Unfortunately the most "investigation" SafeHarbor does with spam complaints is determine whether the e-mail of origin is registered with eBay. Most commercial-type spammers (i.e. "Loans!! For Ebay Users!!) are astute enough not to spam from a registered eBay addy. Then you get a "so sorry" letter from Safeharbor.
I imagine when eBay gets to a point of making e-mail addresses unavailable to anyone except participants in a specific transaction, the spammers will pretty much be out of luck -- except with people like me who will retain our e-mail addys as our user ID's, and ensure that our e-mail addys are in our auctions loud and clear.
posted on December 27, 2000 04:55:44 PM newBusiness are not permitted to restirct an individuals fredoms as guaranteed by the constitution.
Generally, you are permitted to say whatever you want but you are not granted the power to compel me to help you say it.
Thus, a business can and always! does restrict what people can say while using its services.
The bill of rights defines limits to government restrictions on speech. Between you and I, we are still mostly free to agree to whatever restrictions we find mutually agreeable. It's the same between you and eBay or you and AuctionWatch.
posted on December 27, 2000 05:04:03 PM new
As a bidder, these are what I consider the actions of spammers, within the context of eBay:
1) A seller adding one their own bidders (high bidders or not) to a mailing list, or giving the information to other parties, without first getting clear, explicit permission.
2) Someone collecting other addresses for mailing list purposes, whether they are a seller poking around for the addresses of other seller's bidder addresses, or just signed on for the sole purpose of gathering addresses.
3) A seller offering what they consider a "similar" item to their bidders or other seller's bidders. If it isn't about the transaction already on hand...
Being second-highest bidder and having that item offered to me because the high bidder backed out, or if reserve wasn't met but I was high bidder, is not spam, IMO. These have to do with the exact, specific item I bid on. Showing interest in that specific item does not imply interest in "similar" items, however -- for reasons too numerous to count in this thread. I also don't mind someone posting a link to their other/main site within the auction page or the seller's EOA either (not a separate note), as long as it is kept brief and general (e.g. "If you're interested in aviation items, please visit ____ or contact ____." ). That's my view as a bidder. I think most consumers are tired of most direct marketing (junk mail, spam, door-to-door solicitation, and telemarketing). Not directly on topic, but I just heard 700,000 have already signed up for Connecticut's list of households that do not want to hear from telemarketers.
A potential buyer making a serious inquiry to a seller, however, is not marketing. The buyer is not advertising something for sale. Consumers contacting companies out of the blue and companies contacting consumers out of the blue are two very different things; I don't hear companies complaining about the former, but do hear many consumers complaining about the latter.
On a somewhat different part of the topic, I can't figure out exactly what all of eBay's rules are supposed to be saying in those regards, but don't feel eBay has claims over a person's property. While any item that is submitted to eBay is subject to a contract, if there is no successful bid by eBay's standards, I think the contract is gone and the item is still the owner's to sell again, either another eBay attempt or in some other way. I just do not feel this includes unsolicited direct marketing.
As to spam itself, there seems no easy way to prove what spam is originating from eBay users, because with the "dear eBay user" or "merchant account" junk, if the spammer had half a brain about it, they'd be sending from an email address that is not registered with eBay. The better bets are the usual ways of dealing with spam.
However, I have been saying for months that eBay should limit access of buyers' email addresses to solely the seller whose item the buyer bid on. That would cut out some of the nonsense in the simplest imaginable way. eBay did take half a step in this direction by making full lists of bidder addresses available to the seller only, but the bidder addrs are still available individually.
Several years back, a law against junk faxes was passed, strictly forbidding unsolicited commercial faxes, basically because the recipients would bear much of the costs of the ads (paper, toner, more maintenance and repair, not to mention employees' time taken to sift between the junk and the messages they really want/need to see). The issues are similar for junk emails, IMO, but there is no law yet, two of the three major spam bills that got hung up in Congress were weak things that would have likely led to more spam, not less, and direct marketers are lobbying against anything that would give the consumer an effective chance to block the junk.
----
What's being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
The above are all just my opinions, except where I cite facts as such.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
Is eBay is changing from a world bazaar into a bizarre world?
