posted on January 27, 2001 12:17:21 PM new
Newauctionguy: To date, none of the other non-eBay owned sites appears to have produced sales, except for Yahoo (in certain categories) and Amazon (in certain categories). Then in the past few months, both Yahoo and Amazon have taken actions which have guaranteed that their auction sites will only have limited future success.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:19:27 PM newstockticker
"How would the co-op "police" members whose actions might hurt the whole co-op? "
You have a user agreement, AND a set of rules that are uniformly applied to the auctions.
Keep in mind that a co-op has a heckuva lot more power over member actions than a eBay would. You don't get to join until you agree to the terms, and if there is a chronic violator, they get booted out, forfeiting ALL possibility of rebates.
- spam listings (?) If by this you mean the sellers that flood a category with dozens of listings for "information CDs" and the other crap, it's simple. Either ban them or get them a category and make them stay there.
With database management tools, queries can easily spot a whole lot of problems before they get started.
- dishonest sellers (needs an arbritration committee: buyer has to prove they paid, and prove the method of payment was cashed or otherwise reached the seller, seller has to show reasonable evidence of shipping the item (DC or insured). Multiple offenders could get on probation or booted, forfeiting all rebates.)
- "agenda" listings e.g. religious or racial bashing (forbidden ... delete auction and member after one warning)
- netcopping (One way to do this is have a "netcop" button that could be clicked: member has to ID themselves to turn in an auction ... so those who are turning in competitors will soon be obvious, and those who are crying WOLF will too.
- 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)
(One member = one vote, and without CHAT BOARDS these cliques would be minimized)
- build up of a bureaucracy of complicated rules (Members vote on rules ... and a well-thought out rule set covering the egregious offenses based on problems on other sites can minimize this)
- ill feelings developing among sellers because of disagreements on how to handle all the above problems
(One member = one vote, and these feelings arise in ALL co-ops)
************
Core concepts:
Seller AND buyer verification of identity is mandatory (buyers permitted to make small purchases, or limited number of purchases before verification, but they need to be verified so they can't run amok). Maybe the Yahoo concept of allowing sellers to set the verified/not verified option for themselves, or for each auction.
Technology selected for maximum stability and uptime ... needs to be the choice of a DBA and geeks, not members. This is not a nursery school, and paid professionals WILL be needed. Maybe not full time, but they will be needed.
MIMIMUM bells and whistles ... we don't need to suck nickels and dimes out of sellers' pockets. Aim is fast loading, fast searching, and fast indexing for searches. the last part might require some sellers to change their listing habits.
BULK UPLOAD possible! I saw a REALLY SLICK way of doing it that is not difficult to implement.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:19:41 PM new
I have vaugly heard about yahoo and amazon. But wouldn't the online auction business be the same as a regular store where it takes a while for business to pick up? From what I read in this, it seems like people are fed up with eBay yet aren't willing to invest time in another site to see if it could be the next big thing. Maybe I'm wrong in that, I don't know.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:30:11 PM new
I think that if there is a basic committment to QUALITY - and a regulation limiting the quantity of listings, that it would have an overall VERY positive impact, as I think what naturally would happen is that people would start to reserve their best and finest for listing at the website marketplace in which they, themselves, were a part OWNER.
I think it would be fun to have a dazzling array of mdse for sale which one CAN SEARCH AND FIND, which was placed for sale by I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L-S.
I'm not a lawyer, and have NO idea if restraint-of-trade laws in the US mean that we can restrict membership in the cooperative to INDIVIDUALS, or if EVERY EMPLOYEE of Disney-eBay can purchase 100 shares - not for selling, silly! Rather for VOTING RIGHTS.
We need lawyers with background in the formation and running of cooperatives.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:39:33 PM new
The first sellers listing auctions would become the shareholders in the corporation/coop. Startup and estimated operating expenses would be calculated as a base buy-in for the site. This would be divided up into shares. The listing fee would be 25 cents, which would allow you to list one auction and give you one share of stock. List 100 auctions, own 100 votes and 100 shares of stock.
Once the site is able to support itself and no longer needs startup capital, ownership is closed.
Sellers interested in owning part of the site would prepay for listing credits / shares which would be used to purchase the hardware, software, pay the programmers, etc. Once the target funds are received, the project would begin to move forward. One of the key benefits of this approach is that the site would have a million auctions staged and ready to go the day the site goes live. This would eliminate the all too familiar empty auction site problem. The sellers would also have the motivation to tell their customers about the new site, because they own a part of it.
