posted on January 27, 2001 04:28:07 PM
A site run by sellers will have more concerns for bidders than ePAY or YaPOO, or Amazon. Especially since most sellers are also bidders!! I know I am. Happy bidders equal more bidders equals happy sellers!
Again, any co-op site has to allow for anyone to list whether a small dealer or a major corporation. As long as the seller follows the rules of the co-op.
And as for $ representation I don't think that idea would work? If you sell an antique piece of Jewellry for $15,000 are you worth more than someone that sells 10000 ten cent baseball cards?? Where do you decide what's best? There are too many parameters.
While I am not trying to be altruistic, I think we need a co-op that services all sellers as best is possible.
And as for any extra funds I don't think they should go back to the founders or shareholders or whatever term you use. I think they have to be plowed back into the site and if there's any surplus projected then the fees should be reduced.
The idea of a co-op is to serve the public and the sellers. It is NON-PROFIT. I for one would rather have the best techs in the market to support the system than have outages and big stock options!!
The fact is that if the site actually suceeded at least half as much as the recently deceased Yahoo did the hits would be incredible and fees would probably be quite low, with great support and less outages.
Believe me. If a group forms soon and gets over a 1000 sellers to write checks this will make the news and attract all sorts of support from Banks, legal, tech, and support!
It can only get better than the status quo. Nothing against all the little sites but frankly if they become sucesses they will be bought out by ePAY or someone else. There's no hope to keep what you and I build.
posted on January 27, 2001 04:28:20 PM
What would be very nice at this time is were each of us who are interested in the discussion of these ideas, to each of us contact say, six other sellers we know, and ask them IF they happen to have any interest whatsoever in our pursuing the idea of whether a selling cooperative is actually a viable idea.
There needs to be time, (T-I-M-E), a lot of time and LOTS more input from LOTS more people.
I also am interested in having the participation of the Olde Internet Experts, and intend to find out IF any of are as appalled as I in the ""development"" of ecommerce, and if they'd have any interest in participating in a QUALITY version of ecommerce, an endeavor which empowers INDIVIDUALS, as the Internet/WorldWideWeb was predicted to do.
Just some thoughts....
I'd like the discussion to continue for a lengthy time, to be inclusive & brainstorming in nature, and to not RUSH on any *start date* -- as others have wisely pointed out, the greater number of INDIVIDUALS participating, the better chance we have that the whole idea doesn't crash & implode.
I agree, but I feel the group should start soon and come to some small initial understanding, say to do as you suggest and bring together more sellers.
We have to also open all the AW boards and any other locations to tell people what we are doing.
Let's dump everything on the table and see what we have to work with?
posted on January 27, 2001 05:11:49 PM
Some random thoughts:
(1) One of the strengths of eBay is the diversity of items listed which in turn is due to the diversity of sellers listing items. I do prefer the idea of a single member of a co-op only having one vote (or a set maximum number of votes). Fee rebates on the other hand should be based on actual dollar sales at the site.
(2) Based on my own Yahoo experience and my reading the number posts on the AW Yahoo forum:
- Final value fees are preferable to listing fees. However this can lead to a lot of junk/spam listings.
- Many sellers have done very well on Yahoo with "first bids wins" or "buy it now" auctions. That's why seller success at Yahoo was not obvious when scanning the listings which often showed no bids in numerous categories. That stopped me listing at Yahoo for a long time - none of my competitors seemed to be getting any bids. One day in October I happened to click on the closed listings of one of my competitors. It was an eye-opener. I listed 200 items within the week.
- Many items require time to find the right buyer and seller, even on eBay. I'm not talking junk here - just items that might appeal to very specific buyers. EBay hasn't catered to this niche, Yahoo stopped catering to it when it implemented listing fees (instead of final value fees). Seller web sites are time consuming as they require maintenance and regular advertising.
What about having a two-tiered search with only "featured items" showing up in search (and categories) and only "featured items" being subject to fees. A member would be allowed to list a fixed number of items but these items could only be viewed from a link within a seller's featured auctions i.e. "see my other auctions". In other words, the fees the seller pays could be viewed as ADVERTISING fees allowing potential buyers to see a sampling of the sellers wares. This sampling would lead only interested buyers to the sellers' entire inventory. This idea would never work on a "for profit" site, but the purpose of the a co-op is to help sellers sell, not to make a profit.
posted on January 27, 2001 05:17:24 PM
<i>And as for $ representation I don't think that idea would work? If you sell an antique piece of Jewellry for $15,000 are you worth more than someone that sells 10000 ten-cent baseball cards?? Where do you decide what's best? There are too many parameters.</i>
I understand this is a hypothetical example and that you are just making a point, but assuming there is a 25 cent listing fee, the FVF for cards would be $50, the listing fee would be $2500 (at 25 cents each), and the seller would receive only $1000 for his efforts.
