posted on December 25, 2000 11:44:29 PM new
Given that eBay is making this policy change to protect us from Spam . . .
Shouldn't we, as good eBay citizens, send them copies of all the spam we get so they can find out who's sending it and stop its dissemination?
Don't you think [email protected] would appreciate the proactive support of its members to stamp out this problem and return the "policy" back to its original form?
posted on December 26, 2000 06:02:30 AM new
As far as I know, it's always been ebay policy to have "spamees" notify SafeHarbor if they're getting spammed by an ebayer.
If you're getting spammed by somebody outside ebay, it would appear that the most efficient route would be not to send the problem along to somebody else, but to deal with it personally by either blocking the email addy or contacting the IP in question.
But then that wouldn't accomplish your actual goal, would it.
posted on December 26, 2000 08:44:37 AM new
eCom, two problems with your proposal:
1. Most spam is sent from an e-mail address OTHER THAN one registered with eBay. eBay can do nothing in that situation, other than advise the sender to follow HCQ's suggestions.
2. What defines SPAM? I believe eBay's new "policy clarification" (Major loogie-hawking response here), is overly broad.
For example, a customer just won an item from me on eBay. She immediately paid through Billpoint, and at the same time, inquired into my price on a item where the reserve had not been met. Now is that inquiry considered "spam" under eBay's new guidelines? Even though she has already established a customer relationship with me as top bidder on another item? Should I report her to eBay? Should I alienate my brand-new, first-time customer? Should I refuse to have any conversations with her about this other item?
posted on December 26, 2000 12:35:57 PM new
I think in your hypothetical the answer would be that ebay's policies regarding spam exist for the spam recipient to take advantage of if s/he so desires, except that IF ebay learned that it was a seller's regular practice to use reserves to advertise items and then sell them offline, he could be booted for fee avoidance. IOW, flout the rules at your own risk.
posted on December 26, 2000 12:57:56 PM new
OTOH, ebay in it's (in)finite wisdom will be the sole judge and jury over whether a communication is spam or not?
posted on December 26, 2000 01:03:06 PM new
I don't think these SPAM rules are fair: For example, I received an excellent deal on a batch of 20 cameras. I was selling them for $325.00, so that they would alls sell before Xmas. The previous week, auctions for the same camera endend as high as $370.00. I emailed some of the "losers" and offered them the cameras. I always thank them for their time and say that "I apologize for emailing them if they are not interested." Many people emailed me back, thanking me and purchasing one, while others politley emailed me back saying that they had just bought one and were not interested. NO one complained. Why is this so wrong?
posted on December 26, 2000 01:20:51 PM new
Agreed. As long as you're contacting your own runner-up bidders what could be wrong with that?
Actually, we can see ebay's point. Ebay probably wants you to relist the item and tell the bidders to bid again so ebay get's its fee for each sale. NTL, we've been on the other side as a loosing bidder, been contacted by the seller and have been very happy to have the chance to buy the item at our bid price.
Unless the bidder complains to ebay (can't see why they would) this policy is unenforcable.
posted on December 26, 2000 01:21:14 PM new
Flamoral, it's wrong for the following reasons.
1)You're cheating Ebay out of its fees. The other sellers had to pay fees why shouldn't you?
2)If a seller's high bidder backs out, the seller has a right to contact his underbidders. But he's not going to be able to sell to his underbidders if you've already sold a camera to them.
3)It annoys a lot of people. Sure, a lot of people will take you up on your offer. And, even many of those who don't, won't be bothered by your offer. But, all that it takes is one person to complain to Ebay and you'll be hearing from them.
posted on December 26, 2000 01:26:30 PM new
FLAMORAL, if I understand your post correctly, there is nothing new about eBay's policies about what you are doing -- SPAM and FEE AVOIDANCE. I'm sure you would get different answers about whether this is "wrong," and in my opinion it is wrong. If you engage in this practice with any regularity -- and there are many sellers who do -- that is the main reason eBay has turned to implementing these policies that indeed, restrict us all at this point. A majority of sellers who form an OCCASIONAL off-line trade are now also considered scofflaws under eBay's new rules.
