Is it actually wise to be considering developing a Napster-type online auction site, when eBay itself has long poured money into R&D of the exact same idea.
I am NOT trying to pooh-pooh your ideas to establish a COOPERATIVE site; rather, I worry lest eBay already has enuff info & data about the Napster technology, that were you to invest alotta time & energy into same, they could out do your efforts quickly, as they set up a research team over a year ago about this.
posted on January 24, 2001 08:28:57 PM
abacaxi: you might also wish to pose some queries in LINUX usenet groups, as there potentially is a wealth of free advice and ideas there, and who knows, maybe your project might touch some hearts & minds and set off a brainstorming session.
say ------- do you think you can do this and NOT have ANY, not ANY, banner ads?
posted on January 24, 2001 08:54:43 PM
Banner ads on a Napster-type seller-cooperative site wouldn't bother me in the least, IF they were necessary to keep the site going or make it financially feasible for the sellers, AND if the decision was made FOR MY BENEFIT AS A SELLER, not just for the benefit of padding some corporate CEO's pockets.
The fact that eBad has been researching the concept for a year PROVES to me that it's feasible, but the thought of having such a site FOR EBAY'S BENEFIT turns my stomach.
The greedy Monster By The Bay fouls everything it touches, and I wish it had strong competition from SOME site, ANY site, a site that couldn't/wouldn't be bought out for ANY sum of money.
posted on January 24, 2001 09:04:58 PM
granee: a huge number of companies spent a lot of moolah researching the potential applicability of the Napster technology to their eBizzes.
A concern for alla you regarding banner ads is that it is VERY difficult to find ANY non-competitive advertisers -- so, it may be wise to consider forming a research committee studying the viability of only accepting ads from the bigger little eBizzes using the site.
posted on January 24, 2001 09:36:18 PM"Exactly. Somebody has to play devil's advocate here." LOL!
Napster may go the way of the big dot.coms. I wouldn't blame them. I don't know what I would do if someone waved 100 million dollars in my face.
I am only suggesting that "for-profit" be replaced with "co-operative." eBay, and Napster for that matter, weren't built overnight. They weren't built with venture capital funds or major advertising. They succeeded solely by word of mouth. (Just think of the media attention a seller-run co-operative would generate. That's free publicity.)
Abacaxi, you seem to think that any successful site needs millions of dollars to even open their cyber-doors. I disagree. What I am talking about is more along the lines of a "home-grown" auction site. Don't overlook the importance of human interest. Remember the eBay community of several years ago? THAT is what built eBay, not fancy programming. I believe if a co-operative seller site existed, many current eBay members would switch and never look back. And eBay would lose their position of absolute monarch.
You may be comfortable selling at eBay today, but I believe eBay is in the position of cashing us in like poker chips. They're clearly interested in bringing in big businesses. I don't want to see eBay become a cyber-WalMart (no matter how profitable that might be for Meg and Pierre), any more than I would care to work at WalMart stocking shelves. eBay has become too big and too unfriendly and too confusing. It's time to get back to basics, and that's not going to happen at eBay.
posted on January 24, 2001 10:13:42 PM
twinsoft: you bring up some crucial points. eBay is NOT going away. And to form a cooperative with the idea that it will be COMPETITION against eBay -- I believe that such a goal brings DISASTOR.
SUCCESS is achieved if the goal is to create a cooperative SELLER-OWNED website which is founded to PROVIDE services.
There is a BIG difference!!!
ANY website truly providing COMPETENT, non-shoddy, respectful SERVICE and is NOT hawk-eyed for an IPO or vulture capitalism, THAT SITE WILL SUCCEED.
I agree with you, that there would be a virtual mutiny from eBay with people not looking back, after what they've been through.
Let eBay list auctions for BigBiz - that is what they have to do, anyway, simply to survive in the nasty cutthroat ecommerce environment invented by Mr. Bezos.
Right now, we comprise a CAPTIVE laboring audience having ONE viable marketplace.
In order to create a successful self-sustained seller-owned cooperative online auction, it is MANDATORY that both the successes and the failures of previous venues be examined in a ruthless manner.
