An end to silly prices on eBay ?

May put them off? I used to have a eBay shop, with PayPal, and over a month I worked out just how much I was actually making after the fees (how often to people forget the final-value bit I wonder) and, how many forget this too, auctions that didn't go as well as hoped

- and it was pitiful.

In my line I see eBay "buinesses" selling parts at less than 20% markup *before* fees - they are in for a nasty surprise at year-end!

The original concept of eBay was fantastic, allowing people to get a few bob for old stuff that could have just sat and done nothing or been skipped, but for me it has lost it's way. The Mem has been selling the odd unwanted gift etc for years, but now doesn't bother, nothing is selling at the moment - perhaps thats why the fees are going up?

It would be nice if eBay could get back to where it was (no traders, no shops as such) and, most importantly, sell-off PayPal, as I strongly object to paying the same company twice for the same service, even if they pretend to be two sparate entities. Oh, and some protection for sellers against the "it didn't arrive/it was broken" merchants (I once rang a Post Office in remote Wales after one of these, and the post lady clearly remembered making the delivery - the claim was dropped!).

It's a shame - eBay was a good resource originaly.

There are other auction sites, but to date I've found all of them trying to be too clever with the technology, and/or worse, trying to hide actual costs, thus putting me off.

Just my 2p.

Cheers Richard

"beamendsltd" wrote

It will certainly make me think twice before putting anything on eBay in future, but do remember it's still a cheaper option than many ordinary auction houses, some of which screw the buyer as well as the seller.

Just wish I owned eBay - for sure I'd be happy with the millions which roll in each day. I'd be wanting to encourage its use rather than trying to screw every last penny out of my customers.

John.

beamendsltd said the following on 01/02/2008 08:19:

I have a load of model railway stuff to sell for someone at some point, but all the recent changes don't make me want to rush to put it on eBay. It is becoming so weighted in favour of the buyer that sellers *are* being put off. eBay are treating sellers as if they are all huge companies rather then Joe Bloggs flogging a few bits and pieces. The cry of "what about seller protection?" is being heard more and more lately. The attitude from eBay is that all sellers are corrupt are all buyers are saints. What many people would dearly love is DBR - Detailed Buyer Ratings - in the same way as we have this ludicrous star system to rate sellers. Even better, just scrap the star system.

Exactly. Recorded Delivery takes care of the "it didn't arrive" crowd though.

It was, once. Anyway, there's supposed to be an eBay strike between

Why don't you use signed for recorded delivery? Make this a prominent part of the advert and these type of criminals will see it's a waste of time biding on your item.

Alan

I've always used recorded delivery but the (unjustified) hikes in postal rates over the last few years have made it uneconomic to sell smaller items on eBay any more.

(kim)

A - it cost more! B - it still doesn't stop them. Two even claimed couriers handn't delivered, despite us having photo-copies of their signatures! And anyway, they just go to plan B - "it's broken". Photo's aren't reliable either - one had cleaned their old light unit until it shone like new - only they'd forgotten to clear out the guff from a screw head...

It simply isn't worth the candle! Curiously we never had such problems with stuff ordered from our own site - says something about eBayers I'm affraid.....

Cheers Richard

I do get rather peed off with the quoters of "percentage" this & that. A totally meaningless comparitor! Just how much is 40% of bugger all?

Ebay provides a good service which I could not get anywhere else.

Very few people have not paid me and slightly more have tried a rip off via P&P charges.

The cost of signed for makes a significant increase in the prices involved unless it is very high value. I buy stating that it is at my risk and sell giving people the option of paying for any delivery method they wish, otherwise by the most economic route.

EBay reflects the society in which we live and it looks pretty reasonable to me. Like any other company it has to react to charges levied by ever greedy governments and having been in business find myself sympathetic. An ordinary run of the mill auction house pockets far more without a fraction of the cost of running the web system including the demands of the police to identify / block / regulate etc the sale of undesirable / stolen / suspicious material.

Regards

Peter Abraham said the following on 01/02/2008 12:39:

They're about to change that if you're a seller. Have a look at the announcements and discussion forums.

From May, if a buyer does rip you off you won't be able to warn others because as a seller you won't be able to leave negative or neutral feedback to a buyer. They can leave these for you though, deservedly or not, knowing there's bugger all you can do about it. Also, if you're DSR ratings drop below 4.2 (i.e, your description can be accurate, your postage cost can be reasonable, your despatch time can be satisfactory and your communications can be satisfactory) then your listings will show up right at the bototm of the searches despite paying the same in fees. The principle of that is OK, but surely the cut-off point should be when sellers drop below average, not comfortably above average. (average being 2.5/5.0)

When selling, I often "self-insure" - i.e., I work on the basis that most people are fundamentally honest, but allow for the fact that I may get either a genuine lost parcel or a deceitful buyer once in a blue moon. Anything I send is either covered by RM, although the fact that they won't refund your postage is pretty despicable. As a buyer, if I see a listing where the seller is charging optional insurance, I make sure I pay by Paypal and don't opt for the extra insurance. Paypal already cover me for non-delivery, so why should I pay extra to the seller? Insurance is for the seller's protection, not the buyer's.

