DSR rant
Impmon
drive out casual and infrequent seller, pretty much the same way Walmart
usually killed local small stores by pricing everything cheaper in large
volume.
With high volume seller that can do 50's, 100's or more sales per day, a few
1 star review won't even cost a 0.1 star loss at all.
But for low volume sellers--
A friend of mine got suspended from eBay due to low DSR. The problem? 4
stars in shipping cost. The REAL problem? He's always offered free shipping
so how can he get rated down for *free* shipping? And it seems it took only
two 1-star rating to lower his DSR below 4 stars.
I lost 0.2 stars off my almost perfect 5-stars rating because of one hostile
buyer who never paid, never contacted, and was pissed off at me for the NPB
process I filed. I do an average of 10 auctions a month so a single 1-star
review can really hurt my rating a lot more than high volume seller. Too bad
eBay doesn't allow seller to leave anything but positive anymore, even after
completing NPB and getting buyer a strike, or I could have noted "buyer is
hostile, all sellers should beware"
Looks like once I go back to college I'll close eBay account and stick to
anything else but eBay for selling.
End rant
Impmon
>>anything else but eBay for selling.
>
> different accounts all selling less than 10 items per month. Selling
> on just one low volume account in the current ebay climate, I doubt
> you will last long enough to close it voluntarily.
I was never a power seller in the first place. I sell mostly odd and ends
such as hard to find game I find at garage sales, stuff I have that I no
longer need, and such. I figure I get about $200 a month (after eBay and
PayPal fees) selling junk so it's not a significant source of income.
Ignoramus11997
eBay has taken a turn for much worse, once sellers no longer could
leave negs to buyers. Numbers of deadbeats and otherwise abusive
buyers (such as those who pay for big items, do not pick up for
months, treating me as their warehouse), has skyrocketed for me.
The boneheaded "seller ratings" seem to accomplish only one purpose:
make ebay richer by forcing us to pay more in commissions due to free
shipping.
i
Ignoramus11997
> The cost of which are passed on to the buyer, of course, so all those
> people complaining are effectively demanding that sellers increase
> their prices so that they can pay more for their bits of tat. Whatever
> you might think about ebay, you have to admit that is a very good bit
> of social engineering on their part. Especially in a global recession
> when you would really expect buyers to be demanding lower prices, not
> higher ones.
And, of course, this "free shipping" scares away the most valuable
kinds of buyers: those who live nearby and want to pick up in
person. Those buyers pay in cash and often buy more stuff once they
show up.
The reason for insistence on free shipping is eBay's greed, which does
not even translate into increased revenues for them.
i
Ignoramus11997
>
>
>>On 2009-07-27, Spacker <spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> wrote:
>>> The cost of which are passed on to the buyer, of course, so all those
>>> people complaining are effectively demanding that sellers increase
>>> their prices so that they can pay more for their bits of tat. Whatever
>>> you might think about ebay, you have to admit that is a very good bit
>>> of social engineering on their part. Especially in a global recession
>>> when you would really expect buyers to be demanding lower prices, not
>>> higher ones.
>>
>>And, of course, this "free shipping" scares away the most valuable
>>kinds of buyers: those who live nearby and want to pick up in
>>person. Those buyers pay in cash and often buy more stuff once they
>>show up.
>
> them off would be a good thing from ebay's perspective.
Yep. The only thing they want, is to get a performance bonus this
quarter.
>>The reason for insistence on free shipping is eBay's greed, which does
>>not even translate into increased revenues for them.
>>
>>i
>
> But it does. It increases the listing fee, it increases the final
> value fee, and it increases the Paypal fee. The only loser is the
> buyer.
Eventually the buyers get smarter and go where they find better
bargains, like Craigslist. Craigslist is finally a place where I can
sell quite a bit of stuff -- last week I sold four welding machines
within several days.
i
Ignoramus11997
> it's unlikely they will be complaining now that they have it. Ebay has
> always been the most expensive site to buy new products, that hasn't
> put people off using it in the past.