If you had listed all of your cameras on eBay, say in a Dutch auction format, then those buyers who were interested would have presumably been able to purchase/win a camera from you at your lowest price, eBay would collect Final Value Fees on each sale, and both you and the buyer would be eligible to leave feedback and have other recourse if one party defaulted on a good transaction.
I'm assuming you offered one camera at a time or maybe a few, then used your bidder's list to cull the names of other potential customers, thus taking advantage of eBay's system and avoiding having to pay additional fees. In my opinion, this is what is not fair. In addition, your e-mails to customers -- while possibly appreciated -- has long been considered SPAM under eBay rules. This is nothing new, and though you may not have had any complaints, your trading privileges could be jeopardized if someone DID complain.
And HCQ, I don't have much faith in eBay's SafeHarbor system. Their MO often is "suspend first, ask questions later." I have serious reservations in their ability to review overall trading patterns BEFORE making a decision to nuke somebody.
There are many of us (and I'm in the Voices program) who have repeatedly told eBay that we would be more than happy to pay Final Value Fees and honestly account for sales that are made as a result of an auction listing, even after the fact. We've begged Ebay to search for ways to FACILITATE additional trades through their system, collect fair fees AND make those "protections" available to buyer/seller alike. So far it doesn't seem do-able from an "engineering standpoint," but I must admit I'm skeptical. If they can do BUY IT NOW, I can't see why they can't do BUY IT ANYWAY.
posted on December 26, 2000 01:27:01 PM new
Well I guess that I forgot to mention that I actually do put the items on ebay and put a link in the email to ebay. I do this, because the buyer is "bound" to buying the item. So eBay does get their precious fees. Thanks for the input.
posted on December 26, 2000 04:52:38 PM newlisab, obviously mileage must vary when dealing with SafeHarbor because I've had nothing but prompt, satisfactory responses...but then I toe the line pretty carefully so I'm not exactly walking around risking NARU. In any case, IMHO it's ebay's ball, ebay's call.
Anyway, as far as having a way "to FACILITATE additional trades through their system, collect fair fees AND make those "protections" available to buyer/seller alike," there's a really easy one. List the item on ebay at a time agreed on with the buyer, with the opening bid the agreed-on price. Buyer bids, you end auction, FVF and listing fees get toted up and the standard "protections" are in place. (Actually, with BIN it's even easier, because seller doesn't have to sit there monitoring the auction to be sure to close it after the first bid.) Happened to me on a couple sales: Bidder bought x yards of fabric, asked if I had more; I said sure, tell me how many more yards you want and I'll list it on ebay and then you can bid. She did, everybody was happy.
posted on December 26, 2000 08:21:01 PM new
Quilt - A nice idea but that just isn't realistic.
You have a potential customer with money burning a hole in their pocket and ready to buy so what do you do? Tell them to come back at time X, enter a bid or BIN?
I can see how ebay would be happy with that but that's just bad business practice. It flies in the face of reality. You'll loose far more sales than you'll ever conclude.
posted on December 26, 2000 08:43:09 PM new
I think your all missing the point:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If congress cannot infringe on you freedom of speech, ebay certainly cannot either.
posted on December 26, 2000 08:47:16 PM new
I have reported SPAM to ebay several times knowing full well the sender got my email from ebay. The subject lines often say the word "ebay", yet I usually get the same form letter email sends out when they get these reports. I do not think they actually do anything about it
posted on December 26, 2000 08:48:35 PM new
Flamoral, thanks for the clarification. It does make a difference in my view.
HCQ, your strategy is all well and good if your buyer follows through. What if they don't? Then you are out your additional fees.
Sorry, but I don't feel THAT obligated to eBay once my initial listing fees and reserve fees are down the drain. If there was a link on the closed auction page that would allow a trade to take place, I'd use it - and of course I would expect any applicable reserve fees to be refunded to me just as eBay would then get their FVF.