The FVF for the jewelry would be $200, so in this case, the antique jewelry seller might get 4x the vote of the baseball card guy.
Is that good? I think so, because the jewelry seller contributed 4x more revenue to the enterprise. The $2500 the baseball card seller contributed is not as valuable, because his sales used 10,000 times the resources of the single piece of jewelry.
I am not talking just about computer resources here. Every item in the auction consumes resources. One of the most precious resources is buyers' time. A site that seeks to maximize the number of listings will not succeed. The goal is to maximize the buyers' and sellers' experience. This is difficult, because buyers and sellers have competing interests.
I think the idea of redistributing excess funds makes more sense than reducing fees (especially listing fees). Having an extremely low listing fee leads to abuse and a cluttered site with items that do not sell. This leads to unhappy buyers.
Fees are very hard to raise once they have been lowered. If the site traffic required a major infrastructure upgrade, where would the money come from? No one would want to cough up extra money and everyone would be complaining.
If excess funds were redistributed based on FVF, it would encourage SALES rather than LISTINGS. I think the idea of buyers receiving co-op shares based on FVF is also worth discussing. After all, it is their money being circulated and they are taking a large chunk of the risk in transactions.
I would tend to disagree with you on the basis that the card seller would be reaching out to many more bidders. More bidders is better for business. I think we have to be open to all sellers and bidders.
Resources are relative.
As for fees, the main concern of the co-op fee schedule is to offer the best service for the site for the buck. It's not beholden to stock holders.
If the market dips a dollar or two some auction sites come up with schemes that have hurt seller and bidders.
Sometimes they do something just for the news coverage. A co-op wouldn't have to pander to the stock market.
Again, if bulk sellers pay a monthly fee with criteria you do away with a lot of the spam issues.
I favor having an account for merchant or larger sellers (perhaps a few levels of this tyep) and casual listing that would be based on listing fees.
I would also be in favor of a judiciary system of some sorts (mediatory) that would be able to resolve the criteria of the site and handle feedback disputes.
posted on January 27, 2001 05:36:06 PM
rubylane: I agree that listing fees are MANDATORY; we are attempting to see if there is interest in establishing a QUALITY seller-owned, seller-run marketplace.
There are plenty of FREE listing sites.
However, I disagree with one of your points: "Is that good? I think so, because the jewelry seller contributed 4x more revenue to the enterprise. The $2500 the baseball card seller contributed is not as valuable, because his sales used 10,000 times the resources of the single piece of jewelry."
NOPE.
It's that kind of thinking that I wanna git away from.
BOTH of the I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L sellers are valuable human beings, one of a kind people, both welcome to participate in a cooperative movement.
I'd love if you guys figure out a way that buyers can be FULL term members of the cooperative, so that they too, feel a sense of pride and committment.
To those of you who state that we cannot afford a dispersement of profits among the shareholders of the cooperative, I think that you are sadly mistaken.
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN it is stated that eBay gross profit margins are around 85%.
Welllllllllll... if you do NOT spend money on bells & whistles, in order to justify the employment of a bloated marketing department, and all sorts of MBAs who wouldn't possibly have a clue how to list an auction and wrap & pack it......
IF this becomes a going venture, I would certainly hope that it always incorporates a LACK of stoooooooooopid, albeit *pretty* excess stuff.
AND we certainly must do whatever it takes that NO one can ever make several hundred listings of the exact same widget across all the categories.
Can you imagine the QUALITY of items, and the INCREASE in bids were there a limit of 36 listings per week per member of the coop?
posted on January 27, 2001 05:56:42 PM
Until recently, we only charged a FVF. The problem is we had some shops (some, not all!) that would try to sell items on our site, couldn't, and then list them on eBay. Typically they sold for 3x LESS on eBay than they were listed on our site (80% of the items we looked at), sometimes up to 11x less.
Since adding a 25 cent monthly inventory fee, the shops that were listing items that would never sell have all/mostly left.
