posted on July 31, 2001 09:53:24 AM new
So if the sellers didn't go to BV, where did they go? They must not have gone to ePier either, ePier has the same sell through rate as BV. Did they all go back to ebay?
I am glad that you did respond to my question. My problem with your post on the business plan is that you worded it as if you were stating facts that were issued by Bidville. As you answer shows, these were merely your opinions.
Yes, it is possible to come to your conclusions if you wish to prove a particular opinon as factual. However since none of us are Bidville management, we are all expressing opinons and speculating that they are factual.
I would like to respond to your opinions with my opinions. These are based on your answer, your post, and your viewpoint which you have made abundantly clear on the AW boards. These are my opinions and I do not have the audacity to represent them as facts.
I developed these opinions based on the assumption that Bidville (or Auxpal as the site was originally named) was developed with a rational business plan. This may or may not be true as many small businesses are started without a clear cut business plan.
Your opinion #1 - Does it seem reasonable that Bidville worked out a business model prior to launching the auctionsite? I do.
Yes, I would hope that Bidville was started with a business plan prior to launching. However it also reasonable to assume that this plan may not have been implemented. Since it was the intention of the Bidville (then AuxPal) founder to form a partnership with PayPal, the original business plan may have been scrapped. Also, business plans are just that - plans. Business realities force most to be altered - sometimes drastically.
Your opinion #2 - 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.
Since advertisement banners and sale of features were the only obvious sources of income when I joined in January, it is reasonable that these were part of the plan. Premier memberships were added later so it is not clear if these were part of the original plan. However, I believe that a key source of planned income was lost when the partnership with PayPal never materialized.
Your opinion #3 - Does it seem reasonable that Bidville is not generating meaningful advertisement banner revenue due to few pageviews of the listed auctions? I do.
Is Bidville generating the advertising dollars that were intended in its plan? It would be hard to know and your assumption is not necessarily reasonable. Just because they have added Premier memberships and now the latest change to require this membership for hosting more than 20 pics per month doesn't necessarily mean that they are not generating the advertising dollars that were intended. This may be a reaction to a loss of income from the failed partnership with PayPal. Your opinion looks like it is based on your belief that it should be a limited item site which would generate many pageviews per item. Since the site was started as a general item site with no listing fees, it is hard to believe that the founders intended it to be a limited item site as you state. If they wanted to be a limited item site, I believe that they would have started the site with some combination of listing fees, FVF, membership fees, limits on # of auctions per seller, minimum bid requirements, etc. How could a site be selective without any mechanism to limit the type and number of items posted.
Your opinion #4 - 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.
First, you state the absence of advertisement banner revenue as a fact. Is it? Are you privy to Bidville's financial statements? Since I believe that you are not privy, it is not reasonable to assume that Bidville is not generating the intended advertising revenue. It may well be generating or exceeding the intended revenue or it may not be meeting those goals. We do not know the answer. I believe that there are also other reasonable reasons for implementing the latest change. First, the number of current Premier memberships may not have met planned objectives. Secondly, the site most likely has significantly more listings than they intended in their plan. I don't think they could have foreseen the Yahoo listing fee decision which drove many sellers to Bidville. The number of pictures being hosted may likely be taxing the server capacity of the system and there was a need to limit or reduce the number of pictures or generate additional income to increase server capacity. Also since a change to allow increased size of pictures has been implemented, a decrease in pictures (or more money to pay for additonal server capacity) may have required to implement the change.
Again these are my opinions and are also based on reasonable assumptions, but are not
posted on July 31, 2001 11:07:44 AM new
stavecards >
Since it was the intention of the Bidville (then AuxPal) founder to form a partnership with PayPal, the original business plan may have been scrapped However, I believe that a key source of planned income was lost when the partnership with PayPal never materialized.
I think that if the partnership with PayPal proceeded, Bidville would have been an immediate failure. Folks would not have signed-up because they would not have wanted to provide their PayPal userID and password to a third party. I myself did not sign-up until that requirement was removed.
Since the site was started as a general item site with no listing fees, it is hard to believe that the founders intended it to be a limited item site as you state.
So having 700,000 listings would be a "positive?" If this was part of the plan, and planned for, then there is no need for mandatory Premier and Premier Plus memberships for image hosting.