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 27, 2000 05:22 PM ]
posted on December 27, 2000 05:15:22 PM new
Unknown:
And you are missing the CRITICAL part of the amendment:
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.
posted on December 27, 2000 05:16:45 PM new
dc9, very well said. You've nailed the distinctions just as I see them.
The other day I e-mailed a seller of a particular line of clothing, as I was interested in a particular look and cut of sleeve that I did not see on any of her auctions. I wasn't trying to circumvent the eBay system, but if she had what I wanted and offered to sell to me directly, that would have been fine. She has stellar feedback and I'd have no trouble with that. But I imagine under Ebay's new policy, I am a spammer now.
Trouble is, while eBay is a for-profit corporation, it is also in a rather interesting position of "governing" a very unique community. Usually public opinion and the democratic process shape public policy, but when you mix in corporate dollars, that whole model goes out the window. And unfortunately, eBay management does not have a clear concept of what life is like for those of us in the trenches. They can get some feedback from those of us in the Voices program but it isn't the same as actual experience.
posted on December 27, 2000 07:10:11 PM new
Lisa - We agree with you.
Personally, in my own account I have lost the bidding on an item and had the seller email me that they have another of the same item that I can have for what I had bid. Sometimes I accept, sometimes I don't. But in all case I do not consider that spamming or fee avoidance.
And sometimes I've emailed a seller to ask if they have another product not being currently auctioned. Sometims they have, sometimes not. And sometimes I buy it and sometimes not. I know it's a little more risk but again I do not consider that spamming or fee avoidance. That's business.
To go further if the seller told me they'd resubmit the item, let me bid on it, cancel the auction yaddie-yaddie-yadda then I'd probably walk away. It's just too complicated.
posted on December 28, 2000 06:07:50 AM newunknown: "If congress cannot infringe on you freedom of speech, ebay certainly cannot either"
That certainly sounds logical. However, it's not actually true. The First Amendment sets out a list of restrictions on the actions of Congress and has nothing to with private individuals or companies.
Keep in mind that the Amendment also states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Your argument would mean that if Congress cannot establish a religion, neither could anybody else. And that, of course, is ridiculous, since people establish their own religions all the time.
The First Amendment is not a list of "bad things" which nobody should be allowed to do. Instead, it is a list of things which the Founding Fathers felt that Congress [and only Congress] should be prohibited from doing. Not because these deeds were bad things, but simply because the Founding Fathers didn't want Congress having that much power.
Using common sense and logic rarely works when talking about the law....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Dec 28, 2000 06:08 AM ]
posted on December 28, 2000 06:24:21 AM new
Well, if we are discussing the Constitution – (rather with tongue in cheek) wouldn’t eBay be infringing on my right to “life, liberty AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? “
Actually, in the “REAL” business world, businesses steal customers from each other all the time. AND if eBay were a TRUE VENUE, they would have no rule that would interfere with this process, “IF” THEY WERE A TRUE VENUE.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:56:28 AM new
I've been trying to keep up with these different threads on the recent policy "clarification" for SPAM and Off Site Trades.
I agree with everything Lisa_B has said - so I guess that's why I haven't felt the need to actually POST as often. She's been (pretty much) sayin' exactly what's on my mind!
One thing, though, that I don't see being discussed as an important factor in the issue of what eBay considers SPAM or whether or not the Community will actually adhere to the updated Policy on SPAM and OFF SITE TRADES is the issue of eMail addresses NOT BEING AVAILABLE to members (Sellers and Bidders) once the auction has ENDED!
"IF" eBay changes (modifies) the behavior of the cookie that allows eMails to be viewed at various points - causing eMails to NOT be obtainable, what do you suppose will happen?
Sure, we can see all of the bidders eMail addresses DURING the auction.... and they have convenient access to links for the sellers eMail address DURING the auction. But once the auction has ENDED.... and Bidders and Sellers do NOT have access to those eMail addresses links EXCEPT between WINNING BIDDER and SELLER only - I think the incidents of OFFERS TO PURCHASE or Offers to Sell will be extremely infrequent.
NOTE: Although eBay says it would be O.K. to contact the highest underbidder in the event of an NPB - how exactly would we be able to do that if their eMail address is no longer Obtainable, because the system doesn't recognize them as the WINNER and we can't even share feedback!?!?!