Buyers do not want to wade through items that do not sell, and any fixed-listing-fee system encourages sellers to list more items rather than listing more items that will sell.
I think the idea of providing an off-venue area for sellers, maybe at a flat monthly fee or very low rate, is good. But on-venue listings need to have risk (i.e. listing fees) for sellers to ensure that the items listed are what the buyers are interested in.
One concern about an off-venue sales area is that sellers will use the venue as a referral service to generate a customer list, then do repeat sales off-venue. In the short-term, this is good for the seller since it saves some fees. In the long term, it fragments the buyer community.
If sellers are maintaining a mailing list of customers, they may list their best items off-venue first, sell what they can with no fees, then list the leftovers on the venue where there is more traffic. The obvious problem here is that buyers are not as interested in the leftovers, so interest in the main venue declines.
I have no idea how to convince sellers that it is in their best long-term interest to sell on-venue; perhaps having ownership in the venture in proportion to the fees paid would go a long way toward that.
posted on January 27, 2001 06:02:11 PM
radh - my statements of "value" have to do with the person's contribution & cost to the business venture, and what stake they should have in the venture, not value as a person.
None of this has anything to do with value as a person, which obviously can't be measured in dollars or anything else...
posted on January 27, 2001 06:08:38 PM
Hey folks. There's room for everything as long as it's organized right.
First off, if you use the Auction Watch search engine you can find anything on just about any auction site.
Do you really think that the majority of bidders scroll through all of the auctions??
I find that most do searches and sometimes check out a sellers other auctions. Sometimes they look at the first few pages of what's closing in a given category.
The trick in my opinion is to make sure that at some point you don't have 25 pages of items in any one category?
The fact is that most of this can be worked out. Maybe not to everyone's liking but certainly to a major proportion of the selling community.
Radh: Why are you so needy of profits being trickled down to the co-op shareholders??
And I believe that there's room for both types of sellers, for every type of seller. The trick is how it's all organized.
The fact is there's even room for spam(and no, I personally don't like spam either) if it's done properly.
If the co-op is to ever get off the ground and flourish the fact is that it would be in competition with ePAy and whatever buyers want they have to get or they won't stay.
posted on January 27, 2001 06:25:06 PM
Whew! So much to read and so little time!
Have gotten totally lost on where/why/how etc
The threads have vacillated from seller/owned site w/free listings - to what appears to now be - featured dependent - fee dependent and now profit inducing... How and who would take responsibilities and what would they be?
A thought is why not look at forming an Association -Elect presidents for each state/precinct/area along with its officers. They would be salaried services with a limited term .It would be member/fund driven perhaps with profit sharing from membership dues and selective services.
Remember- this (whichever way it goes) could be worldwide and HUGE responsibilities are attached. In keeping it as "free listing" as a member/dues/service ,wouldn't the legalities be more minimal and the funds appropriately dispersed for expenses per year?
Just throwing my hat in the ring here.....
posted on January 27, 2001 06:28:01 PM
"But on-venue listings need to have risk (i.e. listing fees) for sellers to ensure that the items listed are what the buyers are interested in"
This also works the opposite way. If a seller has truly unique items of high value that would only appeal to the most affluent buyers you would fee them to death before the bidders find the site. Once this happens enough times they stop listing. Then when the buyers come to find those items they aren't listing any more.
In the trading card scenerio, the trading card seller contributes more to the site than the person that lists a couple $200 antiques. He/she pulls 100 times as many people to the site, and those people also bid on other items from other sellers. Who's to say that the person that bought the $200 antique didn't come to the site to look at the 10,000 trading cards and decide to shop for a gift for his wife while he was there.
The items that I have purchased on Ebay range from antiques to software to a violin bow and a bug. (yes a real bug about 4 inches long)
posted on January 27, 2001 06:41:10 PM
I'm not interested in a venture where the purpose is to make money for the investors (co-op members). I could invest in eBay if I wanted to do that.
Fees (membership, listing or final value) should be set to cover all costs. Any excess cash generated should be earmarked to spend on improvements or a contingency fund. If more cash is generated than needed for these purposes, then listing credits could be issued to members, based on contribution of each to that cash income. These credits would temporarily reduce future revenues with the excess cash being used to cover the shortfall.
posted on January 27, 2001 06:52:23 PM
MrJim - in the example, the jewelry was $15,000, not $200. If it were $200, then the card seller FVF would be $50 and the antique seller FVF would be $5.63. In that case, the card seller's stake would be 10x the antique seller.
