posted on January 23, 2001 05:58:29 AM new
I had about come to the same conclusion as Reamond seems to have by the time I got to his/her last post here. That is, "send in the lawyers" if this policy gets enforced much, stated often, or, especially, extended in its scope. It sounds like some elements of it invite a classic class action lawsuit revolving around restraint of trade which could result in a policy rollback and refund of fees to users across the board. Note: I am not a lawyer and have never been involved in any class action suits, so I might be wrong!
My personal theory is that Ebay would be justified to say in effect, "Look, we know many users get huge benefits beyond our fee structure by using our services as advertising and as a source of top-quality mailing list emails and contacts. We are therefore raising fees further to reflect this benefit. We suggest any users not yet smart enough to be using this obvious benefit to our service wise up and start doing so in order to compensate for the higher fees" .... but NOT justified in this apparently developing case-by-case restraint-of-trade policy. It's up to Ebay to decide where the law of diminishing returns kicks in regarding loss of listings from higher fees, balanced by higher income from higher fees, more loss of income from MORE users then avoiding fees, but more fees from more listings from presently less-savvy sellers realizing advantages to listing yet more...
Of course, I'd say Ebay would be totally within their rights to make emails invisible to any but the buyer and seller of a particular closed auction, and I suppose even to ban listing of one's web site and email within auction text. Again, availability of such information surely is of value to fee-paying users, so that path would in effect be asking those who make use of such information if they consider the fees, increased or not, worth paying still, and a decision not to penalize those who don't use the info resources by charging higher fees across the board.
posted on January 23, 2001 06:26:00 AM new
Lets say for instance, I sell widgets on ebay and have a link to my website. SOmeone clicks the link and is directed to my site where they see my new anodized ball bearings. They decide to buy a set of anodized ball bearings, is that fee avoidance?
posted on January 23, 2001 06:51:07 AM new
I find the "clarification" from eBay ridiculous. Seems to me they are assuming a lot. Are we to turn our heads when a "member of the eBay community" emails us regarding our auctions? I find it curious eBay spends so much time on this venue, yet lets so-called "honest" people sell fake merchandise - even with proof they are fake. I think it Washington circles this is called "loopholes" in the system (lol). )
posted on January 23, 2001 07:06:49 AM new
Twinsoft
From what I've seen [and unless it gets revised] buyers & sellers who use their email addy as a User ID, obviously won't be affected. There is also no mention of not allowing email addys to be posted in auctions or on ME pages etc. My email addy is on every auction I list.
But, for those users who VALUE their privacy, and DO NOT want sellers [or harrasers] emailing them, this NEW feature will help solve their problem.
posted on January 23, 2001 07:20:38 AM new
I value my privacy. I value my business. On one hand, I'm thankful eBay wants to protect me from those pesky customers who keep bothering me about buying my stuff. On the other hand, my strong sense of duty tells me I have an unspoken obligation to serve those customers in whatever small way I can. A seller's life isn't easy.
Well, you had your nap, now I'll take mine. It's 7:00 a.m. and I'm plum tuckered out.
I think the idea behind eBay's feature was to allow those who aren't concerned with spam to carry on like they always have. It's FAR less restictive than Yahoo's feature.
Can you imagine the kerfuffle if eBay FORCED every seller & buyer to change their email addy [User ID] to a user ID that wasn't their email addy?
I've looked over the new proposal several times & cannot find a downside to it.
For sellers that don't trust the eBay servers to deliver messages in a timely fashion, they can simply post an email link in all of their auctions.
posted on January 23, 2001 08:54:26 AM new
reddeer and stockticker
eBay is trying to put themselves in the same position as a manufacturers rep.
The key word here is "interest" They own a percentage of the deal they bring to you.
Such a relationship has always been governed by very specific contracts with very specific terms and periods - not by vague terms of a contract that was centered on entirely different services. I don't see how they can say they are only a venue and disassociate themselves from the relationship between the seller and the buyer and then say
we bring the buyer to you and own the relationship even outside the auction. Their claims are too broad and contridictory - agency AND immunity.
Something will fail.
If they go before a court and claim too much they may anger the judge and walk away with nothing instead of either half.
They can make all the rules they want but when a court orders them to reinstate someone the one who tells them no will end up sampling government hospitality for contempt.