A limit would be placed for the maximum number of shares a single person or company could buy. This would ensure the integrity of the coop system.
posted on January 27, 2001 12:51:52 PM new
As for items requiring an administrative judgement, such as rules violations and member verification...
Members of the coop are randomly selected for a "term" of Jury Duty. This jury would last no longer than 30 days. (10 days would be better) During their "duty" they review any new seller applications, conflicts, violations, etc. Enough jurors would be active to allow fast resolution. Any action would require 5 votes for or against. The first 9 votes cast would make the decision. (or 5 for or against) Jurors would be responsible for checking the password protected admin section of the site where they can review the new applications and current list of issues submitted. Those they feel strong about they can vote on, those they have no strong opinion of they can skip. At any given time there may be as many as 100 active jurors. If any issues sit longer than 24 hours, more jurors are automatically activated. Once an issue has been voted on and resolved in is no longer visable in the database. An appeal process would allow the issue to be submitted to appeal by the original submittor if they are no happy with the ruling. Any appeals would require a higher number of vote to decide. (such as 15 or 20)
posted on January 27, 2001 12:57:00 PM new
I still don't understand the need for this co-op thing. A lot of the ideas sound really really good, but it also seems that you aren't willing to give other sites a chance. Am I right in thinking this way?
Most of the posts you are reading are composed by individuals who have tried a whole variety of sites.
WHY should we be a captive laboring audience turning our homes into digital sweatshops -- all so that Wall Street makes $$$$$$$.
Indeed, I-P-0 is a DIRTY-filthy epitaph, second only in magnitude to VultureCapitalist.
The Internet should EMPOWER the Individual, not make him beholden to multinational conglomerate monopolies who are concerned with marketshare and corporate profits, and generally consider us a buncha misfits who do not have MBAs.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:08:22 PM new
I think that this idea is an awesome one! I myself am a power seller on Ebay (although that doesnt seem to mean much) and I have been discussing the possibility of doing something like this with a few other sellers. We have been in the discussion phase of setting up an auction site that does not charge fees. However, people are right in the fact that there may have to be some kind of fee (monthly, yearly) to maintain the site. It would be much less than what the average seller spends to list with Ebay.
It is a LOT of work. We have not yet got this off the ground as it is in the initial stages. Other sellers we have asked to participate are reputable sellers and have the record to prove so. If they dont meet certain criteria.....they wont be asked to participate. The sellers that we have been in contact with are thrilled with the idea and are willing to do their share.
It isnt impossible for something like this to happen, but it is a LOT of work. There are many things to consider. There has to be certain criteria set up so that you can keep the site filled with honest and credible sellers....so that not every 'joe shmo' can join.
I cannot stress how much work this is, and has been for me and my partner....but it definitely IS possible!{bluebounce}
posted on January 27, 2001 01:11:19 PM new
So what you are saying, radh, is why should users pay money to big corporations when you can keep the money inside of a smaller group of people and use it for yourselves, correct? And I understand the point. But, on the other hand, what happens when this brainstorm gets really big? Power corrupts, and it is quite possible that, should this thing succeed, you could be faced in the same situation down the road.
Again, I think the ideas being talked about here are great.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:21:07 PM new
The "small" group of people would be well over 1,000. (that's if each person put up $500) It is a lot harder to corrupt 1,000 people than it is to corrupt a handful.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:41:41 PM new
I didn't see that about having 1,000 people take part in this. That would make it harder to have power corruption.
I like the idea of offering shares (and therefore votes) to people based on how many items they list. But, regarding that, what happens when you have a small group of people (say 10 for arguments sake) that own 60-70% of the shares, and therefore 60-70% of the voting power, wanting to take the co-op and make it public, or something to that effect?
I'm not trying to sound argumentative. I'm just trying to understand the entire picture, as I do think this is a great idea and would love to see it succeed, but I also feel that things like this need to be ironed out before an investment of this magnitude takes place.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:46:11 PM new
That problem is why I noted in my post that there would be a limit of how many shares a single person or company could own. If the maximum was set at say 4000 shares ($1,000 investment at .25 per listing/share) then with a startup cost of $500,000 the most a single person could control is 1/5 of 1 percent.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:50:41 PM new
Okay. So someone could list, say, 10,000 items. Yet, they would only get enough shares/votes for the first 4,000 they list.
I think I'm beginning to understand it a little better now. I still have some questions about it, and I'm still wondering why this route is being chosen as opposed to trying to help get another site off the ground.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:50:48 PM new
MrJim et al.
The momentum seems to be toward creating an ebay clone (it is a known entity) that features a cooperative-type management structure that assures that the site runs for the benefit of the sellers.