I never demanded free postage, and enjoyed savings on local pickups.
i
DevilsPGD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> was claimed to have wrote:
>I used to like getting a big discount for paying by cheque, but that
>was soon ripped away from me and now I need to pay for Paypal fees
>even though I prefer safer ways to pay.
Nothing stops buyers and sellers from using cheques if you so desire,
the only restriction is that sellers can't advertise that they accept
cheques.
PeterD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> wrote:
>They can't give discounts either, so you still have to pay the Paypal
>fee even though you're not using Paypal.
Huh? Who has to pay? The seller? No, if the check is not processed
through them.
PeterD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> wrote:
>The buyer pays the Paypal fees, just like they pay the ebay seller
>fees and the cost of any free postage. They are all added onto the
>item price.
Sounds reasonable to me... Then again, in our socialist world
everything should be free, and no one should have to work.
Morton Davis
"Spacker" <spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> wrote in message
news:m4it65po6kobussci...@4ax.com...
> was soon ripped away from me and now I need to pay for Paypal fees
> even though I prefer safer ways to pay.
>
> consequence. It is what the rest of the herd will do that matters, and
> controlling the herd is the whole point of the exercise. When every
> seller has been bullied into having free postage, malcontent buyers
> won't really matter anyway.
>
I had no problem accepting checks and money orders and the odd buyer who
paid in cash. EBay owns PayPal so they make more money and we make less
because they've narrowed our potential buyers to just PayPal.
Still.Angrie
>>
> I had no problem accepting checks and money orders and the odd buyer who
> paid in cash. EBay owns PayPal so they make more money and we make less
> because they've narrowed our potential buyers to just PayPal.
>
>
Yeah, for a while I had some coupon organizers I was selling. I had
lots of little old lady handwriting on the checks I got, and a couple of
them mentioned that they bought from me specifically because they didn't
like giving their number out over the big scary internets.
I was done by the time eBay went Paypal only, but I remember reading
that less than 10% of their transactions were done with checks and money
orders by that time.
Still I wondered what economic genius thought it would be a good idea
to eliminate another 10% of their customer base when they were already
losing market share.
DevilsPGD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> was claimed to have wrote:
>People should only pay for costs they incur. If you are not paying
>with Paypal you should not have to pay the Paypal cost.
That's not how overhead generally works. When you shop at your local
grocery store, do you get a discount because you didn't break a glass
jar? Do you get a discount because you didn't put frozen items back
before abandoning a cart? Do you pay more because you took 1-2 minutes
longer fishing out bills and coins right down to the penny vs the guy
who had handed his credit card with his frequent shopper card and was
therefore 1-2 minutes faster?
While some smaller stores may be willing to accommodate such things, no
seller has any particular obligation to adjust their prices based on
what the buyer thinks might save the store money.
From a seller's point of view, you might save me a couple percentage in
fees by picking up and paying cash, but you also waste my time
negotiating for such, and forcing me to remain available at the
appointed time, so unless as transaction is exceptionally large, I'd
generally prefer to ship items, and as a result, I don't provide any
sort of discount, a local auction pickup still pays the auction total.
Shipping costs, since it's itemized, is obviously waived in this case.
DevilsPGD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD <Death...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>While some smaller stores may be willing to accommodate such things, no
>>seller has any particular obligation to adjust their prices based on
>>what the buyer thinks might save the store money.
>
>But they would have a choice to do so. If they wanted to give a
>discount for cash purchases, or charge an additional fee for paying
>with a credit card, they can do. They are not forced to charge cash
>payers a credit card fee if they do not want to.
Charging a credit card fee is actually generally prohibited, so I'm not
really sure who is forcing you to charge one anywhere, but whoever you
think is forcing such is likely violating their merchant account
agreement, and quite possibly violating the law.
Sellers are free to accept cheques if they want, and they're free to
accept cash too. Sellers are also free to apply whatever discount they
want to any particular transaction, although doing so on the basis of
payment method may well run afoul of merchant account restrictions
and/or the law in many areas, so I would encourage you to review local
law before proceeding.
That being said, eBay doesn't know or care if a buyer pays the right
number of dollars and cents when they do a local cash pickup, nor do
they inspect cheques.