On being "fee'd to death" for the expensive item that takes a long time to sell, keep in mind that when it does sell, it will have a much higher profit margin than a baseball card to cover any listing fees. The listing fee for 5 years would be $15 (assuming a quarter a month), which would easily be covered by sale of an expensive antique. If a seller has 1000 expensive antiques to sell and it costs $250 a month for listing fees, the assumption is they must have some bucks if they have 1000 expensive antiques, so $250 ain't so bad.
My main point is that listings alone do not generate value for the venture; sales generate value. In the card example, there were 10,000 sales, so perhaps that seller is way more valuable. I dunno - it's something to be discussed in setting up the structure of the thing.
The example given is very contrived, IMO, because items selling for 10 cents are probably easily obtainable and no one would go through the auction process for these.
If this happens, and sellers and/or buyers become owners of a web site, I believe there will be some eyes opened--big time.
eBay's fees put a lot of pressure on sellers to sell at lower prices, which drives buyers to their site. I am not saying eBay has the right formula (I like ours better), but I do believe that fees are an important part of establishing the correct conditions for a thriving marketplace. The motivation for fees is not necessarily profit, esp. if profits are re-distributed.
posted on January 27, 2001 06:54:44 PM
MrJim -
Coops do NOT have shares of stock, they have members. One member, one vote.
canvid13 -
"I think there should be a monthly account fee for larger users and members and a list fee for casual users."
Why? EACH AUCTION takes the same amount of community resources, so the cost should be the same.
"There's room for a Disney type company and
someone clearing their closet out. " "any co-op site has to allow for anyone to list whether a small dealer or a major corporation"
A serious complaint individuals have with eBay is that they are SWAMPED by the businesses listing vast quantities
of stuff ... overloading the categories and making things hard to find. The WHOLE idea is to get a site run BY individuals, FOR those individuals, not run BY indivu\iduals competing with MegaBiggyCrapSeller ...
Stockticker:
"Final value fees are preferable to listing fees. However this can lead to a lot of junk/spam listings."
Listing fee ... prevents a lot of the crap listings, and if the seller gets a certain % of the fee back (based on successful sales %) the prolific AND successful ones will be rewarded. I don't mind if somebody lists 10,000 baseball
cards, IF the danged things SELL! It's when they list 10,000 in an effort to sell 1,000 that it's a problem.
RADH -
"we certainly must do whatever it takes that NO one can ever make several hundred listings of the exact same widget across all the categories"
That is EASY to take care of. First, it's in the bylaws that sellers WILL USE the appropriate categories, and then when
some doofus spreads his widget auctions across 83 categories, you nuke the auctions AND boot his/her butt out.
Because I believe that sellers would list SUCCESSFUL auctions if it were seen that there really is something in it for them, if they do so.
I would NEVER invest in eBay!
Even though the stock will be very successful.
WHY would I never invest in eBay stock? Because eBay stock continues an elaborate mirage of being a marketplace for one and all, when it actually is a showcase for gargantuan HUGE powerselling operations and major corporations.
They'll make SCADS of money!!!
But I'm not interested in any corporation which does not have the interests of the single autonomous INDIVIDUAL at the forefront.
I think it's great that eBay survived the dot.bomb crash. I also know that eBay is a permanent fixture of reality, and some day will literally cover the entire earth. That is a certainty.
At some point in the future INDIVIDUALS will sell and trade on eBay, as they will have driven the mega-conglomerates off, simply cuz they couldn't compete successfully with the liddle widdle sellers.
But, see --- that's all in the future and I don't even know if I'll be alive years hence with that has occured.
Meantime, this is NOW, and I find this an interesting idea.
However, I have received emails that we cannot possibly do this, because a HUGE advertising budget is mandatory, and that were such a site to have any success that eBay would crush it.
posted on January 27, 2001 07:35:17 PMradh I just woke up and I'm looking through this thread, so excuse me for playing catch-up. I really like your points. I agree that the primary importance here is empowerment of the individual. And I do agree that with a seller co-op in place, the rush would be so great that we might have to limit sales, as eBay does now, to 10 identical auctions at a time. After all, we're talking about creating a service that offers sellers all the benefits of eBay, at truly minimal cost. I envision, during a start-up period, sellers offering half their goods through the co-op site, and half through eBay. No one is looking for overnight success, we'll still need to earn money while a co-op site gets rolling. But as you say, the response would be overwhelming.
canvid13, maybe we could set up our own little discussion board solely to toss some ideas around, out of the public eye. There have been suggestions here of kicking the legs out from under eBay and of taking 90% of sellers out of categories. No doubt the PTB at eBay are already aware of this discussion. Well, I don't want to wash up dead on the shore of the San Francisco Bay so it might be best to continue this discussion in private, or at least establish a private forum where we can freely express our ideas. Radh, email me at [email protected]. If you want to protect your privacy, get a Yahoo or Hotmail account.
