posted on January 26, 2001 08:45:56 PM new
rubylane: hi, Jim. The Cooperative movement is OLD, and I'm sure when I have time to research same, I'll be able to retrieve some good websites over at google.com.
I am NO lawyer, but I imagine that there are innumerable ways to LEGALLY set up a cooperative, in so far as voting and the power given to any single individual vote and what aspects that power may be based on.
I look at this entire proposal as simply a *FUN* type of LEARNING experience for those so interested.
It may be a whole different proposition altogether if ALL the users are owners of the site -- VERY VERY VERY different, hey?
posted on January 26, 2001 08:53:01 PM new
Hi guys:
I think most everyone knows that technically the cost of running a single auction is minimal and devices such as reserve fees and final value fees, bold listing, showcase auction fees, etc. are all ruses to get in our collective pockets.
The real cost of an online auction is getting the notice that the item the person wants can be found in a particular location.
That public understanding -- where to find stuff -- is central to eBay's franchise.
Because of ebay's first mover status and literal success in establishing the brand, no startup site is going to be able to challenge it head on.
What has to be done is changing the behaviors of literally millions of people. Think of the communication task being almost as challenging as changing the name of the a brand Esso to Exxon. (Edit: actually much more challenging.)
The trick in the area of auctions is to list on eBay or wherever but encourage, promote, suggest, recommend to every bidder/buyer that when they want to check on the price of an item at eBay, that there really is a better and different path.
What path might that be?
It could be auctionwatch meta search, some P2P network link? Biddersedge? RubyLane, Johns free online auction site?
Will that happen?
Auctionwatch, biddersedge and other meta search engines (Ruby Lane, etc.) have been around a while but as good little ebay'ers, you've all burned go-to-eBay into millions of minds.
Certainly, these groups could be a key part of the change. When Auctions.com was still alive, we saw that poential and we supported these sites with our advertising dollars.
Regardless, the buzz is 'you gotta do it that way' find it at "www.ebay.com" ...
That is a powerful, powerful message. Think about it, you don't even have that message in your head when you think of Yahoo or any other online auction site.
What makes peer2peer networks interesting in this kind of change is based their proven ability to spread like wildfire -- something the existing meta search engines mentioned above have not experienced.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that the Peer2Peer networks are the answer but because they can be formed along trusted networks and they can also be narrowly drawn in terms of categories, they do hold promise.
Regardless, the goal for P2Pnetworking in the auction industry may be limited to doing no more than promoting links to the meta search engines or maybe just linking to one of the free auction sites directly and putting that auction right next to one from eBay. Of course you need to have the LOWER PRICE on the one off-ebay.
The other intriguing part about P2P networking is it is 'cooperative' in spirit but not in terms of the law. Rather these networks are ad hoc, meaning that to join, you load the software and you're a member, more or less.
One final observation. This discussion will be meaningful if three, four or five people network and actually think in depth about the issues and opportunities.
Having seen how the OAUA formed, it wasn't until a core group went into seclusion and talked that anything concrete was formed.
posted on January 26, 2001 09:11:35 PM new
[I]"if the coop is owned or partially owned by sellers, the theory is that there would be no ability to gouge on prices."[I] Could you expand on that?
Actually, I like the idea of a centralized size, the downside being cost involved.
As far as hosting issues, I think that sellers should be responsible for minding their own stores. If a seller wants to host their images on AOL and run a 28.8 modem, fine. I think we should be looking at an inclusive, not exclusive, policy. The less interference from administrators the better, within certain guidelines.
I don't know how co-ops are administered, but that information would not be hard to find. I would envision profits (if any) distributed according to sales: the more sales, the more returns. Those who list more would obviously pay a greater percentage in the form of FVFs.
Once such a site existed, I don't think there would be much need for policy decisions. Perhaps a Board Of Trustees could administer the site. Rules and policies would need to established up-front, so that when the "vulture" capitalists come around, there would be no danger of the co-op being sold. I would suggest that when issues do arise, such as a proposal from a credit card processing service, the issues be decided on a one member / one vote basis without respect to volume of sales. That would be the benefit of membership. But policies regarding payments, benefits and services should be established in a charter and not subject to change.