You can also adjust the PayPal invoice as you see fit, nothing stops a
seller from accepting $25 on a $30 auction if they see fit even if the
payment goes through PayPal.
What isn't allowed is advertising that you accept paper payment methods.
>>From a seller's point of view, you might save me a couple percentage in
>>fees by picking up and paying cash, but you also waste my time
>>negotiating for such, and forcing me to remain available at the
>>appointed time, so unless as transaction is exceptionally large, I'd
>>generally prefer to ship items, and as a result, I don't provide any
>>sort of discount, a local auction pickup still pays the auction total.
>>Shipping costs, since it's itemized, is obviously waived in this case.
>
>And when shipping is "free", will you still be charging them the same
>as people who want it posting?
Yes, absolutely. I expect the number of dollars in the auction item
plus any applicable shipping and handling (if listed).
For shipping, I charge (at most) the actual shipping cost. If someone
wants the item delivered to my front door, my actual cost is usually $0,
so that's what I charge.
When I offer free shipping (which is something I do fairly frequently),
I also don't offer a discount to buyers who end up costing me less based
on their location, nor do I apply a surcharge to those that cost me
more.
The only real exception is items listed as flat rate shipping, in which
case I normally allow a free pick-up. I rarely list things as flat-rate
though, I usually build it into the starting price and list it as free
shipping.
DevilsPGD
Has anyone done any stats to see what percentage of customers left, vs
those that just switched to PayPal?
Even if some percentage of customers did leave, it's quote possible that
the additional revenue generated by those that moved to PayPal off-set
the loss of sales by those that stopped selling entirely.
Without seeing any numbers, it's really tough to even make an educated
guess here.
PeterD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> wrote:
>People should only pay for costs they incur. If you are not paying
>with Paypal you should not have to pay the Paypal cost.
OK, but I'd have to charge you for the cost to custom compute the
prices based on payment methods, risk involved, and such. The
difference should come out to be about...
The same!
Still.Angrie
> PeterD <pet...@hipson.net> wrote:
>> OK, but I'd have to charge you for the cost to custom compute the
>> prices based on payment methods, risk involved, and such. The
>> difference should come out to be about...
>>
>> The same!
>
> You would have already made those calculations when you set your
> prices, so it would be a simple matter of deducting the ones that
> weren't relevant.
It's you and me, Spacker. This topic has been alive ever since Paypal
came along, and it always amazes me that people don't seem to support
choice.
I say let sellers do it anyway they want, and let the market decide.
It would almost be amusing to see the so many free-thinkers support the
evil corporate big banking lobby positions, if it didn't cost us all so
much.
Still.Angrie
>
> Has anyone done any stats to see what percentage of customers left, vs
> those that just switched to PayPal?
>
> Even if some percentage of customers did leave, it's quote possible that
> the additional revenue generated by those that moved to PayPal off-set
> the loss of sales by those that stopped selling entirely.
>
> Without seeing any numbers, it's really tough to even make an educated
> guess here.
I don't read their annual reports, so I don't know. It really didn't
occur to me that they might have lost any any significant number of
sellers because of the shift to Paypal only. I would assume that
sellers leave primarily because of higher fees, and eBay's trend to
volume discounts would seem to support that.
I also can't imagine that a significant percentage of buyers who had
resisted Paypal for so long would make the switch. Taking away the
buyer's perceived security blanket rarely makes the buyer feel more secure.
What did cross my mind is that perhaps there were scams involving stolen
bank account numbers that eBay didn't openly discuss. I know it can
happen, and just because it didn't happen to me doesn't mean I refuse to
believe it can happen.
I'm sure the fraud department at eBay has stories that would astound
even the most seasoned veterans.
Timo Geusch
> Charging a credit card fee is actually generally prohibited,
Says who?
DevilsPGD
Says most merchant accounts.