We've got a lot of good ideas. I'm not even to the end of the thread yet but it looks like I'm going to have to run in a few minutes. I just want to add a word of encouragement. We've got a lot of good input here, from people with administrative experience, technical, philosophical, a lot of passion and ideology. All of those will be critical to implementing a new site. As neomax(? ) pointed out, I'm a little embarrassed by my lack of knowlege. But what we're talking about is not impossible. It may be as simple as approaching the owner of an existing site and simply replacing one business strategy with another, one tiny change in philosophy that would allow profits to be divided among members rather than pyramid fashion where the efforts of the many on the bottom reward the few on top. Remember, WE have the power. We can set our own rules. There's no need to rush, we can do this right the first time. We need to establish a "safe haven" for auction sellers. GratefulDad About Me
posted on January 27, 2001 07:52:35 PM
I want to emphasize one point very quickly. Although we're talking about a co-operative effort, it's still about each of us succeeding in our own personal businesses. At some point, we're going to find sellers offering competing products who will need to work together on a mutually satisfactory solution. We'll need to work together focusing on the goal, a co-operative safe haven for auction sellers.
Let's keep the discussion inclusive so that anyone can throw ideas around, and just focus at this point on getting as much input as possible. I don't know the term from chemistry (perhaps it's "alchemy?" ) whereby the junk kind of filters to the bottom and the pure element remains on top. The technical issues are an important point, administrative, philosophical, etc. There's room for all this discussion. Let's keep throwing the ball around. Let's keep the door open to any and all suggestions and "home grow" our ideas. GratefulDad About Me
posted on January 27, 2001 07:55:59 PM
I seriously doubt that eBay is following this thread yet, as the title of this messagethread is so, INNOCUOUS, ya know?
AND, when eBay learns about our discussion, they will rotfLLOLing, have a rollicking good joke together saying stuff like, "w@w, that's a greaT idea! LET *THEM* find out how ~easy~ it is to run an online auction.
Indeed, I think their funnee bone may be soooooo tickled, they will foist upon us a huge grant from the eBay Foundation.
I mean really, folkz!
Can you imagine what it would feel like to them, to suddenly get ridda all the chronic loud-mouths?
w@w, and who needs US, anyway when you got big phat BIG Biz selling through eBay.
They won't care about this in the way you surmise; I believe they'll be pleased.
Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.
AND
Democratic Member Control — Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives, members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are organized in a democratic manner.
Member Economic Participation — Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. They usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing the cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
Also info on how to begin:
1. Hold a meeting of leading persons to discuss a need that forming a cooperative might meet.
2. Hold an exploratory meeting of interested persons. Vote whether to continue. If affirmative, select a steering committee.
3. Conduct a survey to determine cooperative feasibility.
4. Hold a second general meeting to discuss the survey results. Vote on whether to proceed.
5. Conduct a market or supply and cost analysis.
6. Hold a third general meeting to discuss the results of the market or supply and cost analysis. Vote by secret ballot on whether to proceed.
7. Conduct a financial analysis and develop a business plan.
8. Hold a fourth general meeting to hear results of the financial analysis. Vote on whether to proceed. If affirmative vote on whether the steering committee should remain intact or whether changes should be made.
9. Draw up necessary legal papers and incorporate.
10. Call a meeting of all potential charter members to adopt the bylaws. Elect a board of directors.
11. Call the first meeting of the board of directors and elect officers. Assign responsibilities to implement the business plan.