Whether you agree with eBays policy on SPAM and OFF SITE TRADES - whether or not you believe it's wrong or that you have a right to sell your item any way you decide once the listing has ended UNSUCCESSFULLY - doesn't matter. If your eMail address is NOT OBTAINALBE after the listing ends - and if your underbidders eMail addresses are NOT OBTAINALBE after the listing ends - there can be NO eMail communication (spam?) to negotiate a trade outside of the eBay forum between interested parties.
Those of us who do not make a habit of negotiating trades outside of the eBay forum probably won't be effected (right away) by these communication limiting policies.... but (as Lisa_B has stated) we object to them in principle.
What's next? Changing the policy on whether or not we can use our eMail addresses as our User I.D.s?
Whether or not we can put links to our websites on our listings?
What about new policies on what is "appropriate" for the About Me pages?
What's to stop them? We are not "entitled" to anything from this venue. They make the rules and we either play by them or leave.
I'm thinking of the FROG in the SLOWLY BOILING WATER analogy that Lisa_B has mentioned. YES..... the water is getting warmer, and we are not registering it!!!
If eBay can effectively limit our ability to communicate with each other and/or simultaneously grow business outside of their "venue" - just think how DEPENDENT we ALL will remain on eBay as our only "food source". AND.... if eBay is the only "food source" - I would expect they could serve us ANYTHING they want and CHARGE US whatever they like for it.
And of course, those added fees (for sellers - but perhaps BUYERS won't be immune to fees later on down the road) will ALL be passed along one way or the other to the BUYERS....
I still say that unwanted eMail offers can be DELETED or Blocked at MY DISCRETION - not eBays!
Long Term... this "Big Brother eBay" operation is NOT GOOD for individual buyers and sellers.
I believe that if eBay was really interested in assisting the community with forming SAFE & Successful trades, they would have developed a means of reporting, tracking and collecting fees for After Auction Deals - such as the "BUY IT ANYWAY" pun that Lisa_B has mentioned.
posted on December 28, 2000 10:31:28 AM new
Dottie and Lisa,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you both are saying. The water is heating up and people better wake up and take notice because this "venue" is cranking up the burners on making us ALL more and more dependent on eBay by slowly taking away our options.
One step at a time. One small move at a time. eBay is stacking the deck and dealing the cards.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:43:19 AM newartsnflies and lisab, I've used the system I described several times and have never had a bidder not come through. With BIN, generally it goes like this:
"Do you have any more of these at the high bid price of $35?"
"Yes, I do. To follow ebay guidelines, I've listed the item here [post link] with a BIN price of $35, the same as the high bid on the item you noted. Just click on the link and "buy it now", and we'll close this sale quickly. I look forward to doing business with you!"
If the bidder doesn't follow through, I've still got the item listed and available to other bidders.
posted on December 28, 2000 12:04:28 PM new
HCQ I'm so glad that works well for you since you are so inclined.
I'm not going to jump through those extra hoops, my life is already busy enough. If eBay had a simple link on the closed auction page, AND I could count on my Reserve Fee refunded where applicable, I would do it. But normally, people I do business with outside eBay are cultivated and solid customers; we trust each other. I also have a website where most of my unsold merchandise gets sold at retail.
posted on December 28, 2000 12:42:14 PM new
Here's a hypothetical. Say you have a deadbeat bidder.Can you still LEGALLY go to the next highest bidder on the list and see if they are interested without incurring the wrath of ebay,or have the rules changed for that?
posted on December 28, 2000 01:26:50 PM new
college: if the eMail addresses of all underbidders is NOT OBTAINABLE after the auction closes, how would you go about contacting your highest underbidder after the "winner" is determined a Deadbeat (NPB)??
posted on December 28, 2000 03:03:42 PM newECOM, I heartily concur with you. I opened an AW e-mail account specifically for handling eBay auctions. For the first month I was spam free. Now I get the usual "get out of debt", "free celebrity porn", etc, spam a couple of times a week. Maybe eBay can slow'em down.
Hello Jean, Thank you for writing in with your question. I'm happy to address this for you. I can certainly understand you
concern in this matter, especially as a dealer in antiquities. The section to which you are referring in the new Fee Avoidance
policy, as not allowed, reads as follows:
`
-offering to sell the item outside of eBay to any of your bidders or another sellers'
bidders in a Reserve Not Met listing.
