posted on January 28, 2001 08:13:13 AM
Twinsoft -
"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."
Nothing wrong with close-out software ... it's a good deal for those with old computers and small budgets. In fact, my first few purchases on eBay were for software that was no longer on the retail shelves. And you at least write your OWN software, not buy "reseller rights" and start cloning the work of others.
"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."
Sounds like a good idea, and it's about .14 per listing. That wuold put an automatic limit on the low-margin crap sellers.
"I am envisioning a site whose membership grows geometrically (?), as in through word of mouth advertising. (And perhaps a little media attention.)"
Well, I'm the queen of working the Web for publicity AND WITHOUT SPAMMING There are plenty of ways to get attention and traffic without lots of $$. Soem take a bit of work, but it's not an impossible task.
"If we're going to limit sales through fees, dues and minimum sales requirements, I think sellers will be turned off and it may be six months until those sellers come back for a second look."
The way to handle the minimum sales requirement is probably in terms of "sell-through" (% sold) not $$ total, because the person selling 50 items a month for under $50 has exposed FIFTY people AND their friends and family to the site, and the dude with the 5 items for $500 has only exposed 5 people to the experience.
"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."
A definition of the category: "first edition" means FE/FP not FE/17th printing and "fine Jewelry" means things that are a minimum carat content (not plated) with real stones.
"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."
Non-negotiable rule: one seller, one vote! Athenian democracy, with forced participation in the voting and management.
"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."
Rebates (if any) would be according to the fees paid. Person lists a lot, sells a lot, pays a lot of fees, gets a bigger rebate then person who sells less stuff. Same way a buying co-op works ... those who patronize it the most get the biggest rebate.
posted on January 28, 2001 08:30:45 AM
twinsoft said: "I've set up a separate forum on EZ-Boards where this topic can be continued without dominating the eBay Outlook."
Isn't that the idea - to get visibility/input on this subject from lots of people? What better place than here?
posted on January 28, 2001 08:53:57 AM
Twinsoft
"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. " ... "a seller could try out the site without making a big committment"
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. STARTING A CO-OP IS NOT FOR SISSIES! All you get from straddling the fence is splinters in unmentionable places.
If sellers want the benefits of a seller-run site, and expect it to succeed, they have to be willing to stick more than their big toe in the water. They will have to commit to listing THEIR BEST STUFF on the new site and leaving it there for a while. They have to put the co-op FIRST. If bidders can find enough good stuff on eBay they will have no reason to go anywhere else. Gotta have bidder bait!
The startup core group has to fit the following criteria: Be financially ABLE to give the listings a push. Be a "hobby seller" with a day job, and/or have a big enough inventory that they can list secondary stuff on eBay and the goodies on the co-op site.
PACKER
"How would a small timer like me fit into this equation?"
List as much as you can, as well as you can. Participate in the management duties (techies would handle the site duties) and give expertise in any area you can.
"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."
AMEN BROTHER! All the "value-added" options only add value to eBay, not the sellers. The buyers put up with it, but it's in their best interest to have a slick interface that's easy to navigate. Categories laid out the way a collector THINKS of that kind of widget is another.
"Offer it back to the sellers in the form of a refund/listing credits by what we SPEND to list not on dollars sold."
Well, if a seller does 200-250 listings a month, and has a 50% sellthrough, that's 100-125 HAPPY USERS SPREADING THE WORD! And the person who came to buy a cheap used copy of VISIO can end up stayin gand buying thousands of dollars worth of books (like I did).
More good thoughts. I agree about "Splinters"! And I think there's room for everyone in a co-op.
At this point I'd propose an initiation fee of $100.00 with monthly fees of $40-50 a month for X amount of listings.
For those who didn't want to use the montly fee they could pay listing fees of .10. This would be for the listing and free relists (until the item sold)
Also, ten centers could be members as long as they paid their initiation fee.
One member, one vote. With stable fees coming in, all expenses would be covered.
If there's extra from the yearly budget (there shouldn't be if it's done right) then the fees for the following year should be reduced.
Remember, a site has to keep a cash reserve and a co-op should have the best support and service available as there are no shareholders to give money to. And the best marketing.
I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a co-op that takes profits for the members or is saleable.
I know there are many ways to do this and I'm sure that a great group of sellers/bidders can build something to take to the public.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:15:28 AM
A couple comments from someone who has spent much of the past two years helping to build the OAUA-- which being a membership non-profit corporation, is very similar to a co-op:
These things are TONS of work. It's one thing to start your own business- where a few folks make all the decisions. Quite another to try to build something from scratch democratically and inclusively. Consensus building is very, very time consuming.
Also- in my experience, there are lots of talkers, and precious few "doers." Very easy to get folks to post their ideas to a board. Or even to get them to break into smaller committees to discuss issues and make recommendations. But when it comes time to do the real work (and there is lots of it!), folks kinda vanish.
Also, if you haven't, check out eDeal. They allow you to easily create your own branded auction site, for free, that is part of their larger network (like FreeMarket). Might be a way to get started while keeping expenses down.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:19:02 AMrubylane, this discussion is becoming concrete. AW forums are fine for throwing out ideas. But a suggestion has been made that a planning committe be formed. I don't think AW forums are an appropriate venue for discussing specific details. At some point we're going to need to do some real planning, and that can't happen in eBay Outlook.