12. Conduct a membership drive.
13. Acquire capital - develop a loan application package.
14. Hire a manager
15. Acquire facilities
16. Start up operations.
posted on January 28, 2001 12:44:01 AM
Okay, I'm going to throw some ideas out in no particular order. The first is that a seller's co-operative auction site could be designed along the lines of an eBay clone. A regular web site like you see at eBay, Amazon, Yahoo, etc. The co-op site would offer the same core services as eBay (proxy bidding, email notification) without the fancy bells and whistles. That would give buyers a sense of "brand recognition." Externally, from a buyer's perspective, there would be no difference between eBay, Yahoo or the Co-op site. That way, there is no learning curve involved, software requirement or any other factor that might discourage bidders (except maybe a verification process). If a party wished to join the co-op as a seller, they would be subject to the specific provisions regarding co-operative sales.
The second idea is a completely different perspective. Develop a searchable, network (database) a la Napster which might contain links to a particular seller's auctions. This would be a decentralized network, sellers could maintain their own web pages or rent server space from the co-op host. There would be a minimal (though perhaps realistically, still huge) need for administration and probably an actual host web site (for "in-house" distribution). An administrative board would still act as a liason between third-party contractors (i-excrow, seller validation service, image hosting, credit card processing) and co-op members. The downside to this approach is that special software would be needed which could delay the launch of such a site.
A strongly-worded charter and mission statement would cover most topics before a co-op site even got started.
There are questions as to how voting power would be divided among sellers. Care should be taken to limit the power of any group of sellers (for example, what if 10,000 eBay employees registered to sell? ). On the other hand, membership policy should be liberal enough so that any individual could join the co-op as a seller and enjoy the co-op's benefits and protections.
A solution may be much simpler than it appears. Above I suggested a "friendly take-over" of an existing auction site. If that's not possible, I am sure there is inexpensive technology out there to start up a new auction site. The only, main, core issue is how the income (listing fees, FVFs, membership dues) is to be returned to the members or the co-op itself. Everything else about a seller co-operative might simply mimic a plain vanilla "for-profit" auction site.
For the sake of new members and the co-op itself, transition from eBay sales to co-op sales should be as easy and inexpensive as possible. I believe listing at the co-op should be free (perhaps up to a certain number of auctions per month) and the co-op only collect FVFs and possibly membership dues. At least until we get off the ground. We want to attract sellers. We are hoping to create a movement, an exodus or perhaps "cattle-drive" of sellers onto a new site. Asking sellers to pay a $.25 listing fee for an empty site won't encourage sellers to come aboard.
It might not be necessary to develop an auction site from scratch. One possibility would be to contract with an existing auction site and function in an auxiliary manner, such as eBay Motors vs. eBay. We don't have to take over a site, we could simply "rent a room" in their house.
I believe access to the seller's co-op should be easy, and open to any interested seller. If a seller wants to offer a *legal* informational guide, they should be as welcome as the seller who offers glass or pottery. Each of us must welcome sellers of every type.
posted on January 28, 2001 03:12:49 AM
I've set up a separate forum on EZ-Boards where this topic can be continued without dominating the eBay Outlook. I can't post the URL here so please email me for the link.
posted on January 28, 2001 03:31:24 AM
Well here is another Antique etc. Mall-Store
site closing their Doors.
From their notice
The Serious Collector has been a key player in the online marketplace for antiques and fine arts since 1997. In that time, we have seen significant changes. Ecommerce and the Web are now a viable options for dealers and collectors, and competition has increased significantly.
To continue to offer the high-quality services and tools our members have come to expect requires significant additional investment. The financial market has also changed in the past several months, and we have been unable to raise the money we need to expand profitably.
It is, therefore, with sincere regret that we announce that The Serious Collector site will be closing effective January 31st, 2001.
We would like to thank you for your participation and support during the past three years, and wish you every success in the future.
Sincerely,
The Serious Collector Team
The Serious Collector
http://www.SeriousCollector.com
posted on January 28, 2001 03:52:40 AM
twinsoft -
Well, the auto dealers that all flock to the same streets in Phoenix, and the antiques dealers that are thriving in various "antiques districts" not to mention the multiple art galleries in one area ANd
the clothing stores in the big malls .... they cooperate because they like the traffic.
"The only, main, core issue is how the income (listing fees, FVFs, membership dues) is to be returned to the members or the co-op itself. Everything else about a seller co-operative might simply mimic a plain vanilla "for-profit" auction site."
Exactly ... the difference being that it's by sellers, for sellers ... and with a SERIOUS stake in the success of the site as a whole (their membership fee on the line, and a signed membership contract on the record) they would probably [put a bit mote effort into it. With golds, I saw a "well, I'll put what didn't sell at eBay on Golds as long as it's free". A co-op would NOT be free from the start, it would be an investment from the start. You tend to pay more attention to it when it's a business.
