to an estimated $24.1 billion, according to Adobe. Its Adobe Analytics sales data tracks online transactions across U.S. retail sites. The data, which is aggregated and anonymized, doesn't directly track Amazon's sales but does reflect overall spending and suggest Prime Day demand.
Spending for Prime Day amounted to "more than two Black Fridays – which drove $10.8 billion in online spending during the 2024 holiday shopping season – and sets a new benchmark for the summer shopping season," Adobe said in a news release. The total also surpassed Adobe's pre-Prime Day estimate of $23.8 billion in sales.
"This year's extended Prime Day event delivered incredible savings to our members across millions of deals," said Doug Herrington, CEO of Amazon Worldwide Stores, in a news release. "We're thrilled to see record savings for our customers, who found great prices on the everyday essentials and products they love."
Shopping: Here are the best still-live Amazon Prime Day deals you can buy today
Herrington also saluted Amazon's employees, saying, "Their efforts made this our biggest Prime Day yet, and I'm grateful for their contributions."
Independent sellers, including small and medium-sized businesses, also racked up record sales and a record number of items sold, according to Amazon.
"We saw impressive sales not just on our Prime exclusive deals but across our entire catalog," said Anne Maza, co-owner of the small business Olivia Garden, in a statement. "Beyond the immediate revenue boost, we're especially thrilled about the increased brand awareness and the acquisition of new customers through the event.'
A majority of shoppers (53.2%) made purchases on mobile devices, compared to on desktop computers, accounting for $12.8 billion of the spending, according to Adobe.
The sales racked up despite economic uncertainties driven by President Donald Trump's tariff strategy and flagging consumer confidence.
Among the products consumers snatched up during the Prime Day period, according to Adobe:
Kids' apparel (up 250%, compared to average daily sales in June 2025)
Home security products (+185%)
School supplies (+175%)
Refrigerators & freezers (+160%)
Games (+160%)
Headphones & speakers (+155%)
Car seats (+145%)
Luggage (+145%)
Vacuum cleaners (+140%)
Power tools (+135%)
Computers (+125%)
Smartphone accessories (+120%)
Storage furniture (+120%)
Televisions (+90%)
Small kitchen appliances (+90%)
Dorm essentials (+84%)
Exercise equipment (+80%)
Contributing: Paul Davidson and Betty Lin-Fisher, USA TODAY
Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @mikegsnider.bsky.social & @mikesnider & msnider@usatoday.com
What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Amazon Prime Day 2025: Record sales in dollars, items purchased
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
27 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?
Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years. The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979. The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents. The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety. Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation. This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise. In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order. The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade. By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce. As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979. The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents. Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s. The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project. And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries. The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable. Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
Amazon turns to rival SpaceX to launch next batch of Kuiper internet satellites
As Amazon chases SpaceX in the internet satellite market, the e-commerce and computing giant is now counting on Elon Musk's rival company to get its next batch of devices into space. On Wednesday, weather permitting, 24 Kuiper satellites will hitch a ride on one of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets from a launchpad on Florida's Space Coast. A 27-minute launch window for the mission, dubbed "KF-01," opens at 2:18 a.m. ET. The launch will be livestreamed on X, the social media platform also owned by Musk. The mission marks an unusual alliance. SpaceX's Starlink is currently the dominant provider of low earth orbit satellite internet, with a constellation of roughly 8,000 satellites and about 5 million customers worldwide. Amazon launched Project Kuiper in 2019 with an aim to provide broadband internet from a constellation of more than 3,000 satellites. The company is working under a tight deadline imposed by the Federal Communications Commission that requires it to have about 1,600 satellites in orbit by the end of July 2026. Amazon's first two Kuiper launches came in April and June, sending 27 satellites each time aboard rockets supplied by United Launch Alliance. Assuming Wednesday's launch is a success, Amazon will have a total of 78 satellites in orbit. In order to meet the FCC's tight deadline, Amazon needs to rapidly manufacture and deploy satellites, securing a hefty amount of capacity from rocket providers. Kuiper has booked up to 83 launches, including three rides with SpaceX. Space has emerged