How would you feel about member-supported banner ads? Do you think that would be a fair service to offer?
I agree that folks want something very different, but not necessary "democratic."
Indeed, the appeal of P2P is that it is more 'anarchist' at heart.
AFter all, 'democratic' conjures up decision by 'committee' where I see the likelihood of a good P2P product for auctions being more a 'brilliant stroke of genius' ... the antithesis of the democratic committee.
New ideas need to be discussed and there needs to be some serious noodling between a small group of bright folks to see if they can brainstorm an out of the box solution.
I'm particularly intrigued of possible uses of P2P networking for auctions and you noted that eBay has been looking at this tool as well. I don't think they can do anything or want to do anything with P2P.
I do think that the main thing that folks are looking for is a system and/or process that decentralizes the power of the marketplace so that NO ONE is in a position to act the mega gatekeeper and toll taker.
This keeps a company or firm or whatever from control by lodging that control in the individual sellers themselves or in diverse and potentially competing groups.
In this 'world' one group may maintain seller ratings for computer hardware sellers and another for Barbie Collectors. Two or three transaction services (escrow/paypal, etc.) would operate freely and independently as they do now but there would not be an 'ebay' official service in the mix.
Actual listings may be on eBay and/or any other sites or on the users computer directly (with the wonder of links, it make not make any difference.)
The idea is that what 'site' the auction appears would not impact whether it would sell or not. If and when that is the case, an auction site will not be able to charge fees.
That is possible only when the 'system,' the idea of how the entire market works, moves from a centralized model to a distributed model.
That is at least what I begin to see as at least the potential of the P2P approach as it makes it possible, despite the distributed nature of the marketplace programming, appear to be centralized and concise.
My feeling is that if such a system existed, folks would adopt it because it is a better idea (assuming all sorts of caveats including that the software work and not crash incessently.)
The real task is its invention because it sure doesn't exist at present.
That is why the group needs to coalese. Hell, five groups ought to coalese and see if they can think through it.
It really is a brainstorming thing and that means folks ought to be encouraged to suggest the stupidest ideas ... because the stupid idea might inspire the missing silver bullet.
But Radh, you know as well as I do that a public forum like this is not good for such brainstorming sessions because the stupid idea is all too often put up for ridicule.
And that is the reason, not any desire to halt discussion or limit input.
posted on January 26, 2001 10:29:59 PM new
As radh said, co-ops are old; I was on the board of my children's nursery school co-op several years ago. It has been in existence for 30 or 40 years now.
Co-ops are administered by an Executive Board comprised of a dozen or more officers who are elected to their voluntary positions by a majority vote of the membership. At the school, each family had one vote for each child enrolled.
The Board administers the co-op according to the Bylaws and Standing Rules, the legal documents that provide the foundation of all of the co-op's activities.
The responsibility of the individual board members is to carry out their job descriptions to the best of their ability; the responsibility of the membership is to vote for or against proposals made by the board, and participate in other ways as mandated in the Bylaws.
It's a wonderful concept and can work wonders when it all comes together. In our case, our kids were treated to a first-class pre-school experience that, if we had to pay for it, would have been sky-high. Our tuition was only $32/mo.
posted on January 26, 2001 10:58:50 PM new
To expand on the application of the co-op concept to the internet auction world, these are some random thoughts from my perspective:
1. Paramount to the success of a co-op is its Bylaws. Created by the membership, they are the very foundation on which the actions of the Board are based. They are amendable, but only in a prescribed manner by a percentage of the membership, which percentage is mandated in the Bylaws.
IOW, there can be no sudden TOS revisions, fee hikes, and other bitter surprises thrust on the membership unless they themselves have previously agreed, vis-a-vis their vote.
2. The costs levied to members of a co-op reflect the operating costs of the co-op, nothing more, nothing less.
If the majority of members wants to see a basic, no-frills auction site, the fees they'd be charged would reflect the costs of providing that service. OTOH, if there were a need for more services later on, the membership would again cast its vote and, if the measure passed, be charged the costs of that increase in services.