"I believe listing at the co-op should be free (perhaps up to a certain number of auctions per month) and the co-op only collect FVFs and possibly membership dues. At least until we get off the ground. We want to attract sellers. ... Asking sellers to pay a $.25 listing fee for an empty site won't encourage sellers to come aboard. "
One of the start-up requirements would be for a seller to have a minimum number of items (their BEST stuff, in a variety of price ranges and categories) listed and "on the shelves" before startup.
Allowing free listing at the start would only encourage the low-margin sellers who suck up resources and then abandon ship when they are asked to contribute. They migrate like lemmings from one free service to another.
"I believe access to the seller's co-op should be easy, and open to any interested seller. If a seller wants to offer a *legal* informational guide"
I would restrict those to guides actually WRITTEN and copyrighted by the seller ... not the ones where you buy the right to resell (way too many me-toos
*************
Some of the annoyances of other sites could be designed differently, like lousy category lists! I would have experienced sellers design the category setup to make it easy to list things appropriately the way THEIR collectors look for them, AND have a "category definition" to explain what the category is for. Some categories, such as "Artist Made" could be restricted to only items actually CREATED by the seller.
And then I would test it on a few people to see if they would go to that category if browsing for a certain item.
*********
One thing that I think should be in from the start (unless it's a major PIB from a technical standpoint) is 2-category listings with the item only showing up ONCE on search.
If possible, blocking search from certain categories (I'd like to keep stamps and coins out of my search for books). If you can INCLUDE, you can EXCLUDE.
And bidder blocking should be there from the start. Or the ability to exclude unverified bidders (great for higher-value items and categories where the doofus rate is high)
A seller and bidder tutorial should be there from the start, with bidders having to take the tutorial before bidding.
posted on January 28, 2001 06:34:11 AM
[i]"Allowing free listing at the start would only encourage the low-margin sellers who suck up resources and then abandon ship when they are asked to contribute."[i]
I think we all have our pet peeves regarding other sellers' auctions. My items have been called "trash" and "crap" often enough at eBay, because I sell closeout/liquidation software and my own simple $5 "shareware" and other low-margin stuff. It's hard for us to put our finger on it, we know what we're talking about ... to paraphrase an old expression, "I know crap when I see it." (It's usually what my competitor is selling!)
Hammering out the fees, obligations and dues will probably be one of the hardest tasks in designing a co-op. Especially while we have no idea what the actual costs will be. But I think it's important that a co-op be there to serve sellers of every kind. Professional sellers moving their brick and mortar stores online. Retired or disabled people looking to supplement their income through a few sales. Stay-at-home moms selling off old children's clothing. College students selling Info-CDs (I do not mean bootlegged or copyright protected items).
If we can't offer free listings (and I think we can), perhaps we can offer a limited number of free listings each month. Say, a $50 yearly membership entitles a seller to 30 free listings per month, with additional listings on a per-listing basis. I think a co-op site could take up where Yahoo left off. Sellers could post their best items there with a fair minimum/reserve, without having to pay an arm and a leg. Then if the item doesn't sell, take it to eBay.
I am envisioning a site whose membership grows geometrically (?), as in through word of mouth advertising. (And perhaps a little media attention.) That means a slow start. If we're going to delimit sales through fees, dues and minimum sales requirements, I think sellers will be turned off and it may be six months until those sellers come back for a second look. Better to accept the junk listings, then apply category and copyright rules and an intelligent search, etc., to keep inexpensive junk out of the fine jewelry listings.
If we start doling out decisionary powers based on sales, or profits based on sales, or whoever can afford a $1,000 membership, we're going to be back to the majority of sellers serving the interests of the minority, I fear. Sellers' profits should come from their own sales, not from the profits of the co-op itself. What we're talking about it trimming the fat out of the fees, not making a profit to be divided among the big sellers. Otherwise we're right back where we started. GratefulDad About Me
posted on January 28, 2001 07:42:20 AMNeomax raised the point about making a new site a "must shop" first stop. That's a very good thought. More listings attract more bidders. So do quality listings.
Consider the success of eBay's new Buy It Now feature. Many bidders are willing to pay a premium for the privilege of pre-empting bids and securing quality items quickly. So, how to draw the quality items to the co-op site first, before they hit eBay? One drawback at eBay is that listing fees must be paid whether or not an item sells. In the case of valuable items, there may be reserve fees involved. A seller may have to list several times, and chalk up hefty fees, before the item sells at a reasonable price.