Basically, we instituted this to deter unscrupulous seller's from listing outrageous
reserve prices so the price won't be met and then selling the item to the highest bidder once the auction had closed, hence
avoiding paying eBay's commission, the Final Value Fee. However, as the policy reads, you as the seller are not allowed to
contact the bidder's on an unsuccessful Reserve Price auction and make an offer, however, it makes no mention of when the
high bidder contacts you. So, in the scenario you provided, should the high bidder contact you at the close of auction and
inquire on the Reserve Price, you can still transact with that person, as you have before. I hope this information has been
helpful. Good luck to you and thank you for using eBay!
posted on December 28, 2000 07:58:55 PM new
Quoted from the eBay announcement board post about fee avoidance clarifications:
"We realize that you establish relationships with other members through eBay and may complete future transactions based upon those relationships. However, the use of eBay contact information to enable a transaction outside of eBay, is not condoned and is a violation of our User Agreement."
This clarification of eBay's fee avoidance policies does NOT give buyers permission to contact sellers but prohibit sellers from contacting buyers. It simply says "the use of eBay contact information to enable a transaction outside of eBay, is not condoned and is a violation of our user agreement."
It sure looks like a violation of eBay policy no matter who tries to "enable a transaction".
posted on December 28, 2000 08:20:05 PM new
Whats so funny is that with the new restrictions on getting email addresses those who are currently abusing the reserve auction format (ridiculously high reserve & then sell afterwards) will continue to do so....all they have to do is copy down the emails BEFORE the auction ends.
Those of us who do off ebay deals occasionally won't think of doing that (saving the emails)...but those who already are delibertly avoiding fees will find a way to continue doing it...and doing it from addresses that can't be tied to an ebay account.
As I see it..it won't cure anything but will hurt those of us who do try to play by the rules.
If ebay was able to come up with a "buy it now" option why couldn't they come up with a "buy it anyway" or "buy it too" option?
I think my pom poms are getting a little limp here...not sure if I like "big brother" ebay.
Plus I'm pis*ed at how they are ruining Butterfields!
posted on December 28, 2000 08:38:05 PM new
Well already I see at least one SafeHarbor rep is providing information that seems inconsistent with the "policy clarifications." Answers and enforcement activity from various CSRs will be inconsistent too, I about expect that.
Amy, you say
"If ebay was able to come up with a "buy it now" option why couldn't they come up with a "buy it anyway" or "buy it too" option?"
That is EXACTLY what we in Voices tried to get Ebay to come up with -- ways to FACILITATE trades even after the fact, rather than the approach they seem to prefer. We were ultimately told that the engineering constraints were prohibitive but personally, I am very skeptical. Seems eBay can and has done what the REALLY have wanted to do. In addition to the idea about a button/link on closed auction pages that would enable an item to be "traded" through the system if seller/buyer so chose to do that, we also suggested a "holding area" kind of like a mini-storefront, where closed items could be browsed and purchased for say, 7 days after the close of the auction if the seller so chose. That idea kinda fell by the wayside.
I think the Bottom Line outweighs the lip service eBay pays to the whole notion of "community." Just like reserve fees have changed and limited the way I've had to do business on eBay (and I guess have had little or no effect on those who abused reserve auctions), I agree with you that the everday honest and basically good seller is the one that somehow gets squashed under the eBay machine.
posted on December 28, 2000 09:13:22 PM new
Lisa...ebay's current attitude seems to make a lie of the "we believe most people are honest" statement.
I would have more respect if they were to have said to the voices group..."We are working on ways to facilitate after auction transactions within the ebay format...but it will take us a little time. For now, this is a temporary solution". But from what your reporting they have no intentionof trying.
I have only once offered a duplicate to an underbidder and that was recently. I didn't start out with that intention...I intended to list the second item a few weeks after the first, but when the first, which I had figured would go for about $75 went for $740, the business man in me said "strike while the iron is hot...it won't go this high next time!" I offerred and it was accepted, along with 4 other similar figurines that were duplicates of ones listed. I sold almost $1000 off ebay that day...but ebay still got a cut because I insisted on billpoint payment. If ebay had a "buy it too" option I would have gladly sold it "on ebay"
What I'm getting at is that I have never offerred to my underbidders because I did see the ethical "grey" area. But, like ebay, I AM in business to make money. I just wish ebay would find a way that I can do that and they can too at the same time. The new rules will just keep ebay from getting any cut on the off ebay...won't stop those sales from happening, but will GUARANTEE ebay will NOT get a piece of the action.