3. The Bylaws would cover all aspects of operating the site, including specific actions pertaining to deadbeats, fraud, feedback, salaries, equipment maintenance, etc. Again, there would be no unpopular policies/actions because the membership itself determines what they are.
4. The authority of any individual officer/board member/employee to make decisions or take specific actions is bestowed through the Bylaws. If the membership, for instance, wishes to hire a site manager, they would define that person's responsibilities and limits of authority within the Bylaws.
The short of it is that a co-op is as good as its Bylaws. It's an intriguing prospect ...
[ edited by fountainhouse on Jan 27, 2001 12:37 AM ]
posted on January 27, 2001 12:23:50 AM new
Those of us who are "technically impaired" because we don't know or understand computer programming can't be the ones to decide if such a SELLER-OWNED AND OPERATED SITE should be NAPSTER-type technology OR should be a conventional online auction website. I personally don't care---I would just like to be able to sell through a "means" that doesn't rob me blind while padding someone else's pockets with my money. eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, TIAS and others like them take a HUGE CHUNK of the sale (when ALL the fees for everything listed are tallied), and service gets poorer as fees go up. There HAS to be another way.
If FVFs for an auction site are necessary, so be it; if banner ads are necessary, so be it; if membership costs and monthly fees are necessary, so be it. BUT, in exchange for my money (and my LOYALTY), I'd like a say in policies, major changes and additions; I'd like my share of profits (if any) returned to me; and I'd like a site that didn't GO DOWN all the time.
I think there are many thousands of sellers out there just like me, sort of in limbo, looking for "The Promised Land" online but not finding it.
posted on January 27, 2001 04:52:59 AM new
The first problem of the Napster model is that if you are not online, you can't be found. Also, it requires considerable computing power to run adequately. And some ISPs don't allow Napster-like activity via their service (it is detectable and stoppable) and others just aren't capble of it.
That would put anyone who is out of range of cable or DSL, whose budget is squeaking by with a cheap dialup, or who is working on last month's equipment, at a serious disadvantage.
Central sites are online for everyone 24x7 (or as close to it as possible), giving all sellers an equal exposure, with a chance at equally fast or slow connections.
The co-ops I have been a member of charge full retail, and then at the end of the year they give back in porportion to the amount spent. For an online auction co-op, it would mean that sellers who sold the most abnd paid the most would get the fattest refund checks.
posted on January 27, 2001 08:34:13 AM new
Maybe it's not too early to start sounding out the owner of an existing "dot-bomb" about the possiblility of renting out some space or squatting for a while. I don't want to sound pessimistic or like a scavenger, but eventually one of these new auction sites will throw in the towel and they might be willing to consider hosting a co-operative auction site instead.
Hi Pat: This morning I am even more inarticulate than my typical paultry norm.
Maybe I can convey an *image*.....
The Internet is supposed to empower the Individual.
The Internet should empower I-N-D-I-V-D-U-A-L-S, and NOT metamorphose same into a captive laboring audience whose blood, sweat and tears goes into lining the pockets of vulture capitalists and their friends on Wall Street.
I-P-O is a *dirty* f-i-l-t-h-y word.
What a SELLER-OWNED, SELLER-RUN cooperative online auction venue.NOT needs is a vitual G-R-O-U-N-D-S-W-E-L-L among Netizens far and wide.
The Internet is comprised of I-N-D-V-I-D-U-A-L-S far and wide with MANY areas of expertise, who would be VERY interested in the ideas we are discussing here.
The discussion that this messagethread represents is NOT even a true seed, as yet, and should not be allowed to perish in a smoke-filled private room among a dozen OAI experts.
Now, does anyone have the email addie for Tim Berners-Lee handy?
AND, is anyone around here familiar with the work of the WorldWideWeb consortium - ya know, that group of professionals who are based at something like www3?????????????
posted on January 27, 2001 09:08:56 AM new
abacaxi:
You write:
"The first problem of the Napster model is that if you are not online, you can't be found. Also, it requires considerable computing power to run adequately. And some ISPs don't allow Napster-like activity via their service (it is detectable and stoppable) and others just aren't capble of it."