I find it hard to believe that Bidville's business model envisioned the site would have 700,000 listings attracting few pageviews, and resulting in 690,000 relistings the following week, week after week.
First, you state the absence of advertisement banner revenue as a fact. Is it? Are you privy to Bidville's financial statements? Since I believe that you are not privy, it is not reasonable to assume that Bidville is not generating the intended advertising revenue. It may well be generating or exceeding the intended revenue or it may not be meeting those goals.
Very few pageviews, which likely "pay" a penny or two per click.
GettaLife >
Why.... no thank you dimview. I'd actually prefer to tell you to... GettaLife
WOW! Such a cogent contribution.
Fact of the matter is, a 1.5% sell-through rate translates to pathetic sales for the majority of Bidville auction sellers who, unless they literally have several thousand listings, don't even generate sales of $5, let alone $10, a month.
What we don't know is how many auction sellers are currently using Bidville's image hosting, but we're sure going to find out starting tomorrow. The trend is pointing down though, as Bidville has lost something approaching 10,000 listings already.
We might be needing some FLUFF sometime tomorrow morning.
Though I don't disagree that the PayPal partnership might have been a failure, my reason for stating it was not to debate the merits of it. My opinion is that this was the key component of the original business plan for Bidville/AuxPal, not advertising or feature revenue. I think it would have been a poor plan if they were relying on advertising revenue given the freefall that internet advertising revenue was in at the time.
As for your reply on the number of listings, at no time did I state this was a positive. I would appreciate it if you would not make up opinions for me. I only restated your opinions or statements that you have made in this or other threads. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
Personally, I do not see the 700,000 listings as a positive other than a sign that it has attracted many sellers. I believe that this many listings has taxed the ability of the site to maintain the system. I do agree that the founders would not have envisioned this in their business plan. As I stated, I believe that it happened due to the timing of its launch and the Yahoo listing fee decision. If the Yahoo listing fee decision had not occurred, I believe that Bidville would have only a fraction of its current listings. My opinion, which you overlooked, is that Bidville was not started to be a limited item site. As I stated, to limit the type or number of items would have required some sort of natural limiters, such as listing fees or restrictions on # of auctions. Since the site was started with no such limiters, it is my opinion that the founders did want a site which would attract as many listings as possible. I just don't think they could have predicted that they would get this many listings this quickly.
posted on July 31, 2001 01:24:55 PM new
stavecards >
it is my opinion that the founders did want a site which would attract as many listings as possible.
Agreed. And *that*, in my opinion, is exactly why Bidville is where it is today, flooded with items that attract few pageviews and even fewer bidders.
posted on July 31, 2001 01:54:46 PM newImpressive What part Of a 1% sell through rate of you Low end Items is impressive ????
I have to agree with Dman on that one. That's not bashing. Last time I looked Bidville had two bids in the category where I sell, bids of $1 and $2, out of 170 some items. I just don't see any reason to list items there.
Yahoo was right in it's business model because the orphans where never going to make any money for them.
I would disagree with that. Arguably, Yahoo could have become a real competitor for eBay. If they had used FVFs instead of a flat listing fee they might still be in the game. Yahoo was desperate for cash, and they made a bad mistake.
I notice, not specific to Bidville, but many users seem to flock to these new sites like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Last week it was Gegy. This week it's Carnaby. I just don't get all this pom-pom waving. I can't keep up with all the "flavor of the month" free sites that have once been the object of seller loyalty. Ever since Gold's was supposed to be the sellers' salvation, I have tuned out that kind of discussion.
If you like Bidville, stick with it. IMO, a 1% sell through rate is not great, so I can do without the cheerleading.
One last question (at least maybe) that I have for you is why does the Bidville site bother you so much? This is not a question asked to get in an argument, but just a curiousity. It is a private business site and any current seller is there by their own choice. I just wonder why you must occupy most threads on Bidville with several posts with basically the same theme?
posted on July 31, 2001 04:35:21 PM new
It was so quiet here after the moderators threw off MsCuff. Then she came back under another name. Then she added Cuff to her posts. I guess AW is all bark and no bite.
posted on July 31, 2001 04:36:41 PM new
Bidville doesn't "bother" me the least, but it has been an interesting series of developments hasn't it? Certainly worthy of commenting on, don't you think? And we wouldn't want folks to be misled about what to expect should they decide to list there, now would we?
posted on July 31, 2001 04:42:15 PM new
bidsbids >
It was so quiet here after the moderators threw off MsCuff. Then she came back under another name. Then she added Cuff to her posts.