One main problem that has never been adequately addressed is the elimination of the deadbeat bidder, no matter what guise the deadbeat appears in - whether "bored teen", an auctioneer's competitor, a malicious Internet prankster, etc.
It is mandatory, that solutions for the BAD PROBLEMS be addressed.
Given the angst being expressed at OAI messageboards everywhere, it seems that were a SELLER-OWNED Cooperative site to be established, that there would be a virtual STAMPEDE by small independent entrepeneurs to join the venture.
The ONLY WAY I can see to totally eliminate deadbeat bidders is to make all bidders register a credit card or bank account (or fund an auction account with mail-in payments) before being allowed to bid, with the understanding that their card/bank account/auction account will be debited with the bid and shipping amount at the instruction of the seller whose auction they won.
Something that has been suggested (but ignored by eBad) is to make all bidders register a credit card or bank account (or auction escrow fund), and DEDUCT ALL AUCTION FEES FROM THE BIDDER'S ACCOUNT rather than the seller's account. The seller then collects the bid price & shipping MINUS auction fees, from the buyer....and if the buyer fails to pay the seller for his winnings, HE'S the one out the fees, not the SELLER.
As far as forming a seller-cooperative auction with the intent to bring competition to eBad being a DISASTOR, I think you're wrong. I've seen many good sellers do great things at and for Yahoo Auction during the last 18 months WITH THE INTENT to make Yahoo very, very strong COMPETITION for eBad. Yahoo wasn't there yet by a long shot, but was getting there steadily, slowly-but-surely. And the fools at Yahoo just threw it all way.
I can't see how a seller-owned auction would NOT provide "COMPETENT, non-shoddy, respectful SERVICE". Sellers seem to be the only ones who VALUE such service from an auction. But providing good service AND trying to compete with eBad are not EXCLUSIVE goals for such a site.
There WOULD be a "STAMPEDE" of small independent entrepeneurs to such a site.
twinsoft is just suggesting that SOMEBODY with the technical know-how start the cattle drive.
posted on January 25, 2001 03:15:12 AM
I live very close to Palo Alto and went to high school there. I can tell you that CO-OP does work. The CO-OP grocery store that was there 30 years ago when I was a kid is stll there. (They've expanded to twice the size.) The store offers goods that are unavailable elsewhere, like a huge section of organic vegetables. There's even a masseuse to give back rubs. Although Palo Alto is a wealthy community, most of the CO-OP's customers wear jeans and Birkenstocks. There's also a Midtown Market that's virtually unchanged since I was a kid. Safeway and the other chain grocery stores are absent. Despite the money and the intelligensia (Stanford University is right next door), folks prefer the community atmosphere of the CO-OP where everyone is on a first-name basis.
Let's stop thinking about spending our efforts building up a Yahoo or Golds or some other site that will simply roll over for its stockholders. We already know what we're capable of. We've done it at eBay, and now we've done the same for Yahoo. We know we can do this. Let's stop wasting our efforts as pawns for big corporations. It's time to circle the wagons and make our stand.
granee: I sincerely believe that if one CONCENTRATES upon a positive goal, that its execution is assured; whereas, goals based upon negative hostility and capitalistion Koncepts like competition sow seeds that result in r-e-e-k-i-n-g weeds.
twinsoft: the Cooperative movement is BIG; indeed, there are organizations one should be able to research for alotta free advice.
posted on January 25, 2001 08:42:07 AM
granee: if I am making less sense than my anyways low-norm, the fact is that I am absolutely s-p-u-t-t-e-r-i-n-g over a whole number of things that I've observed at 1/2.com and miserable emails originating from same, particularly as I realized dayz ago that I will have to go to the correct segment of the online ***public*** and share some of the L-I-E-S, as I don't want a buncha strangers being USED and tossed away by these big fat white male ameriKan businessmean who
posted on January 25, 2001 08:27:44 PM
A slew of my computer magazines arrived in the mail today, and in one it was mentioned that ASPs have all sorts of file sharing programs for small businesses.