While I'll not go so far as to say these issues don't exist, I think that others need to recognize that an auction application is sustantially different than napster, the main reason being that no one produces auction descriptions that are 3MB (unless they are a fool.)
What ISP's object to are the long download times and bandwidth usage.
My belief is that what a P2P auction network would serve up is not 'auctions' per se, but rather links to auctions.
Those links may be on any number of auction sites including eBay, amazon, ehammer, C/net auctions, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
The trick, as stated above, is to change the buzz in the industry from "you want something, you can find it at ebay." to you want something, you can find it at xyz.
RE: Twinsoft's comment that a dot-bomb would be interested in a 'deal' ...
You're about a year too late. I was working that angle 16 months ago for auctionuniverse.com but there were no bites.
First, I want to disabuse the folks here that have the idea that enough general sellers will come together to all of sudden annoint an auction site other than eBay with enough manna to make both them and the new site an overnight success.
That could have happened probably a year or so ago but it is not going to happen now. eBay is raising their rates, etc. because the industry is consolidating. No longer do they have to worry about 2,500 people going to Golds or whereever ... and now Yahoo is charging too.
The concept that will work, in that context, is to create groups of sellers in particular categories. I.e. 50-100 key sellers that organize as a coop and then seek to write a contract with an existing site.
I suggest specific groups defined by categories because of the potential for buzz.
What would happen if one week a buyer of art deco glass went to eBay and instead of 2,000 choices, there were only 200 listings?
They'd wonder where all the items that used to be listed there went ... and if they all moved at once, that would be buzz.
To me, it is not "A" cooperative, but dozens and even hundreds of seller cooperatives based on specific categories of products.
Probably the primary task of the cooperative is to negotiate contracts on behalf of the members. The terms of the contract would include that the auction site provide specific marketing and advertising for the category, highlight it on the site and also charge members of the category a reduced rate for listing in that category.
Cooperative members would, among other things, combine their marketing functions in a variety of ways. I think, for instance that a seller's cooperative might even be able to effectively use some email marketing techniques if they are careful.
The point is that if at least half of the 20 percent who list 80 percent of the best goods in a particular category were to move their 'selection' to another specific site in mass, that would create buzz beyond that particular category.
Pat
PS: When I was pitching this for the company that is no longer, I had up to $20,000 that I had set aside to promote such a group that would have set itsself up to promote a category in a cooperative fashion. The problem is such a group will have to self-form and show that it has the ability to deliver as a cooperative.
Again, let me stress that because of the costs of marketing, the group will almost have to be selling in a specific category of goods. (Individuals may, in this scenario, belong to a dozen different cooperatives as they sell goods in them.)
posted on January 27, 2001 09:23:56 AM new
Regarding fee structures, the purpose of a fee structure is two-fold:
1. Ensure that (eventually) income will meet or exceed expenses
2. Ensure the success of the marketplace, i.e., a) sellers are motivated to list items and b) buyers are motivated to buy them
One of the major problems with free sites is that they may falter on 2b. Even if a site is self-supporting by running banner ads (which is a non-business; I won't even go there), a site free to sellers has the problem that sellers have no risk, other than their time. A free site encourages big businesses to "dump" thousands of retail listings on the site and in general does not penalize sellers who list items that do not sell. (The reason they do not sell is not particularly important.) This leads to a site full of "trash" listings. Buyers do not want to wade through these.
If you examine the fee structure of eBay closely, you will see that:
1. Anything that inhibits a transaction is "taxed": higher starting price &/or setting a reserve.
2. Anything that eBay provides to encourage a transaction is charged a fee: bold, highlighting, featuring, etc.
The missing piece, in my opinion, is that anything the seller does to encourage a transaction is not rewarded: high feedback rating, listing with pictures vs. without, past history of completed sales, etc.
We do this at our site in two ways: Charter Shops get a 50% discount on all fees, and FV fees are credited toward listing fees. (Actually, we don't have "listing fees", we charge a 25 cents monthly for unsold items).
In a coop setup, I would suggest that excess fees be returned to the sellers (the "owners" in proportion to the amount of FVF they paid, not total fees.
posted on January 27, 2001 09:36:14 AM new
Hmmmmmmm ... move into a failed dot.bomb and remodel the premises. Well, for one thing, the servers and routers get sold as assets after the failure.