Visa prohibits convenience fees on face-to-face transactions, and
additionally, only allows fees charged for an alternate payment channel
outside the merchant's normal business practice (so if you sell
primarily online, you can't charge a convenience fee for all
transactions)
Additionally, said fees are only allowed if they are "assessed by the
merchant that provides goods and services to the cardholder and not by a
third party"
For Mastercard, "a Merchant may provide a discount to its customers for
cash payments. A Merchant is permitted to charge a fee (such as a bona
fide commission, postage, expedited service or convenience fees, and the
like) if the fee is imposed on all like transactions regardless of the
form of payment used", so again, a fee is prohibited.
For Discover, they simply require that the fee not be any higher then
any other payment method.
Amex simply requires that fees assessed are equal regardless of payment
method, without a clause explicitly permitting cash discounts, but
neither is it explicitly forbidden.
PayPal's user agreement prohibits adding a PayPal surcharge.
Beyond the above, local law may place additional restrictions on you.
ZZ
news:mvj275dfu5udlndhr...@4ax.com...
> In message <xn0gd9j6...@nermal.unix-consult.com> "Timo Geusch"
> <tnewsSP...@unixconsult.co.uk> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>DevilsPGD wrote:
>>
>>> Charging a credit card fee is actually generally prohibited,
>>
>>Says who?
>
> Says most merchant accounts.
Aye but you are in the USA and one of the groups you are crossposting to is
the UK Ebay group - which is where all your replies are coming from. In the
UK, under EU law, merchnats have a legal right to pass on surcharges imposed
by credit card companies to their customers which I believe is not the case
where you are in the USA.
That's the trouble with crossposting to multiple newsgroups intended for
countries other than your own. If you are going to make sweeping statements
maybe you should do some research first - or just not crosspost (as it is
considered bad form).
--
Timo Geusch
> "DevilsPGD" <Death...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
> news:mvj275dfu5udlndhr...@4ax.com... >In message
> <xn0gd9j6...@nermal.unix-consult.com> "Timo Geusch"
> ><tnewsSP...@unixconsult.co.uk> was claimed to have wrote:
> >
> > > DevilsPGD wrote:
> > >
> > > > Charging a credit card fee is actually generally prohibited,
> > >
> > > Says who?
> >
> > Says most merchant accounts.
>
>
> Aye but you are in the USA and one of the groups you are crossposting
> to is the UK Ebay group - which is where all your replies are coming
> from. In the UK, under EU law, merchnats have a legal right to pass
> on surcharges imposed by credit card companies to their customers
> which I believe is not the case where you are in the USA.
*ding*
Otherwise the likes of Ikea wouldn't be able to ask you to pay a
surcharge when paying by credit card.
Fran
"Timo Geusch" <tnewsSP...@unixconsult.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0gd9n3...@nermal.unix-consult.com...
It's how Ryanair make their money, eh?
The Older Gentleman
> Aye but you are in the USA and one of the groups you are crossposting to is
> the UK Ebay group - which is where all your replies are coming from.
So he's another dimwit Septic eBayer? Figures.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
petrolcan
totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> ZZ <z...@zz.org> wrote:
>
> > Aye but you are in the USA and one of the groups you are crossposting to is
> > the UK Ebay group - which is where all your replies are coming from.
>
> So he's another dimwit Septic eBayer? Figures.
Careful, someone is bound to call you a racist.
The Older Gentleman
> > So he's another dimwit Septic eBayer? Figures.
>
> Careful, someone is bound to call you a racist.
Only a total fuckwit. Oh, hang about: plenty of those on upce. And
plenty in the US.
Still.Angrie
It's a USA thing. Carry on!
Still.Angrie
> "Still.Angrie" <notmyr...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You will find that they are more than happy for ebay to victimise
> other minorities, but when they are on the receiving end it is a
> completely different story.
>
> Someone here not so long ago was complaining about sellers charging
> for packaging and handling as well as the cost of the stamp, but you
> should have seen his rant when one of the things he sells was
> converted to a free postage category.
Exactly. If it's better to sell widgets with free postage, then the
widgets will migrate to that model naturally.
I don't know if "victimise" is the right word, because it is eBay's ame.
Micromanage though - I'll go for that. It's a shame!. eBay had the
purest market model the world has seen, and they muck it up more every
time they add a new rule or two.