Seems to me the PTB at ebay are very short sighted. Solutions like your voices group suggested are win-win. Ebay's solution, as proposed, is lose-lose.
Somebody needs to go back to school to learn how to build a business....and it ain't the ebay sellers!
posted on December 29, 2000 12:12:48 AM new
Seems like this policy was not very well thought out and could use fine tuning. I'm STILL wondering about fooling with deadbeat bidders and bidders who were further down the list. Does this mean put in for FVF regardless and take your chances on another auction a week or ten days after the FVF kicks in? This business should perhaps apply to reserve auctions only? YOu can find contactinfo in the bidding historyfor a given auction.
Spam is another animal.Havsn't anyone gotten spam with "DearEbay Seller" in it, or a web address from Hotmail or Yahoo with "ebay" somehere in it, Like "Ebayseller"? I had plenty of this junk coming at me in Nov..I forwarded mostto safeharbor and let them go after the folks.Some of this was coming in from abroad,
like Eastern Europe, but not all. Most was from U.S. sites.
Hopping mad about Spam!
posted on December 29, 2000 12:33:35 AM newHCQ: Re the bullet item: "offering to sell, outside of eBay, duplicate or additional merchandise to your own underbidders or to another sellers' bidders"
Note that it says your underbidders. I really think it is okay with eBay to sell additional/duplicate items to your high bidder.
posted on December 29, 2000 01:43:34 AM newartsnflies, "I have lost the bidding on an item and had the seller email me that they have another ... I do not consider that spamming or fee avoidance."
Well, that is precisely what it is.
Okay, here's the problem. Let's say there are ten people looking for a particular widget, and two sellers offering that widget for sale. Both sellers hold an auction and receive five bids. Seller A sells one widget to her highest bidder and lists another one. Seller B sells one to her high bidder, and another widget to all four underbidders. Then the scenario is repeated. The seller who abided by eBay's rules sold two and a half widgets. The seller who broke the rules sold seven and a half widgets.
What it boils down to is one seller stole half another seller's business. What's more, they both pay the same fees to eBay. One seller is like a parasite to the other. That is not fair.
If you'll agree with me that this is a problem, then it only becomes a matter of degree. How much cheating is okay; how much is too much? If selling to underbidders is okay, then maybe it's okay to contact bidders in other sellers' auctions. Or maybe it's not necessary to list items at all, just bottom-feed off other sellers' auctions entirely.
As for reserve price auctions, they are completely out of control. It has become standard operating procedure to use reserves to avoid eBay fees. Reserves have always been abused, and eBay is once again drawing the line.
As a seller, I think eBay's policy, once clarified, will be a boon to everyone. I'm tired of footing the bill for sellers who won't pay their fair share of eBay's fees. I don't care about spam mail, but I support my family from my eBay sales. That shouldn't include parasites who can't follow simple rules.
posted on December 29, 2000 02:49:56 AM newLisa_B, a button that would allow the seller to offer an unknown quantity of items at an unspecified price after the auction closes?? (Do the words "Dutch auction" ring a bell?)
I'm sure eBay could come up with new bells and whistles. We'd love that, eh? Listing an item has already become like writing a short novel, let's add a few more features and options.
I'm going to look at this in the most distilled fashion I can, and only go by the specific prohibitions eBay has spelled out. eBay's rule is simple. eBay provides you with an email address of the winner(s) of your auction. That is the only use eBay will allow, and I think they're within their rights to apply limits.
All's not lost. There's still a huge loophole with mailing lists. Every one of my auctions has a link to join my mailing list.
I hate to say it, but none of this would be necessary if people weren't cheaters at heart.
posted on December 29, 2000 09:23:46 AM new
Twin...your argument doesn't fly.
I will admit there is a grey area in selling off ebay to buyers that the merchant became aware of because of ebay...but the grey area has to do with cheating ebay out of what can be considered legitimately earned fees...not with taking another merchant's customers away.