It looks like there is a lot of free infomation available in a search retrieval for the search terms ASP file sharing over at http://www.google.com
I only glanced at the first page of search results, but what I read in one of my magazines is that LOTS of file sharing options for all manner of small businesses already exist.
I have to agree with twinsoft and others that the Peer to peer computer networks like napster are an interesting application for this space.
I am familiar with one promising platform - that defines itsself as a platform or operating system for P2P. It offers developers a kit that would allow for specialized activities.
Beyond that it allows folks to create ad-hoc networks on the fly with 'by invitation only' security. For those interested, the site link is www.groove.net. PC requirements are pretty high, though PII 233 with 64MB min plus 200mb free disk space and 56k+ connection.
The real problem with a P2P program is that while entry into the private network is secure, the transaction loses it public nature. This problem is not a killer, but it is something to consider.
The real advantage is that the entire paradigm of the general online auction is eliminated. Instead of categories, there are networks and each of the networks is really a category. Just as it is envitable that there will be more than one network competing within a category, each user will be a member of dozens of networks.
Utimately, everyone will have their own online auction resident on their own computer that is 'open' when they are online and closed when they aren't.
Still how do you get from here to there. As you pointed out Rahd, the folks at eBay don't want folks to go there so expect some roadblocks.
My recommendation would be for a group of folks to get together and think through the implications of this kind of action and how it might could happen. This group would define the nature of the 'auction application' and gain a strong vision of how the P2P auction network would work.
About a dozen folks, I would think, would be needed and they could actually use the existing (and free) groove.net product to define the new approach.
This would be followed by the free distribution (for a good while) of the auction specific application. This app is kind of like the chess or checkers app that lets folks play these classic games across the net.
One thing is for certain. Those who said it was advertising that made it for eBay are waaay off base. Auctionuniverse.com was the first online auction to advertise and it didn't help us at all (because we didn't have enough sellers in place in early 1998).
Indeed, eBay did not advertise until just before they went public in August 1998 and then it was mainly spot market radio. The entire site was built by the users who were hawking their own goods "on eBay". FYI, there were only a core of about 2,000 sellers out there in September 1996 and it was that group that recruited the bulk of the 20,000,000 users eBay has today.
One final observation, twinsoft. The 10,000 sellers who would spend $500 ... their most valuable resource in this would be their customer lists. (You want to know why eBay continues to restrict conversation among users and commoditize sellers, they know that they are vulnerable.)
neomax
ebaY is no longer a company; it is a city being run like a company town
I have tried e-Hammer a number of times to no avail. I too saw bids, and activity, but the more I watched the site, the more it appeared to me to be sort of a closed click, that those who run the site, and their antique shop seem to get bids, but by and large outside of them, I saw no activity. I posted a variety of fine, up end priced items, and got a few bids, but no sales.
I mentioned that to e-Hammer when they wrote me once promoting their site, and they really got up in arms about my opinion. They had another seller write me and press me to post more often on e-Hammer - personally, I found it a waste of money and time. I could have sold the same items 3 times over on eBay. Sorry, but I really don't like this site.
posted on January 26, 2001 03:18:51 PM
codasaurus, I also could see OAUA or TAG as a logical starting place for organizing a SELLER-OWNED auction/fixed price site. I would have thought Honesty.com would have been a possibility, until they went for the big money and sold out to Andale.
Other tiny online auctions like AuctionAddict, Auxpal, BidBay, DutchBid (formerly Gold's), Edeal, Epier, MetaExchange, OldandSold (of "Van Gogh" Yellow Roses infamy), Pootah, Popula, SnapRat, Ubid and others are wooing former Yahoo, Amazon and eBay displaced sellers, but it's difficult to TRUST any auction with all the work that goes into moving and creating listings. Like most others, I don't look forward to maintaining listings at several (or more) auctions until I know which one's going to "make it", then putting efforts into that "chosen" site until they they have "critical mass" and decide I'm a big cash cow for them.
jwpc, were you listing your reproductions at eHammer or real antiques? If you put reproductions on eHammer, which is an all-antiques auction site, it could be the buyers were looking for the real thing, not a repro. That could explain your lack of success there.
granee: although your and my orientation are different, YOUR POST "showed me the PROVERBIAL L-I-G-H-T"...