But I hadn't heard that some categories were free shipping only now.
That's incredible.
ZZ
> As someone that buys books and records I certainly feel victimised now
> that both of those categories are going to be free postage. That is
> going to lead to a massive increase to the prices I have to pay.
No you won't *have* to pay those prices at all. No-one is forcing you to buy
from Ebay sellers. If you don't want to pay the prices you are totally free
to buy from elsewhere.
RobertL
> The REAL problem? He's always offered free shipping
> so how can he get rated down for *free* shipping?
Free shipping can still be late, poorly wrapped, missing customs
decarlations etc.
Roebrt
R. Totale
<notmyr...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>Exactly. If it's better to sell widgets with free postage, then the
>widgets will migrate to that model naturally.
In my case, about two years back before there was any inducement from
eBay (like higher search rankings) offered for free shipping, I
experimented on a reduced price listing day, raised all the prices $5
and offered free shipping. Stuff flew off the shelves, even to foreign
buyers who didn't even get the free shipping. "Frick 'em", thought I,
"if they want to give up multi-item shipping discounts to maintain the
illusion of free shipping, that's what they'll get". I've done it ever
since.
>But I hadn't heard that some categories were free shipping only now.
>That's incredible.
That sounds pretty unban-legendy to me. I watch eBay announcements
pretty carefully, and if they're enforcing free shipping in any US
categories I haven't heard about it. Specifically, for media items
(books/music/movies) they want to match the Amazon experience, so
they've required that the seller offer at least one domestic shipping
cost equivalent to Amazon shipping prices ($4 max), and even then the
seller can break that restriction (for lots or heavy items, for
example) by including a shipping calculator.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
ZZ
> being sold.
What about Waterstones (you can order if it isn't in stock) or other book
shops? or amazon? or specialist book selling websites?
DevilsPGD
<ef38c054-17f5-4e1d...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
None of which impacts the *shipping cost*, there are other DSRs that
would come into play.
Personally, I think eBay should use the DSR which can be monitored
automatically as an "IQ test" for buyers; if buyers consistently rate
anything less then 5-stars for sellers offering free shipping, or less
then 4 stars for an item where the seller logged a tracking number AND
shipped within 1 business day of payment (along with an on-time delivery
by the carrier), then all of that buyer's DSRs should be disregarded as
unreliable.
R. Totale
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> wrote:
>R. Totale <slang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:54:01 -0400, "Still.Angrie"
>><notmyr...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly. If it's better to sell widgets with free postage, then the
>>>widgets will migrate to that model naturally.
>>
>>In my case, about two years back before there was any inducement from
>>eBay (like higher search rankings) offered for free shipping, I
>>experimented on a reduced price listing day, raised all the prices $5
>>and offered free shipping. Stuff flew off the shelves, even to foreign
>>buyers who didn't even get the free shipping. "Frick 'em", thought I,
>>"if they want to give up multi-item shipping discounts to maintain the
>>illusion of free shipping, that's what they'll get". I've done it ever
>>since.
>>
>>>But I hadn't heard that some categories were free shipping only now.
>>>That's incredible.
>>
>>That sounds pretty unban-legendy to me. I watch eBay announcements
>>pretty carefully, and if they're enforcing free shipping in any US
>>categories I haven't heard about it. Specifically, for media items
>>(books/music/movies) they want to match the Amazon experience, so
>>they've required that the seller offer at least one domestic shipping
>>cost equivalent to Amazon shipping prices ($4 max), and even then the
>>seller can break that restriction (for lots or heavy items, for
>>example) by including a shipping calculator.
>
>Not sure where it is on .com, but it was announced there a day before
>the .uk announcement.
>http://pages.ebay.co.uk/sell/sellerupdate/freeshipping.html
Nah, that's the sort of crap they can only get away with UK sellers.
There's no matching US announcement, or if there is I certainly can't
find it and would love to be corrected.
Still.Angrie
>
> It's not just books, it's all "media" items, which includes records,
> tapes, CDs, videos, etc. All the sort of stuff people would put up for
> 99p or less because it won't cost them a listing fee. All that stuff
> will be gone, nobody's going to list car boot shite at 20p a go every
> time it doesn't sell if that is what ebay is thinking.