Ebay is making a claim similar to what a real estate salesman does...a real estate contract normally has a clause that if a sale occurs after a listing ends to someone that was shown the property by the agent before the listing ends then the agent is still entitled to the commission (there is normally a time limit to this clause). This means that the property owner cannot colude with a potential buyer to wait for the listing to end and then privately sell the property without the agent's involvement.
Ebay is taking the same stance...they introduced the buyer and seller and therefore they are entitled to a "commission". And I think ebay has a strong position in this...but they have been unable (or unwilling) to push for what is legitimately thiers up till now.
But it has nothing to do with dividing the buyers equally among the sellers.
The merchants (us) are in business...we are not children that mom and dad have to make sure each gets an "equal share" of the pie. Business means competition...it means each merchant tries to get as many of the potential customers to buy from him and not the other guy as he can.
As a business person I have no moral or ethical obligation to "share" the customers with you...and you have none to share with me. There is nothing unfair about one merchant selling all his widgets to the potential customer pool and leaving no customers for his competitor in the widget business. In fact, it is only good business to attempt to have as large a percent of the buyers pool buy as possible and leave very little for the competition.
I also think your wrong about those who use reserve auctions...your statement about most of the sellers using reserves abusing it cannot be supported with facts....you don't have the statistics to back up that claim.
Ebay already has the reserve fee which was to compensate ebay for the loss fees.
On Lisa's button proposal...not everything is sellable through a dutch auction. My figurine wasn't...but when it got a good price of course I wanted to offer it to the underbidder...and it was not unfair to anyone else who may have the same figurine up for sale...that other person had no claim to the bidders in my auction.
You state you have a mailing list...how is that any different than selling to underbidders? If you truely believe that it is unfair to take business away from the other sellers on ebay then you should drop your mailing list because you are taking away other ebay sellers customers by selling off ebay to the people on your mailing list...you wouldn't have known about those people if it hadn't of been for ebay, so you are also cheating ebay out of thier cut.
posted on December 29, 2000 09:31:19 AM newLisa_B: Thanks. I do not feel what you mentioned in your (December 27, 2000 05:16:45 PM) note is spam. You, as a potential buyer, initiated contact with the seller, so you're not advertising -- and it's not even about the same items already up for auction, much less trying to get the seller to prematurely terminate an ongoing auction. I don't think any seller dislikes serious inquiries, whereas many consumer, in the country at large, dislike the opposite direction, of companies contacting them direct, out of the blue, for the sake of marketing.
artsnflies: "lost the bidding on an item and had the seller email me that they have another of the same item that I can have for what I had bid." Sorry, but I frankly think this is spam, albeit borderline. They're at least not trying to divine what is "similar," instead offering another copy of the same item. However, a similar purpose could be served by having a brief link to their own sites (or to a mailing list one can sign him/herself up on), listed on auction pages. If low bidders feels "thwarted," they could say to themselves, "Maybe I should check their page or sign up on their mailing list" or even more simply, "Maybe I should mail them to see if they have another such item not on eBay."
Okay, maybe that's being too strong, and even I would not be all that bothered if the offer were made immediately on auction close, but if made "out of the blue" months later, I feel it would be out-and-out spam, not even borderline. Spliting hairs, maybe, but that's why I more simply said I thought it was spam in the first place.
"I've emailed a seller to ask if they have another product not being currently auctioned. Sometims they have, sometimes not."
This is not spam in my eyes at all. You're contacting the seller, not the other way around. I also don't think it is fee avoidance, because you're not trying to get a current auction terminated prematurely.
My main concern, in general, is that if I enter into a transaction, I simply want to complete that transaction and be done, not to receive additional direct marketing afterwards just because I bought the one item -- even more so if there wasn't even an actual transaction at all. I realize marketers want to "build a relationship," but real relationships are consensual, meaning both parties agree further contact is desired. If I want to be on a mailing list for other offers, I will say so. Given that sellers usually want the additional contact, that really only leaves the decision to the consumers. Unfortunately, that's often not the case.
Sellers, please, definitely put statements like "Please visit my site at..." or "If you wish to be on my mailing list, please contact me at..." or "If you have any questions at all, of any sort, please email me at..." Sellers can be very inviting without forcing themselves on buyers. The fact some accept that, and most or all of the rest say nothing, doesn't mean it was welcome.