How so?
It was your passionate explanation that were banner ads necessitated on a Seller-OWNED Cooperative Online Auction -- that you would have absolutely NO problem with it, just so long as the advertising were something which BENEFITED the sellers, who OWN the website.
YOU have shown me that we all are a CAPTIVE LABORING AUDIENCE lining the pockets of Wall Street investors.
Uhm, that I assure you is NOT, was not, and never will be any goal of mine.
Whereas Pierre Omidyar is giving away 99.9% of his fortune during his lifetime, in an organized responsible philanthropic foundation...
Well, omigawd, whaddya think that the Wall Street investors and the VULTURE Capitalists do with the -pennies- that YOU and I *give* them by turning our personal domiciles into virtual digital sweatshops?
AND, since there's MILLIONS in this CAPTIVE laboring audience, those financiers are getting BILLIONS, and ya know what --- I don't TRUST how they spend that money.
Now, I do NOT believe that ANY viable *competition* will EVER arise to the great, the mighty, the UNSTOPPABLE, the uncrushable, the invincable eBay.
However........ I think that an absolutely DELIGHTFUL experience could be had at a small auction site which was ENTIRELY SELLER-OWNED, as a legal Cooperative.
The ambiance would be amazing, and the service IMPECCABLE, and the passion undying, as all the profits would go to those who actually generate the AMBIANCE of the community thus established.
However, uhm, there's one liddle widdle, ah: "technicality" --- how many TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars does it co$$$$$T perweek to pay the ISP to keep the COOPERATIVE websiteup and running?
posted on January 26, 2001 04:31:32 PM
Whew! Great minds at work here!
Good inspirational reading - and believe there IS an answer if people don't trample each other with what-if's.
I thought about this a few years back- but everyone was still waving ebay banners...went to Yahoo..(bannerless) and realized the writing was on the wall there too. Not surprised at their capitalistic approach at all.
These auction vermin see sellers as a "bottomles pit of revenue". But my friends, we are fortunate that this is after all the good old USA - and free enterprise is ours as much as theirs!
The thought of an Association came to me, in that memberships financed a larger effort of listing our own auctions. Memberships afford a much better tax profile and there are ELECTIONS for officers,etc. in each STATE. Meetings can be held online! IOW, only registered SELLER members would vote who is Pres, VP, Treasurer and the like IN EACH STATE. NOBODY gets to really own the company - but it is fund driven.
Who's to say the BIDDERS would not register a quarterly fee to participate in this type of auction site>|? This could DOUBLE the revenue for investment of SELLERS this way.
How about reactions to advocating a membership drive- with a business plan offered to the providor who would design the site.
I know, who would run for President?? DUNNO............
posted on January 26, 2001 05:27:49 PMTENS of THOUSANDS of dollars does it co$$$$$T per week to pay the ISP to keep the COOPERATIVE website up and running?
If you are referring to bandwith/server costs, it would be tiny. Easily less than $1,000 per month until you build up an ENORMOUS amount of traffic.
The problem is having a full time (24/7) tech support an mainenance staff. Even a tiny staff (say, 3 tech support, one full time maintenance person and one manager) would easily cost $50,000 per month. And that is probably not going to provide an adequate level of service.
Again, I think the Linux model might be something to consider. Who provides tech support for Linux? Basically, anybody who wants to. There are a variety of different models. But if you want to just run Linux and not have any support, you can do it for free. Of course, I have no idea how that could be translated into the online auction model.
posted on January 26, 2001 06:04:06 PM
I'm glad to see the idea of a co-operative site has generated some positive feedback. It doesn't have to be a pipe dream. I really believe setting up a seller co-op does not have to be as difficult as it seems. And I think that finding volunteer administrators to get the site rolling is feasible. Salaried officers and membership fees. There are plenty of new auctions sites that could function as a "clean slate" or simply start a new site. All I'm talking about is replacing an owner with an elected board of admistrators. As long as listing remains free during the start-up period, does anyone doubt that sellers will come running? I'm sure many would even be willing to pay membership fees up front.
