posted on December 20, 2000 08:26:15 AM new
mrpotatoheadd ... good point. I guess if the amount you need to cover these costs is greater than what a bidder is willing to pay, you need to find another way to make a living
It's called competition, and in order to compete "fairly", I believe the final, laid down costs have to be stated. That's the only way I can decide whose product to buy ...
posted on December 20, 2000 08:30:01 AM new
>>But the bidders determine the final
>>selling price. Suppose your costs
>>increase... how do you get your bidders to >>bid more?
The same way you get them to bid less when any of your costs go down.
The problem is that there is no standard disclosure of shipping/handling charges. It would be helpful if eBay force a selection with definitions, so that common terms would have a consistent meaning. Any non-standard would then have to be disclosed/defined by the seller.
posted on December 20, 2000 08:42:09 AM new
Damariscotta ... that might work. It would certainly solve the problem of asking eBay to show a cost for a shipment via boat/camel to the Sahara Desert and all the other possibilities.
posted on December 20, 2000 03:30:49 PM new
The questions becomes the semantics of POSTAGE vs SHIPPING. A one lb package sent priority mail wrapped in eight feet of bubblewrap. POSTAGE would be $3.20 actual cost of shipping would be 3.20 + the cost of eight feet of bubble wrap.
Costs of listing products should not be included in shipping charges, though a small handling fee of between 25 cents and a dollar for incidentals and to offset gas costs is not unreasonable as long as it's disclosed in the listing as shipping and handling.