See, I said it was "an interesting series of developments."
Let me rephrase my question since you are using one word to avoid giving a straight answer (again this is my opinion).
Why do you post several times on most threads about Bidville's sell-through rate? Most of the posts would be viewed as critical by a neutral person. I don't view the numerous posts as necessary for an intelligent discussion of facts.
You state that you don't want anyone to be misled. If this is your answer, it insults the intelligence of everyone on this board as they would be able to ascertain the facts with one or two posts by you.
posted on July 31, 2001 05:05:44 PM new
Dim? Was it necessary to start another thread aimed at BidVille? How many more will there be by morning? Will you stay up all night posting thread, after negative thread hoping to somehow strengthen your position? Are you going to repeat yourself and begin clogging up AW with BidVille threads and make it difficult for all the other small sites to get their fair share of the attention at AW?
BidsBids, I was suspended for 30 days by AW. I was not deleted. I requested my acct be cancelled and then returned at my own liesurely pace. Gotta problem with that?
I watched the boards for a while and saw a short period of time where dim stopped directly attacking BV. Well, I guess the auctions are slow again, or someone dared to speak anything positive about BV because she's back in full gear and it ain't pretty.
Bids... you seem to have placed your own integrity at question. The last time I saw you you'd thrown in your BidVille Basher's Badge and renounced all things Dimviewian. You have obviously lost your way again.
To the Moderator: It sounds as though you have been issued a challenge by bidsbids. You don't get any respect either, do ya?!
posted on July 31, 2001 05:10:32 PM new
Another one of the "interesting developments" is that, in addition to Bidville, I comment on Bargain and Haggle, Carnaby, ePier, eHammer, SnapRat, SellYourItem, Yahoo and perhaps a few more, yet here's one, two or three people all upset and pointing to my comments regarding Bidville.
I enjoy playing around with the numbers (mentioned several times already), and definitely prefer discussing the numbers to the fluff (in my opinion) that appears here from time to time, or the drivel (in my opinion) that appears elsewhere.
I have no problem passing over threads that do not interest me, or reading threads without commenting on them, and do not understand why others find that so difficult.
posted on July 31, 2001 07:45:38 PM new
The problem with dimview is that he uses 2nd grade math and 5th grade logic. Anyone who has run a successful business knows that business almost NEVER goes according to plan. Dimview seems to think that all this has been planned by Bidville. I'm willing to bet otherwise.
So did eBay have this all planned out too? Hardly. I heard they first started out by being a community to distribute Pez machines.
Let's just wait and see. Personally, I don't think we'll see the "doomsday" dimview seems to want. Most people sellers will either discontinue pics or sign up with the membership. Either way, I expect Bidville to hit 1,000,000 items by year end.
posted on July 31, 2001 08:07:00 PM new
daredevil2010,
Your comment about dimview could be viewed as insulting and it is a personal comment right after I gave a nudge to the entire thread about such comments.
Your posting privileges will be in jeopardy should you continue to post in that manner.
Joice
[email protected]
[ edited by joice on Jul 31, 2001 08:11 PM ]
posted on July 31, 2001 08:15:28 PM new
My posting priv. are in jeopardy?!?
NOOOOO. What will I do? Anything but this.
Give me a break. I never understood why Auctionwatch makes these lame attacks. Who cares if their posting rights are removed. I can either make a new username or just leave. Most likely I would just leave... which would be counter productive to AuctionWatch.
"Big Sister" do what you want. I really don't care. Can I help it that dimview seems to have the education of a 5th grader?
posted on August 1, 2001 04:36:32 AM new
Dimview, I think the point everyone's trying to make is that your opinions are very biased against Bidville. Your comments on the other boards (epier in particular) are usually biased the other way. Take, for example, your comment about BV's $1 sale still continuing. Yet, you did not mention the fact that many users at epier had "CRAZY DAYZ" listings continuing well past the end date of that sale.
It's great that you provide numbers, as long as they're provided objectively.
Everyone here is trying to run a business, I think. You won't see my slamming one auction site over another because I don't think it's very professional, or fun for that matter.