Renting server space on a reliable high-bandwidth ISP is a good option.
I dincerely believe that any such endeavor must be based upon a strongly worded Moral Imperative that clearly states that the inherent intrinsic nature of the Internet is to empower the I-N-D-I-V-D-U-A-L and that although we have allowed ourselves momentarily to be disempowered by MARKETERS for the purpose of showcasing the auctions of huge multinational corporations and other mega-conglomerates, that we intend to found and establish a SANE online marketplace where we intend to do it RIGHT - in both meanings of the word: the elimation of wrongillogical policies which hinder the I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L Seller and whose sole pupose is actually to line the pockets of Wall Street, and RIGHT in the sense of following the m-o-r-a-l principled way to conduct an online marketplace for the BENEFIT of Netizens ~EVERYWHERE~ and to look at this as a looooooooonG term project in which the goal lies firmly entwined with the actual finalized mission statement, thus permanently placing the profit motive eternally to secondplace significance.
abacaxi mentions that $50 from ten thousand sellers would be a start.
But how about $100 antes in a LONNNNNNNG term project to create a logical, non-disempowering marketplace by TENS OF THOUSANDS of Netizens, be they sellers or not?
posted on January 27, 2001 10:21:03 AM new
The World Wide Web Consortium is located at www.w3.org. I really like the way this thread is turning into a barnstorming session. At this point every idea should be entertained. There is some really good stuff here.
abacaxi, I'm not sure how to put this delicately so I'll just say it. I'm suggesting we intercept an existing auction site that's about to fail and make a proposal. Tactless, I know....
posted on January 27, 2001 10:33:55 AM new
Just one more quick word about the WC3. If you haven't browsed the site, please do so. Their style sheets specification is a superb tool for next-step web page design. They offer a free program called HTML Tidy that will parse your HTML file, and either report or automatically fix the errors. They also have some free HTML editors.
"Inarticulate"... I think we all are as this is a thorny and hardly easy issue with which to deal.
You write:
"The discussion that this messagethread represents is NOT even a true seed, as yet, and should not be allowed to perish in a smoke-filled private room among a dozen OAI experts."
You're right about this not even being a true seed and it really isn't about it perishing or not.
The only reason I suggest that some OAI experts noodle the idea in a non-public forum is that it is hard not to make a fool of one's self because of ignorance of the technology.
For instance, the P2P product "groove", allows activity both on and off line and propogates all info to all members of the group. Furthermore, I don't think that even the experts in P2P have thought through all the permutations that may have relevance to the auction industry.
As far as the cooperative ... those who are aware of them know also that it is the business philosophy, not the structure of stock ownership, that differentiates them from traditional business. Indeed, the Electric Coop of which I am a member has all but abandoned its 'cooperative' aspects; looking and acting very much like a business. (ie. they've created a very strong board and limit the liquidity of membership shares and haven't provided dividends for decades.)
My attitude is that there is something -- I don't know what -- that tells me that P2P may be the path to explore in regard to the next 'auction' thing.
I think it is worth exploring for one major reason ... it can be structured to avoid ownership or at least parcel it out to multiple groups for each category.
But I have to agree with you Radh that in the field of general online auction sites, eBay is on top and is likely to stand alone for some time.
I also don't think that a group of sellers can establish the change from "Want to find something look at eBay.com" to "want to find something look at xyz.com before you look at eBay.
The only way that will happen is when category-specific groups organize into their own cooperatives and move 80 percent of the auctions from ebay to another site in a matter of a week. It may only be 1500 items in a category normally populated by 2000 items for sale; but it will need to be a dramatic move.
Radh: I agree with your attitude but I feel like I'm in the N'oreast where 'you can't get there from here."
posted on January 27, 2001 10:44:00 AM new
Pat: lolololololol
I'm d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-e!!!!!!
I find MANY aspects of ecommerce to be absolutely repugnant!!!!!!!!!
lolololol lolololol
I think, that among the many organizations I wanna contact, (i.e., for instance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation at eff.org) that I should locate one of those mammoth world wide PRAYER-request organizations, so that this pre-SEED won't be killed before it even develops to seed form, much less is sown.