First, the vision has to be 1,000,000 sellers, not 1,000. Most of the sites that sought to compete with eBay, found getting that first thousand or two of sellers easy.
It is the ten-thousandth 'active' seller that is hard to get. That is because a site that starts with but 1,000 sellers never gets enough product to make it a must shop.
While a group of folks can always convince a thousand new sellers to come try the site, 900 of the first round of sellers have abandoned the site because of no sales.
The remaining sellers raise the opening bids to compensate for the lack of buyer traffic.
We've all seen this market dynamic in play and there is no compelling reason this would change for a cooperative.
Why?
Because the cooperative does not start out with any real or tangible benefits for the buyer. (Buyers know that the effort is 'seller driven.')
This means that everyone who buys or sells has to be a member if there is to be representation for buyer interests.
All these issues can theoretically be addressed if the group has the time.
But how does a buyer gain an equity position equal to the seller? If they are to be market participant, they are going to want something?
Are you going to be able to get $5 for verification?
The centralized auction solution is preferable only because its strengths and weaknesses are known.
The adhoc, peer2peer network approach to this industry just doesn't exist and therefore is an unknown.
Now, I think you understand Radh, why I was suggesting some folks interested in that general concept get together to try and define what could be done without having anything ... or very little ... for any third party to own.
posted on January 27, 2001 01:50:54 PM new
Newauctionguy: Do you work in any way for any auction house??
Look folks, there are lots of ideas.
I think we can't put the horse before the cart.
I think twinsoft and a group have to establish a trust account and see how many people in a given time will pay their initiation fee and then build from there.
Form a group, get some news coverage and see how many of you would actually put their money where their mouths are.
Being a Co-op there would be no profits. All the extra fees would be plowed into the site, whether to be used for marketing, upgrading service, or keeping fees down.
I also am not of the belief that it has to be just for individuals. I think there should be a monthly account fee for larger users and members and a list fee for casual users. There's room for a Disney type company and someone clearing their closet out. That's the true beauty of online auctions!
Like I keep saying. It doesn't have to be difficult. It can be kept pretty simple and evolve from there.
As long as we build a good foundation we will end up with a good house!
posted on January 27, 2001 01:52:56 PM new
No, canvid, I am not associated with any "auction house". I'm just curious with this whole venture and wanted to make sure that I understood it. Like I said before, this is a great idea.
posted on January 27, 2001 02:04:04 PM new
The problem with helping another site owned by someone else to get off the ground is that this too, costs the seller money. Lost profits, lost cash flow, and tied up inventory waiting for the site to take off. Once it does take off, they raise fees, change the rules, sell banner ads to companies that compete with you and cut into your profits, they buy other companies so they can sell their own merchandise (butterfields) and give preferencial listing and enhancement to their own merchandise (great collections) to gain an unfair advantage. Ebay owns butterfields. All Butterfield auctions are "featured auctions". They are also in a special section that creates the illusion that their stuff is better than mine. Yet it was my money that bought Butterfields and it is my money that continues to fund this losing venture whose sole purpose is to sell some of the same items I sell because Ebay saw how much I was making selling them and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Been there, done that. Not ready to help someone else build an empire so they can dump on the people that invested their time, inventory, and money to get them where they are today.
*Note: the "me, my, and my money" refers to the listing fees paid by all the sellers that contributed to Ebays growth.
posted on January 27, 2001 02:14:06 PM new
I like the idea of taking over a failing "dot-bomb" to house the emerging co-operative site. I think if sellers all banded together and made the move together there would be no shortage of buyers. For starters, most sellers on Ebay are buyers on ebay as well. So there would already be something of a buyer base if enough people made the switch from ebay to the new co-op.
That is a really good point about buyer representation in the co-op though. It would be very seller-biased in lots of ways unless there were some way to make sure that buyers' viewpoints were encouraged and considered in all decisions. But really that is one of the smaller hurdles the group would face in getting started.
posted on January 27, 2001 02:14:41 PM new
I understand that. I can see where you (or anyone) wouldn't want to have that situation happen somewhere else.
posted on January 27, 2001 02:32:28 PM new
What if an existing site were to sell half to buyers and/or sellers? As 50% owners, no new rules could be instituted without approval.
Instead of giving ownership based on listings, I'd suggest that the primary factor be FVF. The goal of the site is to SELL items. If a seller is listing a bunch of stuff and not selling any of it, then they are not contributing to the business, and are actually harming it. In theory, listing fees take care of this situation, but not if there is a secondary financial incentive to list items other than making sales. That is, if the 25 cent listing fee allows a seller to acquire shares that are worth more than 25 cents, then the site will be flooded with trash.