But those fees do add up, as well as those fees designed to help people actually SEE my auction such as Gallery, and after an unsuccessful auction, I feel completely free to dispose of THAT ITEM in any way I see fit, particularly since many of my bidders are established customers. I make a big distinction between those who deliberately and repeatedly seek to find ways to avoid fees, and Mom & Pop sellers who certainly prefer successfully closed auctions, but have become accusomted to occasionally forming an offline trade if that opportunity presents itself.
posted on December 27, 2000 08:02:49 AM new
Cix - We've started getting spam with subjects like "Insurance for Ebay Sellers" or "Special for Ebay users!" and stuff like that. Without an ebay id no way ebay can do anything about it.
posted on December 27, 2000 08:41:16 AM new
Hello Unknown,
What has the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to do with the policies enacted by a business regarding use of its services?
eBay's new spam policy is overly broad and mostly un-enforcable but I see nothing unconstitutional about eBay trying to control the business practices of its buyers and sellers as much as possible.
posted on December 27, 2000 08:45:54 AM new
Highlights of the Changes (these are not permitted):
· Circumventing eBay fees. Examples:
- offering to sell a listed item outside of eBay to avoid completing the sale on eBay
- accepting an offer to buy the currently listed item outside of eBay
- offering to sell the item outside of eBay to any of your bidders or another sellers' bidders in a Reserve Not Met listing
- offering to sell, outside of eBay, duplicate or additional merchandise to your own underbidders or to another sellers' bidders
· Contacting a seller and offering to purchase a listed item outside of eBay
· Offering in a listing the opportunity to purchase the listed item or other merchandise outside of eBay
· Sending unsolicited offers to bidders for the same or similar products that they have bid on in the past
..............................................
It seems to me the major stink being made over these new rules are from sellers who must do a lot of under the table deals with buyers when their reserve is not met?
Have I done this in the past, yes, will I do so in the future, perhaps. If a high bidder emails me after the auction is over wanting to know my reserve, I can still return their email with the reserve amount. If they then contact me again wanting to make a deal/offer, they're the ones breaking the rules, not I. I think that if a seller is careful in how they word their responses, this will be pretty easy to get around.
I must say, that IMHO, if the high bidder is still interested when the reserve is not met,
it should be up to them to contact you [the seller] if they so choose. In those cases eBay will obviously have no way of knowing a "trade" is taking place off site.
The idea behind this rule is to stop sellers from harassing bidders that are not interested in receiving "generous" offers from sellers that constantly use reserve amounts that are no where near a "realistic" price range.
Reality check - It happens, plenty.
So, as a seller if this is your major gripe with the new rules, then might I suggest:
1. Don't use reserves.
2. Use more realistic reserves.
3. Post the reserve amount in your auction.
4. Let the bidder contact YOU on reserve not met auctions, then be very careful how you word your responses.
I've posted hundreds of reserve auctions on eBay over the past 3 yrs, and don't see this as affecting my bottomline in the least. Most of my reserve auctions sell, and when they don't, I wait a few weeks & relist them. Most times they do better than offers sent to me from the bidders after the first auction fizzled.
I also find it rather distasteful emailing bidders on reserve not met auctions & begging for their $$$$$.
posted on December 27, 2000 08:48:38 AM new
Once the auction is over, if reserve has not been met, ebay is out of the picture. As merely a "venue" it has no further interest or right to control what the seller does with his item.
The purpose of the new rules (or clarification of old rules) is simply to make more money for ebay. This was predictable once they went public. Any public company must increase its share value, and they can only do this by constantly making more money each quarter.
The next rule change will be... no email addys given out! All contact will be through ebay only.
posted on December 27, 2000 09:46:52 AM new
Even sending contact via some kind of ebay forms wouldn't stop outside sales unless ebay is going to monitor each and every contact message that is sent, rejecting or just deleting those that contain offers outside of the bidding - and that would be censorship!
IOW, censoring the content of contact messages sent via ebay forms is the only possible way ebay can prevent outside sales. And that's a boat load of legal trouble for them!!
posted on December 27, 2000 09:48:37 AM new
Reddeer..I don't think the "stink" is neccessarily being made by sellers who do a lot of off ebay deals.
I have no real problem with the rules that pertain to a listing that is cancelled and the item sold off ebay...the seller and ebay have a "contract" (for lack of a better word) on that item and taking it off the listing to sell off ebay is breaking that contract.
But once an item ends with no sale, the contract is over. Ebay does not own my merchandise. how I dispose of an item after my contract with ebay on that item ends, is none of ebay's business and they have no right to any share of the proceeds from that item.
Although I admire HCQ, I see no ethical or moral obligation on her part to have listed extra fabric that a customer ask about in order for ebay to get a cut.