[ edited by gravid on Jan 23, 2001 08:57 AM ]
posted on January 23, 2001 09:15:28 AM new
Reddeer: That's exactly what I was doing at Yahoo - putting my e-mail address in my auctions. (Oddly enough though, every question I received concerning my auctions came through the on-line form.)
Gravid: I agree with you. However, when small sellers are involved (geographically dispersed and unorganized), eBay is more likely to be able to get away with what they are doing. Notice that the query about Yahoo auctions (which I deliberately mentioned in the first thread ) got a quick response from eBay both to Twinsoft and and to me (by someone from eBay who saw my query in the AW thread and e-mailed me directly on Monday morning). EBay probably wouldn't want to face Yahoo in court over the issue.
posted on January 23, 2001 09:34:57 AM new
Hmmm. Most sellers have introduced users in to the ebay system either in person or by selling something so compelling that the user decided to sign up and bid.
Does that mean now, "since we generated interest in ebay", that we can get OUR cut on everything that another seller sells to them?
Somehow I don't think ebay is going for that.
I wouldn't be too concerned about these policy changes on their own merits, however ebay is creating a situation where every user can be found in non-compliance with some ebay rule at sometime. Therefore if ebay wants to discharge a user from the site, they can do it at will. Odious, isn't it?
"We believe people are basically good" but if we decide they aren't, we don't want to have to spend a lot of time dredging up evidence.
posted on January 23, 2001 10:59:17 AM new
Seriously, I think some of you need to get off the NARU kick.
eBay isn't implementing all this crapola because they want to NARU anyone, they are doing it because they receive a bazillion complaints a month from buyers that get screwed with off site transactions, and from buyers who get spammed from bottom feeders.
FYI - This was found posted today by an eBay rep.
I can respond to that. The question involved an item previously listed and seen on eBay. If a customer approaches the seller about it in his shop we would have no jurisdiction over that to begin with. In ANY event, if the item is not still in our data base, no rule but the spam policy *online* would apply.
What it really comes down to is using common
sense. This policy evolved from complaints about spam and bottom feeding: other sellers emailing your customers with lower offers. In addition, we do need to make sure that eBay-facilitated sales takes place on eBay and under the protections of feedback and insurance when at all possible. The majority of our fraud complaints stem from off-site
transactions.
But, selling an item in your shop is not within our control, even if the customer previously saw it on eBay. That
is your item, your shop.
posted on January 23, 2001 11:18:32 AM new
Many sellers add their website links in the auctions. Obviously, if someone wants to buy an item right away, they click through to the website. Does Ebay expect us to see where they came from? I am not going to go out of my way to see if the person who bought an item from my ecommerce site is an Ebay member. It's ludicrous!!!
Why doesn't Ebay file for legislation saying that they have cornered the market on selling on the internet and that every item sold on the internet must be charged a fee that goes to Ebay.
This is like the U.S. Postal Service trying to charge postage for emails. Get a life Ebay!!
posted on January 23, 2001 11:42:31 AM new
Thread title is false as no "Clarification from eBay" of anything is found here.
ebaY cracking down on fee avoidance and greatly broadening the scope of its definition is driven entirely by greed, as were the posting fee increases. Concerns with how irritating spam can be and absence of fraud protection on off-ebaY transactions are totally unconvincing window dressing.
posted on January 23, 2001 11:54:26 AM new
Just another tid bit from Katy
And remember that many of the new and impending regulations imposed by the government are aimed at reducing internet fraud of all types. Here is the problem we have, if buyer finds an item through eBay, and there is a problem with fraud, they then expect us to be able to help.
We can't possibly do that unless the transaction takes place under our umbrella. This does not mean that you are not free to do with the item what you like when the auction has ended. It just means that if you know the contact comes through eBay we ask that you relist the item in order to fall under those protections.
If the item is for sale elsewhere and you hear from buyers though that site, that is none of our business..................Katy
posted on January 23, 2001 12:00:52 PM new
Window dressing? Really?
Perhaps you've never read the complaints about Spam on the various eBay boards, or about bottom feeders who scurry from auction to auction leaching off off honest sellers hard work?
Even Pocono admitted that he was spammed over 50 times in one week after he placed one bid on a computer software item.