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 09:32 AM ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 09:37 AM ]
posted on December 29, 2000 09:34:22 AM new
From reddeer's note on the first page:
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
IMO, if the item was successfully bid on through eBay, things should be done the usual way. If the auction is terminated before bidding ends or BIN is made, because of an offer, that sounds like fee avoidance. If the item closes without a bid, and the seller sends email to someone, I wouldn't call it fee avoidance (because no contract remains with eBay), but I would call it spamming.
- accepting an offer to buy the currently listed item outside of eBay
Key word: currently. If offered by the seller to someone by email, that's spamming, if offered by the seller to someone while the auction on that particular exact item is still ongoing, I'd call it spamming and fee avoidance.
- offering to sell the item outside of eBay to any of your bidders or another sellers' bidders in a Reserve Not Met listing
That I did not realize. I thought "reserve" meant the seller reserved the right not to sell it to the high bidder (if reserve not met), but that this implied they still could if they wanted to, which would mean an offer would not be spam because it would be over the current item. I haven't been offered anyway, but this, I did not know. I take it that if reserve is not met, the only fee is the original, start-time reserve fee itself, and not any end-time FVF's? If true, then yes, I guess there is a fee avoidance issue here.
Offering to another sellers' bidders is spam under any circumstance, IMO.
- offering to sell, outside of eBay, duplicate or additional merchandise to your own underbidders or to another sellers' bidders
I feel offering other copies of the same thing, to one's own low bidders is spam, albeit borderline. To another sellers' bidders is absolutely spam.
I don't quite see how it is fee avoidance if the additional copies aren't even up on eBay at the time the offer is made.
Spam and fee avoidance are two separate things, though they are sometimes connected. That's why I'm going over the points in this way.
· Contacting a seller and offering to purchase a listed item outside of eBay
Hmm, if it is currently listed, and the seller accepts, that is fee avoidance. If the item did not sell and a potential buyer is contacting after the fact, I don't see how this is fee avoidance.
I could see that there could end up being lots of buyers doing this, perhaps prompting a seller to put less items up on eBay, but if the item failed to send, I'm not sure what basis eBay could claim that the seller cannot sell the item by other means if a potential buyer contacts them separately. It would seem a little shady for a buyer to keep contacting sellers after auctions rather than bidding, but where is eBay's claim here? I'm not sure about this one. Yes, eBay would be losing money, but.... No matter what, eBay should be a little more precise on its wording on the above item. Spamming? No. Fee avoidance? Depends on whether eBay is talking about current auction items, I think.
· Offering in a listing the opportunity to purchase the listed item or other merchandise outside of eBay
The first clause, yes, language in an auction like, "If you'd like to buy this particular item directly, please contact me..." would be a problem. Fee avoidance, though not spam because the seller wouldn't be sending notes, the buyer would.
Is the second clause forbidding links offsite, or only language like "If you wish to buy similar such items, please visit..."?
Would a simple statement like "Please visit my website at..." be permissible on an auction page, or only in about-me pages?
I'm not a seller, so I don't know the specifics, but am now kind of curious about the wording. eBay, by most rulings I've seen lately over Web-related issues, is not necessarily responsible for the postings of all their members, but does have the right to restrict what would get hosted there, if they wish to enforce such rules. That is probably an oversimplification, not to mention its own can of worms, however.
· Sending unsolicited offers to bidders for the same or similar products that they have bid on in the past
Fee avoidance? If such items weren't on eBay or were but didn't attract bids or BINs, I don't see how.
It is, however, spam to me, pure and simple. While eBay cannot necessarily prevent it, there are matters of reputations, the sellers' and eBay's. Spamming speaks to the tendencies of a seller, and whether they are a quality seller or one that engages in less reputable actions. If a seller I bought from in the past spammed me, I'd probably consider informing eBay, and eBay, if it received complaints from a sufficient number of people, would have the right to NARU a seller for it. Though this is a somewhat apples and oranges issue, if someone got a booth at a flea market and then proceeded to harrass everyone going buy, the market organizers would seem to have the right to bar that seller from future markets and perhaps kick them out of the current one.
