posted on July 30, 2001 07:06:47 AM new
But if the increase in listings was the result of new sellers, perhaps attracted by the recent $1-SALE, then the sell-through rate is shared by a larger population of sellers and each of them now has a smaller slice of the pie.
posted on July 30, 2001 07:15:11 AM new
If you have more listings and a higher sell through rate, the pie may have actually gotten bigger. Can you prove that the slice of the pie for each is lower?
For the week ending July 18 there were 9,126 sales including 1,091 that were gallery sales and 646 that were featured sales. So the non-gallery and non-feature sales were 7,389.
For the week ending July 25 there were 10,935 sales including 733 that were gallery sales and 383 that were featured sales. So the non-gallery and non-feature sales were 9,819.
With me so far?
Now the "raw" data shows a gain in sales of 1,809 (that's 10,935 minus 9,126) week-to-week; the "non-gallery and non-feature" shows a gain in sales of 2,430 (that's 9,819 minus 7,389) week-to-week.
So the biggest sales gain occurred in the "non-gallery and non-feature" auctions.
Still with me?
The trend at Bidville has been a disproportionate increase in sportscards relative to all other categories.
Even right now, Bidville has 697,182 listings of which there are 367,500 sportcards listings, or 52.7%.
Since sportscards are not likely to be in the gallery or featured, it follows that a disproportionate number of sales were also sportscards.
So I have to conclude that most of the sales increase was sportscards, and since there were 2,430 sales, we're probably only looking at a few hundred dollars worth of stuff that's reflected in the week-to-week increase in the sell-through rate.
posted on July 30, 2001 08:01:25 AM new
Yes, I'm still with you, though I do see sportscards in the featured items. What I don't see is how that proves your claim.
I'm not really trying to impress you, I'm just posted that Bidville's sell through rate was up.
posted on July 30, 2001 11:16:52 AM new
For the week ending July 25 there were 10,935 sales including 733 that were gallery sales and 383 that were featured sales. So the non-gallery and non-feature sales were 9,819.
Well thats 10,935 sales eBay dident get, and over $3,000 in insertion fees eBay dident get not counting FVF. Pretty impressive to me considering bidville is so small. Should pick up as the fall season approaches.
posted on July 30, 2001 02:03:19 PM new
Impressive What part Of a 1% sell through rate of you Low end Items is impressive ????
all these sports cards seller soon will have to pay to have there cards up or go with out pictures for there items when 48% or 50% of bidvilles listing disapear and they have 10,000 sales Of medium to high end items then they will be impressive. http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
posted on July 31, 2001 06:06:49 AM new
Consider this.
Bidville worked out a reasonable business model. As a private company, not beholden to shareholders, the advertisement revenue stream might have been sufficient from lots of pageviews on high-quality items, resulting in a high sell-through rate.
But then the inventory warehousers showed up, dumping tens of thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of low-quality items that get few pageviews, resulting in a low sell-through rate.
posted on July 31, 2001 06:23:59 AM new
I still don't buy your "low quality warehouse" idea. That has been debated in another thread, and if you really make a practice out of not relisting items that don't sell the first time, please feel free to send the inventory to me.
posted on July 31, 2001 06:44:25 AM new
If spreading negativity about something is your idea of fun, you probably need more than gyrating smiley faces.
posted on July 31, 2001 07:04:32 AM new
It's like the Crazy Dayz sale...I see that sale will be continuing til August 15th, at least. Thought it was supposed to end today?
posted on July 31, 2001 07:19:10 AM new
The CRAZY DAYZ sale is ending today as far as I know. The logo is already gone from ePier's homepage. Do you have a link or pointer to information that its been extended?
Not that it will matter. I noted in another thread that the CRAZY DAYZ sale, after peaking on July 24, fizzled.
Would you please elaborate on Bidville's reasonable business model. I am sure that all of us who sell on Bidville would be interested in knowing that information since we are the ones that destroyed it. Please detail the contents of this business model so that we are all educated.
[ edited by stavecards on Jul 31, 2001 08:27 AM ]
posted on July 31, 2001 08:32:25 AM new
Does it seem reasonable that Bidville worked out a business model prior to launching the auctionsite? I do.
Does it seem reasonable that Bidville's business model relied on two sources of revenue: advertisement banners and the sale of features and Premier and Premier Plus Memberships? I do.
Does it seem reasonable that Bidville is not generating meaningful advertisement banner revenue due to few pageviews of the listed auctions? I do.
Does it seem reasonable that, in the absense of advertisement banner revenue, Bidville has modified its business model and implemented mandatory Premier and Premier Plus membership in order to fully utilize image hosting to make up the shortfall? I do.
posted on July 31, 2001 08:52:04 AM new
Ahhhhh... back to AW and I see the negativity is back. Some people are just never happy. I swear... they say they want to be rid of warehousing and relists on BidVille, and when steps are taken that will do just that they step up and the bashing begins all over again. I'd like to know how many people have left eBay with every little charge that's been added, and there have been plenty.
It seems foolhardy to run to the boards to nit pick something that is still in the process of unfolding, especially when it has been said time and again... If BidVille would just do this or that and follow MY business plan, they'd be okay. The only business model I see being tossed about is based on the biggest money hungry site around.
The intent of the bashers is crystal clear, however I think MOST readers of these threads are the bashers themselves who seem to fill their empty days trying to destroy small sites that may become a threat in the future. I guess things are slow at eBay and this is all you have to fill your time. So be it... but beware the old threads and statements made therein. You may find that you are contradicting yourselves publicly and will eventually receive another AW slap on the wrist when things get loud.
posted on July 31, 2001 09:25:25 AM new
Welcome back mscuff, knew you couldn't stay away. To say BV is a possible threat to ebay is rich. I see you still have that great sense of humor.
As to the business model of BV. My thoughts are this. Yahoo made it's listing fee 'error of the century' and a lot of people saw a huge opprotunity in the huge number of orphaned Yahoo auctions. Funny that Epier and AuxPal/Bidville and a bunch of others appeared in January? BV was created to exploit the error by Yahoo, plain and simple and they were the most successful at attracting the orphans. Free image hosting, no listing fees, 99 relists, free-for-life listings, etc. all were the proper enticements that a refugee orphan wanted to hear. Except for one thing, Yahoo was right in it's business model because the orphans where never going to make any money for them. Like a person throwing out a broken down appliance in an alley, there's always someone that thinks they can fix it and make it work. This appliance is shot and unrepairable.
Bidsbids the problem with your theory is that Yahoo did not lose most of its good Sellers when they instituted fee's... they accomplished that by failing miserably in the CS dept. Most of those good Sellers probably ended up at BV, and a lot of Buyers followed them over.
If BidVille is not a threat to anyone why is it we see the saaaaaame people rushing into each BV thread to bad-mouth those simply sharing their positive experiences at BidVille.
I thought you renounced being a BidVille Basher?
Again...
You really need to
GettaLife
[ edited by GettaLife on Jul 31, 2001 09:39 AM ]