If I have time, I also intend to "crash" some of the LINUX groups -- since I always describe myself as a tech-illiterate with strong visions of the LEGENDARY aspects of Linux swimming around my one existant neuron, they are overall VERY nice professionals who realize that I'm not even a t-r-o-l-l, LOL.
posted on January 27, 2001 10:54:28 AM new
Wow! I just read through this thread. Finally some concrete discussion of how to go forward in this business.
The way I see it, thousands if not millions of small sellers built up this monster. Pierre, Meg and many others cash in their share options while wreaking havoc on the folks that have given this to them.
I don't know about you folks but I haven't seen a work week less than 75 hours in two years! I keep 2000+ auctions going on Amazon and ePAY.
The coop is the only plan that will ensure true survival and stability for sellers.
Yes, it isn't going to be easy and yes there are lots of problems, but so is the alternative of letting ePAY run amok!
I think we have to keep it simple. Start with a coop auction site.
I would suggest that the charter group of sellers pay an initiation fee of $100 and a monthly "Store" fee of $50.00 per month which would give them a certain amount of auctions. Very much like Amazon.
All charter members would have a vote. New charter members could be added by application and anyone could list by paying fair fees whether they are list or FVF's.
I think if something like this was done there'd be enough money to create a strong site with tons of support. I don't think it would be that hard to market such a site either.
A few things I'd like to see in the charter would be that the co-op would not be saleable in any circumstance. It could be collpsed but never sold or taken over.
And I think that a well funded site like this that didn't have a million categories and had good fair support and systems would also be able to do its own R&D to evolve in the direction that technology takes it.
Sorry for being so long winded but this is long overdue. My only wish is that a group comes together before some corporate suits build a new ePAy because anything making as much loot as ePAY will get competition one way or the other soon!
Jamie
canvid13
514-270-7478
[email protected]
[ edited by canvid13 on Jan 27, 2001 10:59 AM ]
posted on January 27, 2001 11:12:16 AM new
How would the co-op "police" members whose actions might hurt the whole co-op? Examples:
- spam listings
- dishonest sellers
- "agenda" listings e.g. religious or racial bashing
Trying to deal with those types of problems could lead to other problems:
- netcopping
- groups of sellers forming and ganging up on individual sellers, perhaps with a good original intent but with potential to turn into something else, even blackmail (power does corrupt)
- build up of a bureaucracy of complicated rules
- ill feelings developing among sellers because of disagreements on how to handle all the above problems
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Jan 27, 2001 11:14 AM ]
posted on January 27, 2001 11:18:25 AM new
canvid13: righT oN!!!!!!!
Pat: If you read Jamie's post, and the enthusiasm and the similar seller-owned/seller-run NO BUY-Outs *ever* possible suggestions, you will understand why I actually do NOT believe that ANY marketing expenses are gonna be necessary.
RATHER, I foresee, that there will have to be LIMITATIONS firmly in place, as to the number of total auctions allowable per given segment of time - because the response will be that overwhelming.
PARTICULARLY if it is precisely HONESTLY stated in the charter that this is an experiment NOT based upon base pecuniary incentives, but rather an exploratory experimental project to found and build a SANE marketplace which is for the use of INDIVIDUALS.
Say, we need to use the word: MARKETPLACE, and nothin' about "AUCTION", as you see, eBay changed their moniker to the world's largest online marketplace when it became apparent to their legal department that there were TOO many differing laws in TOO many municipalities that refer to AUCTIONS and that, therefore, they were leaving a big dangerous loophole open for legal challenges to their online "auction venue."
posted on January 27, 2001 11:26:38 AM new
I believe that there is FREE expert advice available to a GROUNDSWELL Movement in many many, simply innumerable places.
For instance, among the supporters of Ralph Nader, can be found NON-BABBITT businessmen who would find it ENTHRALLING to be on a board of Advisors who concentrate solely on the dilemma of the I-N-D-V-I-D-U-A-L tiny online eBizzes who'd comprise and utilize our proposed Cooperative Marketplace.