A contradiction? eBay sales can turn into a crap shoot. Either pay lots of fees, or toss the item up for a buck and pray. We can "circumvent" (to borrow an eBay term) that anxiety for the seller, by allowing them to list their quality items at minimal cost at the co-op site. This will attract the bidders. Charge $50, let the seller list 500 items within a year, at the seller's own discretion. Let them list diamond rings or old baby clothes.
If a seller is going to pay the same fees to list at the co-op as at eBay, and rely on an unspecified refund a year later, how many sellers will homestead at the co-op? They'll continue to list at eBay as before, and maybe just stick their toe in the water at the co-operative site. That's why very low or no listing fees are important. To encourage sellers to run the good stuff through the co-op first, at minimal or no risk.
eBay sellers are dying for an alternative. They'll go running to the first safe harbor they can find, but not if the fees are higher than at eBay. Ideology is important, but sellers are looking at their own pocketbooks too. To draw bidders, we need listings first.
It's possible to come up with any number of creative billing strategies. There could be tiered levels of membership. Consider a $50 per year membership fee. Members might pay a $.10 listing fee, while non-members could be charged $.20. That way, a seller could try out the site without making a big committment. (Yes, $500 is a big committment for me!) If a seller likes the site and figures to list more than 500 items in a year, he can pay the membership fee and get the reduced rate. Again, we can put some thought into this and get creative.
I think we have to focus on starting this thing rather than the do's and don'ts.
There are many ways to go with this project. I'd love to argue and discuss this with the charter members of the group who put up their money on the line.
The fact is that there are many, many, issues to be discussed once we get to a stage that there will be a co-op.
We have to get to stage one before we fix stage three?!!
The fact is that if a good group of core people come together we will create a wonderful site full of what it takes to be the number one auction site.
If we just argue and rabble rouse we will end up with nothing.
I think we need to see more discussion on the message board that twinsoft created and then get things going!
posted on January 28, 2001 08:07:34 AM
I put these comment on twinsoft's sight, since everyone seems to still be here I will put then here also.
I'm very much interested in this proposed co-op.
However, I'm not a meat & potato seller(1000-2000) monthly listings. I'm more the vegeatable lister(200-250 a month if I'm lucky).
How would a small timer like me fit into this equation?
I could do more, but at this time my space to work in is very restricted. I've bought a building but in this very cold weather we've givin up on working on it for now.
Anyway...I'm computer illiterate, everything I know I taught myself. I found eBay 3 years ago and I can navigate that sight very well. I like to stay with what I'm comfortable with and know. I'm not real fond of BIG Technical changes.
After having said that....
There are many of us out here in just such a position.
We have a lot of GREAT stuff to sell and offer. We just aren't savvy in all the technical speak.
So please, keep your language simple so that even us "country bumpkins" know what your talking about. Those that know can teach us that don't know.
Here is what I'd want from a new co-op sight:
1. A vested interest, I'm willing to put up seed money, and pay a listing fee. And if there comes a time when more money is being made then used. Offer it back to the sellers in the form of a refund/listing credits by what we SPEND to list not on dollars sold. Everybodys final value will differ greatly by the type of items you sell.
2. After we're up and running and making money.I think the co-op has to set an amount it will need to maintain the sight and only maintain that amount and the rest goes back to the sellers.
3. Keep the sight simple to navigate. When I first started eBay it was very clean and uncluttered. So simple to find what I was looking for. Now its a nightmare to find anything. No wonder sales are down, people just are not finding our auctions. They have over cluttered thier sight with to MANY sub categories, they have made it IMPOSSIBLE to search by Category and to many links to click to try and find what you want.
4. To those that have read my posts in here in AW all know that I advocate the $1.00 start and NO RESERVE. I'm building a nice reputation for myself using that method. Most lookers and buyers are bookmarking my auctions because they know that everything I offer is going to start at $1.00 NO RESERVE. I say lets have a "real" auction.
I think if we got a reputation for $1.00 starts with NO RESERVE, we would have the buyers walking all over each other to get in.
Ok....I understand it would be risky until some sort of establishment was made.
So make a section for us that are brave enough and want to do the dollar thingy. Make US $1.00 starters easy to find!