Anyway, I saw a comment on one of the boards that eBay have "done a Ratner". Seems very apt!

PayPal? I refuse to use it, and won't trade with any vendor who uses it. I've e-mailed all such that I've found, explaining why I won't trade with them. BTW, Paypal charged me a $5 "account set up fee" when I used it to pay for some shareware years ago. I've noticed that most on-line vendors either accept credit cards, or use a credit-card service. Good!

As you may have gathered, I don't buy on eBay. My daughter had a fit eBay frenzy about a year ago, but now she uses craigslist, which is for local adverts only, requires street addresses and telephone numbers, and leaves it up to the seller and buyer to arrange for payment, pickup, etc. IOW, a listing service only.

HTH

The reason I use recorded is not financial, it's purely to stop arguments.

(kim)

Unjustified hikes in postal rates? I suppose you have a complete set of the PO's operating account books, so that you can pinpoint exactly where they are overcharging you?

There are many who think the Post Office should be subsidised. I don't. The private courier companies charge more than the PO, and their profit margins are about equal to a pinch of coons**t. The biggies (FedEx, UPS, etc) can't afford to maintain their own fleets of trucks and their drivers any more. So they contract delivery to local package firms here, who deliver for all of them. Yet people expect the PO to charge less, which means taxes have to be injected, else the PO will go broke.

Anything over 2kg, longer than 1.2m is *way* cheaper (for traders) than the PO, and there's a far higher chance of it getting there intact.

Local contracing (franchising) has been the standard way for UK couriers, and works very well. Sadly our (now ex) courier, ANC, has been taken over by FedEx now.

I can't say I much care about the appearence of the trucks - if they are all shiney *someones* paying for that - guess who!

Cheers Richars

"Wolf K." wrote

It depends what you mean by the Post Office. If you mean the building which we used to have in most towns & villages at which you could buy stamps and hand over parcels for delivery, then yes I believe they should be subsidised. They're an important local facility which also pays out state benefits and pensions. Many are now being closed causing severe hardship to former users, mainly because the government have removed some of their former responsibilities (along with the revenue they generated).

If on the other hand you mean Royal Mail, then I'm not quite so sure, although the deregulation of postal services here in the UK allows other carriers to cherry pick which mail they will deliver and to where, whereas Royal Mail still have to deliver to every household in the UK including those on remote islands and other parts of the country and at a fixed standard rate.

The real irony is that those 'other carriers' are allowed to compete with Royal Mail when it suits them, but Royal Mail actually have to deliver the mail for these other carriers at a fixed rate determined by the government (I belive). They simply collect it from their corporate customers and hand it over to RM for onward transmission.

John.

kim said the following on 01/02/2008 13:55:

There is that. However, I've never had a real issue yet, although in a few cases I've decided to send Recorded after looking at the winner's feedback.

Anything much over a £15-£20 does go by some trackable means though. I don't want to self-insure that much!

I can't disagree with any of the above!

Cheers Richard

Ah, yes, this raises the question of Regulation. It seems obvious to me that for a market to work, everyone must compete under the same rules. And that means the government must regulate. IOW, if a private company wants to compete with the Royal Mail, it must provide the same services a the Royal Mail. Otherwise it is subsidised by the Royal Mail, which is wrong. -- Of course, I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. ;-)

OTOH, if the Royal Mail must deliver everywhere, then those services should be subsidised. If the gummint (that's us taxpayers) wants RM to do something, gummint (that's us taxpayers) should pay. But RM should have the option of providing the same services as the private companies, but subsidised at the same rate as its mandated services. There's no reason why it should have to charge more than the private couriers in order to cross-subsidise the mandated services. -- Of course, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, either. ;-)

HTH

"beamendsltd" wrote

Oh really? A little over a year ago I had to ship an O-gauge turntable (complete with the small baseboard in which it was located) to the Isle of Skye. I tried 4 different couriers and the cheapest was GBP45.00 with delivery within 7 days. Parcel Force charged a tenner and it was delivered within 48 hours - complete & undamaged!

John.

The only unjustified thing is the political meddling that prevents the Royal Mail from charging a price that would allow them to provide the service we want. First class mail is RIDICULOUSLY cheap these days when you consider what they manage to provide.

MBQ

It's like the "80%" increase in CGT when the chancellor announced the

It's 70p on top of the normal postage. Hardly "significant" for most things.

MBQ