However, even with a company, I'd expect there would be some requirement of burden of proof. eBay (Safeharbor) would have to properly investigate, make sure there is a genuine problem (i.e. that it isn't one or two cranks or a smear effort against the seller), warn the seller which rule is being broken, wait to see if their is continued offense -- or something similar that would constitute similar proof.
The VERO situation amply demonstrates that, at least in that situation, the tendency is more towards guilty until proven innocent, so though I despise spam, I'd worry about eBay getting overzealous in pursuing sellers how might be spamming.
It seem eBay is either not being precise enough with its wording on the items I quoted, or it is reaching. Some of the cases do look like spam, some do look like fee avoidance, a few look like both, but some cases are not clear, either because of poor wording (IMO), poor interpretation on my part, or stretching by eBay.
Just my opinions, anyway. I'm not a seller or a legal expert.
[ Edited to add a few more points. Sorry. ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 09:44 AM ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Dec 29, 2000 09:47 AM ]
posted on December 29, 2000 09:39:43 AM new
This is simple. Ebay is an electronic auction house. As a seller, if you go to a car auction and sell an item, there is NOTHING to stop you from going to the 2nd highest bidder and saying "I may be able to get another Lexus. If I can, do you want one?" No auction house in their right mind would EVER consider regulating that kind of behavior. Can you see an auction house setting up surveillance to watch over people to see it doesn't happen?
And how tricky do sellers have to be to circumvent this? Anyone ever hear of hotmail addresses? If I wanted to avoid paying Ebay its whopping $2 or $3 or $10 a transaction, how tough would it be to create a new free email address somewhere and send mail using that new name?
Rather than spend time coming up with new dictates from on high, wouldn't Ebay's employees be better serving the "community" (yeah, right) by trying to figure out how to make the site stop crashing, or improve the long time it takes to search? Or maybe, just maybe, they'd take some money and advertise the site so that the outflow of buyers and sellers stops?
Ebay is a business, not a community. And not only don't they acknowledge that fact, but they don't even run it like a competent business. They propose policies that are not enforceable, and then dictate terms ignoring the fact that the sellers who have come to use Ebay are their lifeblood. Better watch out, or those sellers will find somewhere else to go. Amazon, anyone?
PS I asked Powerseller's customer support about a link to my website. I was told that a link was ok, AS LONG AS the products being sold on Ebay are priced lower than the website. I actually tend to use Buy It Now extensively, using a BIT price the same as the one on my site. I ran this by Ebay 1st, and they indicated there was no problem.
[ edited by jonweb on Dec 29, 2000 10:57 AM ]
posted on December 29, 2000 10:12:33 AM newdc9 ..... IMO your interpretation is right on the mark.
With regards to:
I'm not sure what basis eBay could claim that the seller cannot sell the item by other means if a potential buyer contacts them separately.
The reality is, they can't. IMO what eBay is trying to achieve, is to let bidders know in advance, that if they initiate an offsite deal, and the deal goes bad [for whatever reason] that not only will eBay not do anything for them, but they will also remind them that what they did [contacting seller to make an offisite deal] is against the rules. In other words, go take a flying leap.
With regards to:
Would a simple statement like "Please visit my website at..." be permissible on an auction page, or only in about-me pages?
This rule has been in place for some time now. eBay has no problem with "Please Visit My Website" links/banners, but they do have restrictions on the exact wording & link size.
posted on December 29, 2000 11:04:56 AM newAmy,"As a business person I have no moral or ethical obligation to 'share' the customers with you. There is nothing unfair about one merchant selling all his widgets to the potential customer pool and leaving no customers for his competitor in the widget business."
Wow, Amy I'm really surprised to hear this from you. Of course we're all in business for ourselves. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that some sellers will use unfair business practices to gain an advantage. Selling to underbidders, etc., is the same as "breaking the law" in any other way. Sellers who abide by eBay's rules end up footing the bill for the cheaters.
"You state you have a mailing list...how is that any different than selling to underbidders?"
I'm surprised to see you resorting to rhetoric. That is really not like you. A mailing list is composed of people who have specifically requested information on my items. Not random eBay members that I'm spamming. Mailing lists are allowed by eBay rules, and so any seller can create a mailing list. A mailing list is not an unfair advantage.
[ edited by jwpc on Dec 28, 2000 06:25 AM ]