So the UK site doesn't charge a listing fee for low starting price items?
Impmon
>>I've bought a lot of books via ebay and now, if sellers have to offer
>>free shipping, they simply won't list them at all. Ironically, I've
>>always paid the going rate to get a book posted to here and I'm not
>>interested in 'free' shipping as it wouldn't affect me.
>>What a bunch of up-their-own-arses shitheads they are.
>
> It's not just books, it's all "media" items, which includes records,
> tapes, CDs, videos, etc. All the sort of stuff people would put up for
> 99p or less because it won't cost them a listing fee. All that stuff
> will be gone, nobody's going to list car boot shite at 20p a go every
> time it doesn't sell if that is what ebay is thinking.
I wonder how throughly eBay tested the free postage service. A widget
listed with $1 buy it now and $5 shipping vs widget with $7.50 bin and free
shipping, if the $1 widget with shipping sells less then free shipping seems
to work even though buyer ends up paying more. OTOH if the cheaper ones
sells than those with free shipping, eBay needs to recheck their research.
I'm still quitting as eBay seller when the summer ends. I make more money
mowing lawn (no fees) than selling on eBay (with all those fees)
ZZ
news:h55aba$a8i$1...@aioe.org...
Not for personal Ebay accounts - though the final value fees are very high
for personal accounts which basically make it more expensive in the end if
anything sells.
Still.Angrie
>
> I wonder how throughly eBay tested the free postage service. A widget
> listed with $1 buy it now and $5 shipping vs widget with $7.50 bin and
> free shipping, if the $1 widget with shipping sells less then free
> shipping seems to work even though buyer ends up paying more. OTOH if
> the cheaper ones sells than those with free shipping, eBay needs to
> recheck their research.
I don't doubt eBay's ability to conduct research. What I don't
understand is the way they respond to it by using it as rationale to
further restrict their market.
ZZ
No the US site doesn't have that. Nor does it have enforced free P&P in any
categories. They test things like that out on us Brits because we are so
fucking easy going as a general populace.
Kris Baker
> choose from, so they will all be �7.50. Then they will tell foreign
> buyers that they are being ripped off, so they will all want free
> postage too. Then when ebay makes worldwide postage free everyone will
> be happy.
And they're preventing sellers from using the shipping calculator?
When did that start?
Kris
Still.Angrie
Unless they brought them back in the past couple of years, no. We do
get 5 free listings per month, but the FVF fee is higher, which means
the deal is only a value below and above certain price points.
Still.Angrie
> are being ripped off if they pay more than stamp value for post? If
> they say to buyers "do you think postage should be free" it is obvious
> what answer they will get. If they said "do you want to pay an average
> 15 to 20% extra for your items" they would have got a different
> answer.
That's what I mean, really. That debate was always raging...whether
sellers should charge extra for S&H. I could understand eBay looking at
that and adding a search function to give buyers the ability to
screen sellers for that particular criteria.
I don't know why they feel they have to pick sides.
Well, yeah, I do actually. They make more money if shipping is built
in, unless they've revamped that too. But even Amazon doesn't have
free shipping.
Still.Angrie
>>>>
>>> Do they still have free listing days?
>> Unless they brought them back in the past couple of years, no. We do
>> get 5 free listings per month, but the FVF fee is higher, which means
>> the deal is only a value below and above certain price points.
>
Don't be surprised if somebody chimes in here to correct me, because I'm
playing eBay catch-up after a few years' hiatus. But I think the
answer is Yes.
Still.Angrie
>
> Is there anything to stop you from having 30 different ebay accounts
> and listing 5 things per day?
LOL! I don't know!
R. Totale
I have two eBay selling accounts and take my five free listings on
both without any problem. I could probably get five more out of
my buying account, if I was so inclined.
DevilsPGD
<spa...@cuntybollocks.cum> was claimed to have wrote:
>Is there anything to stop you from having 30 different ebay accounts
>and listing 5 things per day?
Other then the high FVFs, not a thing.