This policy would also go a long way toward preventing a large corporation from putting thousands of listings on the site and therefore becoming a large shareholder.
posted on January 27, 2001 02:55:06 PM new
I think if a membership monthly fee were instituted like at Amazon for X amount of listings it would take care of that type of incident.
Again, that's way ahead of the start. We have to build a good foundation. Build the bones and the flesh will follow!
posted on January 27, 2001 02:56:34 PM new
First, thanks to the friend who emailed me about this thread. I had looked at it, but it's grown a lot since my last look. Lots of intersting ideas here.
Prepaid fees = shares vs trash listings to get shares.
How about making that work like this. Seller/member pops for $1,000.00 (pick a number) that entitles them to 4,000 listings ($0.25 per listing). 1,000 of which need to be listed on opening day. IF the item SELLS with-in 30 days, the seller gets 1 share credited. If it doesn't sell in 30 days, no share is obtainable. Relisting the same item would not make it share eligible.
The remaining share eligible listings could be spread out over an extended period of time. But no listing would be share eligible on relisting.
That might make it more likely that sellers would push the site with their existing customer list and they may also be more likely to list their most attractive items first rather than just load the site with stuff that hasn't sold anywhere else.
More random thoughts may or may not, be forthcoming.
posted on January 27, 2001 03:00:37 PM new
I like the idea of doing the FVF way instead of listing fee way. But, instead of offering shares/votes based on number of items, couldn't you base it on a ration of number of items sold vs. number of items listed (per person), with a set minimum number of items that one can list to be eligible?
posted on January 27, 2001 03:46:18 PM new
Well- I finally got through all of the posts. It is easy to see the auction sellers are an interesting, well rounded, intellegent group of people.
I think a co-op is a viable answer to online auction woes.I would be willing to pool some cash! I only have 3 questions. When can we meet to discus this? Where can we do it?And who wants to organize it? I am willing to put my time where my mouth is.We all have areas where we have experience or knowledge. Let's donate some energy to a co-operative effort.Make it concrete!
The most favorite idea I've read thus far is the recommendation to have a trust fund set up -- and see how many sellers actually join up. THAT would give us a semblence of hard cruel reality that is mandatory.
Secondly, I disagree totally that buyers need representation.
When buyers are NOT happy, that bespeaks low-quality or even outright fraudulent sellers -- THAT is *not* what we are trying to achieve!!!!!!!!!!!
I want sellers to have one site where all their hard work creates something for THEM, .... not for Wall Street!
If you have an investment of not merely blood, sweat, and tears, but ALSO a financial investment in a coop which you are also running, then you have the option to become passionately committed about same.
AND the dispersement of profits after running expenses at years end, should go into the pockets of the I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L-S who created those profits.
I am NOT interested in ANY cooperative movement which is soooooo all inclusive that it includes the DISNEYs of the world.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want a place where I can buy from the individuals running online microbusinesses, NOT multinational conglomerate Korporations.
posted on January 27, 2001 04:11:10 PM new
Allocating shares based on the dollar amount of FVF would ensure that sellers are represented based on their contribution to the business.
People sometimes think that this automatically entitles people selling high dollar-value items to more shares, but that wouldn't happen as long as a tiered commission structure is used.
For example, selling 20 $10 items at eBay costs $10, the same fee for selling 1 $375 item. But the $375 item is likely to be harder to acquire, require more marketing effort, a longer listing period, and be harder to find a buyer.
If each item sold were to merit a share, scammers could acquire shares by listing and purchasing penny items.
A one-time "buy in" fee for 1 vote may work. But it will make it hard for small/new sellers to participate unless the fee is very low.
A basic question is whether each member should get equal representation, or whether representation is based on other criteria, such as sales.
posted on January 27, 2001 04:20:23 PM new
Jim - I think there should be a CAP, a limit, on that.
What we are interested in is a viable marketplace for I-N-D-I-V-D-U-A-L-S to become empowered.
If any certain microbusiness happens to make a HUGE amount of successful sales, FINE -- they were successful and earned monies on those sales; but NO, I want Barry's example of the "Hobby Seller" to ALSO be committed and feel invested in the site.
Also, the cooperative movement is old, and there must already exist a huge amount of case law on the legalities of how profits are distributed, and all sorts of regulations on the bylaws and charters of cooperatives.
A cooperative is a legal entity, and I'm certain there are many legalities which we must follow.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