If I offer duplicates to my underbidders, I see no reason why ebay would even consider they have a right to a commission on that duplicate. I made no contract with them for that item and there was no guarantee I would ever have sold it on ebay.
Ebay has already instituted the reserve fee to make up for missed revenue for those who list high reserves in order to avoid fees.
None of this is going to stop off ebay transactions. There are plenty of ways around it. The ebay personal is being truely naive if they honestly think this will stop off ebay trading.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:17:30 AM newAmy ....... That's not the way it's been sounding to me? Seems to me "some" sellers consider it their "right" to be able to spam bidders on auctions when the reserve is not met. As far as offering duplicates to underbidders, surely you jest? Without the use of eBay's site, you never would have had access to those bidders email addys. What makes you think you have the "right" to use their system, to gather a personal bidding/buying pool? Perhaps those under bidders were potential customers of mine?
Also, although eBay's "main" goal might be to block/stop the revenue leak, they are also concerned about Spam complaints. For those of you that don't think Spam is a big issue with users on eBay, you're wrong, it is.
It seems to me eBay found a way to kill two birds with one stone.
artsnflies
Just a hunch, but I think eBay can & will offer a link for spam complaints with each online form that's generated. So if a seller is using the online forms to try & make under the table deals to *anyone*, the person receiving the spam will be able to forward it to eBay with 1 click of the mouse.
Same thing with people that are using the form simply to harass other users.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:30:38 AM new
Reddeer - Is that really spam?
We can't fathom a bidder reporting a seller for offering them a duplicate product as the one they lost the bidding on. The vast majority of bidders would be happy to receive the offer. As to the rest, if they didn't want to buy they'd probably just ignore the message.
You could be right. They could offer a "Report this Spam!" link of sorts. But just imagine the horrors that will cause!!!
Look at all the complaints and threats sellers receive now from bidders. And all the retaliatory negs bidders leave. Now imagine if those same people can also take it out on you by reporting you as a spammer!
If it comes to pass I think our days as an ebay user are numbered.....
posted on December 27, 2000 10:48:15 AM new
codasaurus;
Huh?
Yes it is a Constitutional issue.
Business are not permitted to restirct an individuals fredoms as guaranteed by the constitution. Resticting what is said in a auction posting is certianly within Ebays authority becuase the postings are stored on thier servers. So it is thier freedom to do whatever they wish with this.
But a private email between two parites that is transmitted ourside of ebay is definitely not something they should even try to control. Aside from freedom of speech issue there are also several federal stautes regarding restriant of free trade that could also come into play.
Ebay has WAY overstepped their authority here, and they could get in serious trouble simply for trying, even if they don't enforce it.
posted on December 27, 2000 10:48:49 AM new
artsnflies ...... Hmmmmm. Put yourself in the bidders shoes for a moment. Why on earth would a bidder, want to buy a widget, at the bid price that the auction ended at, when had the highest bidder been removed, they might have gotten that widget for half the high bid amount?
Also, as a non ebay deal, if the seller decides to stiff them, or gives lousy customer service, the bidder cannot file for eBay insurance/fraud, nor can they leave neg feedback.
Perhaps you as a seller can't fathom being reported by a bidder for doing what you mentioned, but you might be in for a big surprise one day?
posted on December 27, 2000 11:03:58 AM new
I don't think it is possible to make broad generalizations about the sellers who are expressing opinions about this policy.
Some sellers who are opposed to this policy do not conduct many offline sales at all -- we are mostly mom & pop type sellers and our goal is, of course, successfully closed auctions. I am objecting to eBay's suddenly deciding that business practices that have flourished and been condoned all this time are suddenly objectionable and punishable. They seem to be encouraging a kind of vigilantism that I think is not only laughable, but potentially divisive where they SAY one of their core values has always been Community and Openness? Guess if they think it affects their bottom line, that core value goes out the window. In an attempt to curb the genuine abuses, they are casting a net over us all and trying to brand us all "scofflaws." Not everyone agrees that communication between seller and potential buyer (who has demonstrated an interest in a specific item by actually placing a bid) is "spam." Sorry but those particular horses just don't hunt.