Just imagine what happens to bidders who place scores of bids each & every week.
I personally don't have much of a problem with spam, nor do bottom feeders make much of a living off of my auctions, but there are thousands of eBay users who do have these problems, and the new policy will help control those problems, without affecting any honest buyer/seller on their site.
posted on January 23, 2001 12:03:51 PM new
I'd be interested in knowing the actual number of complaints eBay receives per month regarding bottom feeding and outside-auction transactions. What percentage of complaints would justify changing the entire system for everyone?
Does any one of us really know just what eBay's Master Plan actually is?
Will email links still be allowed in our listings in the future?
Will links to our web pages still be allowed?
Will eBay try to force the use of their "special email forms"?
Will users turn each other in for "spam" and will abuses of this "automated" system be possible?
For the answers to these and many more questions, stay tuned cause it's all commin' our way! Thanks eBay!!
posted on January 23, 2001 12:17:37 PM new
I can understand how a seller can be a spammer, but how does a bidder/buyer become a spammer? The new policy seems targeted towards situations where potential buyers contact sellers - not where sellers initiate contact with potential buyers.
I think I know what the master plan is, 'cause I've seen it with my own 2 eyes.
As far as the # of complaints, gee, take a wild guess. Do you remember the days of the *Live* support board? Now multiply all the weekly dumb questions & complaints by several thousand. I imagine that would be pretty accurate as to how many people go crying to eBay *today*, on a weekly basis.
I could give you some eBay stats, but why bother, I'm sure no one would believe them anyhoo.
If eBay decides sellers can no longer have email links on their auctions, I'll be VERY surprised, and VERY upset. But from what I saw that's not in the works, at all.
Web site links, no mention of that either.
The NEW policy is addressing Spam, bottom feeders & member harrasment.
ALL this NEW policy does is allow eBay to wash their hands of buyers who get screwed by a seller on an "off site" transaction.
Get it? No insurance, no feedback, and now they can tell those buyers it's also AGAINST THE RULES
BTW - I've personally read hundreds of posts made on the eBay boards by sellers who get pizzed off when buyers contact them after an auction ends with reserve not being met, OR, where the buyer said they "forgot" to bid.
Well, I guess now those sellers will be able to do the dirty to them, if they feel that strongly about their unwanted Spam email.
Of course this will help keep more $$$ in the eBay coffers, I'm not that naive, but in the BIG picture the new anti-spam rules should benefit everyone, both buyers, and sellers.
posted on January 23, 2001 12:38:12 PM new
I get quite a few side offers by email.
I sell "adult novelty items" etc etc sensitive issue items.
Many people don't want to be seen as a bidder on my items. Many people don't understand that the feedback i give them for their purchase does NOT lead to an item link for what they bought. And that they can request that they not get any feedback from me in the first place. I post my feedback policies in my EOA email.
But EOA emails go out to successful bidders......so these side offer people don't know.
I am not going to click click and make every auction a private auction. Random surfing bidders either won't see it or not understand it if they did anyways. they are shy and don't want to be seen as associated with the stuff I sell.
I understand peoples needs for privacy for my product line.
If you did a seller search on my stuff what would you think if you saw some of the regular AW posters bidding on "sensitive issue adult novelty items".....see my point.
I get offers from very highly rated sellers they know how the feedback works and know that it wont link to the item in their feedback list.....but we all know if you see someones feedback with no item link you just know their buying kinky toys most likely.lol They don't want to be seen as bidders on active auctions either.
So as far as my product line goes, I frankly dont care.....I do it for customer privacy issues and respect that.
{edited unpon the moderators request}
Add a little flavor to your love life with "Love Potions"
[ edited by lovepotions on Jan 23, 2001 01:12 PM ]
posted on January 23, 2001 12:57:06 PM newIF we were talking about a site that had proven itself consistent and fair-minded in enforcing its rules, THEN we'd be making "much ado about nothing."