I keep thinking of the numbers eBay has long held. Eighty percent of sales are generated by five percent of eBay's sellers. These are the numbers eBay throws at us, in a "we don't need you" kind of way. Within a year or two, it's entirely possible that a new co-op site might kick the legs out from under eBay. That is not my goal, but the point is that there are some sellers out there, for example OneCentCDs, that might bring in a lot of customers. Take a look at these forums and you can see that sellers are dying for an alternative. And I believe that unless we get organized and establish a "safe haven," we will either be squeezed out of eBay entirely or remain at the mercy of eBay. On the other hand, who would object to pocketing the thousands of dollars we spend on listing fees each month?
As sellers, we already have the benefit of a proven track record. We built eBay, and we established Yahoo as well. We can learn from their mistakes. It's easy to trace the "downfall" of eBay to the IPO. Many of eBay's early problems came from its huge growth, but also from the crushing weight of bells and whistles which crashed the site on a daily basis. The more "features" eBay added, the worse for sellers. (And of course, no refund for their interminable tinkering.) None of those bells and whistles are necessary. We're looking at the beginning of a grass roots movement, where sellers can take back their businesses from the jaws of the demon eBay. WE have the power. eBay is only a warehouse for us to store our goods. Should any of us have to cower in the dark when we get an email saying, "I saw your widget and I'd like to buy one?" Why should we be treated as criminals simply for closing a deal outside eBay?
eBay is banking on our success. We've brought the customers. Now eBay has decided it's simpler and more profitable to take those numbers and woo big business by turning eBay into a cyber-WalMart. Many of us have valuable items to offer, but we can't get a fair price because of eBay's fee structure. Our sales amount to basically throwing our goods into the wind, because it's impossible to set a fair minimum or a reserve price. We'll be low-balled to death unless we can find an alternative to FeeBay.
Before you complain about the cost, think about how much you spend to sell on eBay each month.
posted on January 26, 2001 06:11:35 PM
amalgamated2000, that $50,000 figure is not impossible. Take 5000 sellers and multiply by a $10 per month membership fee. I'm not talking about a FREE service. And there would still be FVFs (at a minimum) that would go back to administration/tech support.
Don't forget about the "angel" factor. It might be possible to contract with a new credit card processing service. Sometimes it's necessary to take an acceptable risk in business; and again, once an infrastructure is in place, the support would increase dramatically.
posted on January 26, 2001 06:42:29 PM
amalgamated2000: Over the years, I've sometimes lurked in various LINUX newsgroups, and I truly believe that were we to notify LINUX that we wish to create a SELLER-OWNED SELLER-RUN online auction, that we'd have hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers.
I'm serious.
The Linux Community is the epitome of kewL.
AND........just think of how many of them TRULY do remember the original eBay, as they were actively interfacing with the community at that time.
Yes, I believe that there could be a BIG instantaneous volunteer response from LINUX programmers, who would find this type of project very interesting from a techie point of view, and ultimately heartwarming from a purely existentially altruistic point of view.
I mean, reaLLY, this might be considered something really kEwL!!
posted on January 26, 2001 07:31:51 PMOver the years, I've sometimes lurked in various LINUX newsgroups, and I truly believe that were we to notify LINUX that we wish to create a SELLER-OWNED SELLER-RUN online auction, that we'd have hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers.
Actually, I hadn't thought about it that way, but you are totally correct. Only problem is that they will be interested in developing a Linux based client. It might be difficult (though certainly possible) to get a significantly large enough group to also develop a Windows (not to mention Mac) version...
posted on January 26, 2001 07:38:31 PM
The decentralized "on everyone's PC" model works for Napster (and is a requirement) for 2 reasons:
a) it makes each individual user responsible for violating copyrights rather than a central authority. This makes it illegal but hard/impossible to prosecute.
b) decentralization means that the central site only needs to supply bandwidth for the search engine/directory service, not the actual music file transmission
I think the distributed model is not good for online auctions because even if buyers check once/day, they most likely will miss most auctions - anyone seller who is not currently connected to the Net.