as a battleground between Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, two of the world's richest men. Aside from Kuiper, Bezos also competes with Musk via his rocket company Blue Origin. Blue Origin in January sent up its massive New Glenn rocket for the first time, which is intended to rival SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 rockets. While Blue Origin currently trails SpaceX, Bezos last year predicted his latest venture will one day be bigger than Amazon, which he started in 1994. Kuiper has become one of Amazon's biggest bets, with more than $10 billion earmarked for the project. The company may need to spend as much as $23 billion to build its full constellation, analysts at Bank of America wrote in a note to clients last week. That figure doesn't include the cost of building terminals, which consumers will use to connect to the service. The analysts estimate Amazon is spending $150 million per launch this year, while satellite production costs are projected to total $1.1 billion by the fourth quarter. Amazon is going after a market that's expected to grow to at least $40 billion by 2030, the analysts wrote, citing estimates by Boston Consulting Group. The firm estimated that Amazon could generate $7.1 billion in sales from Kuiper by 2032 if it claims 30% of the market. "With Starlink's solid early growth, our estimates could be conservative," the analysts wrote.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's Why Ducommun (DCO) is a Great Momentum Stock to Buy
Momentum investing is all about the idea of following a stock's recent trend, which can be in either direction. In the "long context," investors will essentially be "buying high, but hoping to sell even higher." And for investors following this methodology, taking advantage of trends in a stock's price is key; once a stock establishes a course, it is more than likely to continue moving in that direction. The goal is that once a stock heads down a fixed path, it will lead to timely and profitable trades. Even though momentum is a popular stock characteristic, it can be tough to define. Debate surrounding which are the best and worst metrics to focus on is lengthy, but the Zacks Momentum Style Score, part of the Zacks Style Scores, helps address this issue for us. Below, we take a look at Ducommun (DCO), a company that currently holds a Momentum Style Score of A. We also talk about price change and earnings estimate revisions, two of the main aspects of the Momentum Style Score. It's also important to note that Style Scores work as a complement to the Zacks Rank, our stock rating system that has an impressive track record of outperformance. Ducommun currently has a Zacks Rank of #1 (Strong Buy). Our research shows that stocks rated Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and #2 (Buy) and Style Scores of "A or B" outperform the market over the following one-month period. You can see the current list of Zacks #1 Rank Stocks here >>> In order to see if DCO is a promising momentum pick, let's examine some Momentum Style elements to see if this aerospace industry supplier holds up. Looking at a stock's short-term price activity is a great way to gauge if it has momentum, since this can reflect both the current interest in a stock and if buyers or sellers have the upper hand at the moment. It is also useful to compare a security to its industry, as this can help investors pinpoint the top companies in a particular area. For DCO, shares are up 0.94% over the past week while the Zacks Aerospace - Defense Equipment industry is up 0.15% over the same time period. Shares are looking quite well from a longer time frame too, as the monthly price change of 13.92% compares favorably with the industry's 7.41% performance as well. Considering longer term price metrics, like performance over the last three months or year, can be advantageous as well. Shares of Ducommun have increased 60.02% over the past quarter, and have gained 46.68% in the last year. On the other hand, the S&P 500 has only moved 16.27% and 12.91%, respectively. Investors should also pay attention to DCO's average 20-day trading volume. Volume is a useful item in many ways, and the 20-day average establishes a good price-to-volume baseline; a rising stock with above average volume is generally a bullish sign, whereas a declining stock on above average volume is typically bearish. DCO is currently averaging 153,468 shares for the last 20 days. The Zacks Momentum Style Score encompasses many things, including estimate revisions and a stock's price movement. Investors should note that earnings estimates are also significant to the Zacks Rank, and a nice path here can be promising. We have recently been noticing this with DCO. Over the past two months, 1 earnings estimate moved higher compared to none lower for the full year. This revision helped boost DCO's consensus estimate, increasing from $3.65 to $3.68 in the past 60 days. Looking at the next fiscal year, 1 estimate has moved upwards while there have been no downward revisions in the same time period. Given these factors, it shouldn't be surprising that DCO is a #1 (Strong Buy) stock and boasts a Momentum Score of A. If you're looking for a fresh pick that's set to soar in the near-term, make sure to keep Ducommun on your short list. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Ducommun Incorporated (DCO) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