I share twinsoft's and RM's concerns. Regardless of ebay's right to consider contacts made on their site proprietary (which I totally disagree with), it's the enforcement of these vaguely-written, broad-brush "rules" that are dangerous.
posted on January 23, 2001 01:23:54 PM new
lovepotions,
I'm sorry, I just realized you are posting under your eBay selling ID. That makes your sig line promotional. You may use a link to your email, website, or "me" page as a sig line, but in the future please do not use the promotional wording.
posted on January 23, 2001 01:30:44 PM new
red-deer,
I know you think you know the Master Plan
and you never cease to amaze me with your absolute knowledge regarding all things eBay BUT there are plans and then there are plans and not one of us is really sure what's cookin' on the back burners.
posted on January 23, 2001 02:01:34 PM newabsolute knowledge regarding all things eBay
Now now Ray, don't go getting into a tither over this.
Of course I can't say for 100% certainty what eBay is going to do, or not do, in the future, anymore than I can predict whether there's life on other planets. So what's your point?
I'm simply commenting on what I have seen, which is obviously more than you.
posted on January 23, 2001 02:04:09 PM new"they are doing it because they receive a bazillion complaints a month ... from buyers who get spammed from bottom feeders."
Reddeer, it's the easiest thing in the world for anyone to open an eBay account and "bottom feed" off other sellers' auctions. An unscrupulous seller wouldn't even have to LIST any auctions, fer-kryin'-out-loud! That's already prohibited. But what does bottom-feeding have to do with buyers who DID miss the auction and email the seller? I'll tell ya' what: eBay wants their cut of that too. Come on, this isn't about spam. What seller in their right mind would object to a legitimate offer to buy from ANY customer? "Unconvincing window dressing" is right.
"... we do need to make sure that eBay-facilitated sales take place on eBay and under the protections of feedback ..." Wot a laugh. eBay missed their calling. They should have been in show biz.
"... we ask that you relist the item ..." Oh, so now they're asking. Sounds like back-pedaling to me. Maybe they're starting to realize they bit off more than they can chew.
RM, "all things eBay?" LOL! Yer right.
Reddeer, I'll say it again. Bottom-feeding ALREADY was prohibited. Feedback my hiney!
posted on January 23, 2001 02:22:34 PM new
Twinsoft, we're on the same wavelength. There is a kernel of truth in eBay's claims about spam etc., but the policy they came up with is what I refer to as "Scorched Earth."
They already had prohibitions in place against the kind of bottom-feeding and spam people complain about. But they now go further, to include any and all potential offline transaction that may occur, such as the occasional reserve-not-met or bidless auctions that I negotiate.
It wasn't enough for them to restrict e-mail access so that the "bots" couldn't harvest addresses as easily, they had to be sure to encourage buyers and sellers to turn each other in. That is a kind of vigilantism that runs very contrary to sound customer service policies.
The problem is, the eBay PTB have a very poor handle on what life is like for sellers. They don't understand how community-building and personal contacts provide a foundation for a solid customer base and REPEAT BUSINESS. I have begged and pleaded with eBay not to cater to the whiners and complainers at the expense of our ability to communicate openly. If they insist on turning their sellers into anonymous phantons, such as the Half.com model, they will hurt our business.
Look at Marie's One Cent CDs. Why is she so successful? Why does she have bids on nearly every auction? It isn't about getting your CDs for one-cent, since I am outbid every time and can usually find them on Half.com for less. It's about name recognition, her stupendous feedback, the fact that there is a name behind the handle, a sense of personal touch, and of course the above-board way she conducts her business. I have an About Me page, I include a photo on my page, and I field many questions about vintage jewelry from interested parties that may or may not be looking to buy. I field those "pesky" inquiries from buyers who may have missed an auction or forgot to bid, etc. -- and Yes, I do form an occasional offline trade. Why? Because those folks want a human and personal touch, despite the novelty and ease of internet commerce. They often bookmark my auctions, bid regularly on my things -- and in the end, eBay and I BOTH benefit.
What ebay fails to understand is how to fully and completely support their sellers -- how to foster a win-win atmosphere. If I as a seller succeed, ultimately eBay succeeds to. But if eBay tries to set the terms as to what MY success needs to look like, then I'm gone.
BTW just to clarify, I'm NOT referring to sellers who deliberately and systematically practice Bottom Feeding and Fee Avoidance, and I do appreciate eBay's efforts in attemting to deal with those situations. BUT -- they are painting us all with the same broad brush and I resent the hell out of that. Pardon my French.
)