The second problem with distributed auctions is that not every PC has a decent Internet connection. If you are on a 28.8 dial-up connection and have a hot auction, buyers will be very frustrated trying to bid or download the auction data from your PC.
Another problem is the reliability issue. What happens if bids are coming in on your auction and your Windows PC locks up or your kid has to do his homework on your PC?
Better to stick with a central site from a performance and reliability standpoint, IMO.
I think it's an interesting idea with possibilities...
Fortunately, there is an easy, free-market solutions to the very real problems that you point out...
That is auction hosting comapanies. For example, I could set up an "auction hosting" company and you could just let me know what auctions you would like for me to keep running continually. I can charge you in a variety of ways (fees per day, FVF's, whatever...) But if the base technology is there, these companies that provide these services (and any related services) will develop.
posted on January 26, 2001 07:57:24 PM
Jim, those are good points. The legal aspects of Napster aren't an issue, because for all intents and purposes, live auctions are different than copyrighted music. To address the technical problems of an end-user's home computer: Napster succeeds wildly with similar requirements. Most Napster users have a cable connection or fast modem (at least 56K). So a seller using a 28.8 modem will be faced with the problem of upgrading. A decent fast modem can be purchased for $20. A cable connection costs only a little more than a phone line connection, and is "always on." So a seller might be faced with the necessity of upgrading, but that should not be much of a problem. We're looking for serious sellers who would be willing to take the first few baby steps. As for a user's connection locking up during the critical last few minutes of an auction, we're already fairly familiar with that problem. It happens all the time when eBay crashes. Since we'd be setting our own rules, an auction could be extended in case of an outage. We don't have to continue eBay's policy of "our system went down but tough cookies for you." Hopefully a next-generation application like we're discussing would be more stable than eBay's current setup. Let's focus on the goal of an alternative to eBay, rather than a competing site. Let eBay have the lion's share, while we develop our own grass-roots co-op. Once eBay notices the success of such a movement, I think they'd have to re-evaluate their own seller-unfriendly policies.
posted on January 26, 2001 08:05:43 PM
Yahoo and ebay are both wildly profitable businesses. Their common problem is seeking to make good not on the $$ invested to build these businesses but rather on the insane values the internet bubble market runup gave their stocks. Customer service is expensive, advertising is expensive, the startup costs for a good auction site are large; But, once established, the marginal costs for all the bit pushing involved in hosting enormous numbers of auctions are ridiculously low, and dropping. If either ebay, yahoo, or the next hot possibility were to adopt the "We make money the old fashioned way. We earn it." credo the fees would decline rather than rise, and could likely be so close to free as to make no never mind.
posted on January 26, 2001 08:13:52 PM
The hosting of individual auctions could be distributed I suppose, but the user registration and searching would have to be centralized. Either that, or you would have a data replication nightmare trying to keep all the hosting sites' registration/search data in sync.
If user registration is centralized, then that means every bid needs to validate against the central server. At that point, I believe you are losing more to distributed hosting than you are gaining.
The free-market aspect of auction hosting services is interesting, but if the coop is owned or partially owned by sellers, the theory is that there would be no ability to gouge on prices, even if the server were run centrally, right?
Plus, you still have quality control issues with a decentralized hosting setup. If buyers click on items and get a different level of performance every time (because different hosting services are involved), they will likely be put off. This is the reason we do all our own image hosting and do not allow shops to serve images from AOL areas, angelfire, etc. It's more expense for us, but we can control quality.
I have some other issues to kick around. (First let me say I know nothing about how coops are run)
I am assuming that when issues come up, the coop members vote on several alternatives. Does every member get 1 vote, or do members get votes in proportion to the length they have been in the coop, or do members get votes in proportion to the fees they have paid (that is, the amount of merchandise they have sold)?
posted on January 26, 2001 08:34:27 PM
Everyone that posts here is so full of disdain for Ebay (and Yahoo, and Amazon Auction, and Golds and Half, etc.). If it's so bad, don't sell your stuff there. Go sell it however you sold it before Ebay and the rest. In other words, via classifieds (more expensive, less efficient), at flea markets (limited traffic), or in some other bogus venue.
Count your blessings and stop whining all the time...