Ironically, I truly don't expect that I am going to be affected by this new policy but that won't keep me from objecting to it in principle. I estimate that as a seller, I list an average of 150 - 200 items monthly and form perhaps 2 - 3 offline trades monthly. There is no way any generalizations about reserve-not-met items will hold water in the category I sell (vintage jewelry) - - there are just too many other variables beyond my control. My reserves are VERY realistic. In fact, oftentimes a buyer inquiring about my reserve AFTER the fact very often is quite agreeable to buying it at my reserve. Go figure! I've tried not using reserves but in my category, it can be the kiss of death and money wasted. Sure, there are a handful of sellers who deliberately set unrealistic reserves with the idea of avoiding FVFs, but purportedly the reserve fees were supposed to discourage that. Guess not!! If an item of mine does not meet reserve, I either put it on my website at RETAIL price thank you very much, I MAY relist (but not usually), and occasionally will end up selling it to an interested party after the auction if the opportunity presents itself and the price is of course, mutually agreeable. Usually that bidder contacts me, but there may be reasons I might make an offer to the bidder. Many of my bidders are repeat customers or are fellow dealers who I know through my e-mail forums. Or perhaps other items performed better than I expected and I have a little more flexibility with my best price.
Part of eBay's shortsightedness is this: those sellers who do occasionally form offline trades with unsuccessfully closed items often cultivate happy, loyal customers who will keep tabs on that seller's auctions. If a potential new customer asks about a closed auction, I often try to make the sale because that person could turn into a regular! And it has happened often. My repeat customers are my backbone.
BTW, I deal in unique items so I don't encounter the "duplicates" scenario. I do NOT condone the practice of offering duplicates to underbidders because that seems like a more calculated way of avoiding fees. Seems like a lot of sellers do that which is one of the factors that led to eBay's implementing such a heavy-handed policy.
I also do a lot of buying on eBay, and in some situations, the seller has subsequently offered the item to me at an attractive price. Perhaps they were in a position to lower their price, or perhaps the reserve was closer than they thought. I do not consider such an offer "spam." I have demonstrated an interest in the item with my bid. There have also been a few occasions where I simply overlooked the item in my bookmarks and forgot to bid, or I didn't see the item until it was in the closed listings. I have e-mailed the seller to let me know if they were either open to selling the item, or if they would let me know when they relist, and I've been delighted to be able to purchase the item on the spot on several occasions. Good for me, good for the seller. To think that such inquiries are considered "spam" is ludicrous in my view.
posted on December 27, 2000 11:17:26 AM new
Reddeer - We're not talking about wanting runner up bidders to pay the high bid. Assuming you started the bidding at you lowest acceptable price for the item (and no reserve) then accepting the runner ups bid seems fine.
IOW, suppose you have high bid of $50 and a runner up for $45. You could say to the runner up "If you wish to still purchase you can at your bid price of $45 plus shipping." That would be fair.
As for getting burned outside, well that could happen inside too. Presumably you had no problems with the seller for you to bid so what does it matter really?
We can probably go back and forth all day. The bottom line being if ebay is really just providing a service of bringing buyers and sellers together than what goes on between the parties is not their concern. And if ebay is going to start imposing rules for contacting customers, how you may or may not conduct business, what you can and can not say, etc. then they must also have the facilities to mediate and investigate (for free) complaints.
posted on December 27, 2000 01:46:16 PM new
Sigh . . I know . . . ever the idealist I guess. It's always a shame to me when people with ill intentions have to muck up something good for the rest of us . . .
I suppose if eBay really considered bid-siphoning, bottom-feeding and spam to be such a serious problem that they had to restrict e-mail access, I could have lived with that, reluctantly, but I do understand it. But to me, encouraging "spam reporting" under their "clarified" (ahem) policy just seems a bit heavy-handed to me.
posted on December 27, 2000 04:38:14 PM new
Bottom line is that eBay is no longer a "venue". They've inserted themselves directly between buyers, sellers and spammers.
They provide a service that we pay for, and they must take responsibility and be held accountable for the product they provide, good and/or bad.
There are way too many people inside and outside of eBay that make excuses for them, their policies and behaviors.
They want to be IBM, they should be treated that way.
I'm sending them each and every spam mail I get from my unique eBay email account and ask them to investigate the origin and cease providing my email information to spammers.