Also, the US government just site up yet another new website to combat Internet fraud -- they call it something like the Dot-CON site, and there are experts there who could advise a cooperative on how to set up the operations so that the FRAUD and CRIMINAL activity pervasive elsewhere, does not have a chance to enter, much less gain a toehold and ruin the SELLER-owned/SELLER-run Cooperative.
There are plenty of lawyers who've been long term Netizens who surely luv to assist in setting up the creation of numerous advisory boards.
EVEN the Unions would be interested in sharing their expertise, as they certainly must share my chagrin at the rise of COTTAGE-BASED Digital SWEATSHOPS, who NO way can compete with the multinational conglomerates.
posted on January 27, 2001 11:35:38 AM new
Irene: You've brought up some genuine concerns that MUST be addressed in the initial charter - the anonymity of the Internet, coupled with the ability of ANYONE who owns a server to create an unlimited number of fake sham multiple i.d.s - this is something that must be seriously addressed and prepared for.
posted on January 27, 2001 11:39:28 AM new
I think that there may even be more help than is necessary? It certainly would be an interesting event.
I know I'm ready to write a check. I started out on ePAY and then switched to Amazon and have worked on Yahoo too.
Each of these sites has thrown monkey wrenches into the business that I've worked really hard on.
I would base the co-op in a sort of fashion of the way the US is built. I would create "STATES" out of each category.
For example, I am a video and dvd seller. Our group would get ex amounts of members in the governing comittee based on the percentage of business of the website per year. So you might end up with 2 video reps, 4 clothing reps, 2 car reps all governing the coop.
Just an idea. The fact is that someone like Twinsoft is going to have to take the first step and group with some of us to create an adhoc group to start the ball rolling.
I like the idea of making it modular and adding facets as the project warrants.
Keep it simple. Define the goal of the coop and take it from there. Regarding Spam and any other issue, the answers are pretty clear.
It's the desire to enforce this by the main site that's the problem. Do you really think ePAY and Yahoo couldn't stop spamming???
I know that I've personally sent dozens of emails to ePAy about Pirate videos and dvd's and nothing's ever been done.
One more thing. A well funded co-op I believe would have no problem attracting some of the best talent available to develop and maintain it. Stock options are wonderful but only if the stock is worth something?
posted on January 27, 2001 11:56:15 AM new
Jamie: Thanks SO much for your post; I was just starting to deflate into a, "This has gotta be a p-i-p-e-d-r-e-a-m..." but I do want sincerely to believe that your perspective is correct.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:01:51 PM new
The legal structure would also have to be very carefully thought out to avoid breaking any tax or securities laws.
Small example: I live in Canada and know that because of the tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada, a portion of any "dividend" would probably have to be withheld by the co-op and remitted to the IRS (the Canadian seller would claim a credit for that amount on his/her Canadian tax form). However, if the payment was in the form of a "return of capital" or "refund of fees", then no funds probably need to be withheld.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Jan 27, 2001 12:03 PM ]
posted on January 27, 2001 12:07:52 PM new
I've been reading this thread for a while and I don't really understand all this talk about a co-op. Is there a problem with the current status of auction sites? I'm sure that there are plenty of sites out there that could suit people's needs. Are people feeling betrayed?
posted on January 27, 2001 12:12:29 PM new
I would be happy to join a co-op where sellers were guarenteed a certain voice in setting up categories and terms of use meet standards of conduct and had to verify their
real world addresses.
You could solicit letters of intend untill you got a critical mass for the start up.
You could issue shares for each $50.00 pledged when the time comes to actually call in the pledges and start. Someone could buy one share or 10, and get a corresponding vote
in the corperation.
Every change of rules or function could be done by a online vote of membership.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:16:48 PM new
Newauctionguy:
Some sellers want an alternative to living at Ebay's mercy. Although many new sites and free sites exist, it requires a financial investment on the part of the seller to tie up their merchandise waiting for the site to attract bidders. If the site fails, the seller loses because they tied up their merchandise for nothing. If the site suceeds, the seller loses because they begin charging fees and is no longer a viable option for listing in comparison to Ebay.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
in proportion to the amount of FVF they paid, not total fees.
lolololol