I have checked with the moderator regarding posting a link to the site and have been told I must wait for administration on Monday. I have received permission to invite anyone to email me for the link. I'm not trying to exclude anyone. Please don't be shy. Let's continue the discussion. Email me.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:26:12 AM
Steve: that is a very sage post - and one that people must examine, to wit: How much time & energy can you reallllllly devote to this proposed project.
That is why I am thinking that the establishment of a trust fund, (in safe competent hands in a REAL bank) is mandatory -- to determine how many individuals thoughout the OAI wish to participate as USERS of the cooperative, but may not have the time, energy, health, education, knowledge, 0R w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r to actively participate in any hands-on manner; yet, they'd send in their annual membership fee in a flash, were there a full-fledged bank account set up to receive same.
Remember, MOST people are followers and MANY OAI Users are quite cognizant that they have Z-I-P, absolutely nada to offer besides that check and perhaps their enthusiasm.
PRIVATELY, I have been notified by several concerned parties that they will NOT have any interest in this unless AND until they are assured that there is A HUGE MARKETING BUDGET TO ENSURE SUCCESSFUL ADVERTISING.
For me, I am NOT envisioning this cooperative as ANY form of competition to the mighty, the gargantuan, the unstoppable uncrushable eBay.
I view this as an interesting experiment in "Netizenship", NOT as any type of competition.
I think it would be neat to have a REAL website where the itsy bitsy liddle widdle microbusinesses are welcome to participate, AWAY from the skyscrappers of the mulinationals in the Land of eBay.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:31:24 AM
p.s. I believe it is a terrible disservice to be depicting this potential project as any type of competition to the great, the mighty, the magnificent unstoppable uncrushable eBay.
AND....... furthermore, I cannot justify it to my conscience (which I still have) that we in any way sow any memes of
The only microbusinesses and individuals that should be *cajoled* into participating are those people who firmly feel that it is FINE to participate in an experiment costing them a hundred bucks annually, and that they maY, i-n-d-e-e-d, have lo$t that 100 dollars in a few short months.
Idealism is greaT, but should NOT overshadow the actual Reality of ecommerce.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:32:53 AM
RADH -
"I have been notified by several concerned parties that they will NOT have any interest in this unless AND until they are assured that there is A HUGE MARKETING BUDGET TO ENSURE SUCCESSFUL ADVERTISING. "
"huge budget" and "successful advertising" are not a cause and effect kind of thing. The first does NOT guarantee the second, nor does the second depend on the first.
I've worked with some VERY good marketers and publicists. It is VERY possible to do some not-very-large-budget advertising to jump-start a site, and it is possible to attract long-term traffic with a budget of ZERO $ if you are willing to spend the time and cultivate the Web.
I've been intrigued by this concept since I met some of the eDeal folks at BidCon last year. For an individual who wants to auction their own stuff as an adjunct to a web site, or for a group of sellers looking to create a branded category-specific auction site, this is promising. Free and easy (two things that all auction users like!). They host it.
Baby steps.
AW doesn't offer a similar tool- so this shouldn't be a competing service, and should be within CG's to post here.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:47:39 AM
I've been watching this thread from the beginning with much interest. I'm probably what would be considered a hobby seller. In 3 years I've completed about 2000 transactions as both a buyer and seller.
I'd like to see a site that embraced the hobby sellers like me as well as the big players.
I have a suggestion for member participation.
In real life I belong to a co-op. A group of local farmers got together and started a farm store. They were tired of other merchants not supplying what they needed and the high prices they were charging. The goal of the store was to supply the farmers with a large variety of goods at affordable prices, and to make enough of a profit to stay in business. The idea was that if the store was viable and able to stay in existence the profit would be from their own personal farming enterprise, not from the store. Their personal profits would be higher due to the overall lower prices they paid for supplies and the improved availability of the goods they needed.
So the initial goal wasn't to make money off of the stores. The profit the stores made was put into expansion, starting new stores in different locals around the county and expanding inventory.
Everyone put up some cash to start. They are the principal shareholders. Anyone who wants can join the co-op. I can't remember what we initially paid (it was over 20 years ago) but it was minimal. I think somewhere around $50. You had to join to have a charge account and be a member. Anyone can come in and buy from off the street (they don't have to be a member), but they don't get the benefits of a charge accounts and dividends.
The way the dividends work as that at the end of each year we get a rebate back which is a percentage of what we spent at the store during the calendar year. I'm going to guess somewhere between 2 and 5%. This can actually add up pretty quickly if you buy a large volume of feed, seed and fertilizer. The first 15 years most of the dividends were put back into the revolving fund for expansion. I now annually get a check from them, based on my purchases the previous year. This last year as business was good and we were granted 1 share of the company in addition to our regular dividends.
I'm not sure what the principal shareholders get, but I'm pretty certain it is a higher dividend return in addition to the shares in the company they hold. Keep in mind ALL of the principal shareholders and smaller shareholders like myself are farmers. No bankers, investors, stockbrokers. Just real people working hard to help each other and at the same time help themselves.
To me the above might make a sensible format to copy in starting a co-op auction site. Folks that put up the startup funds get shares in the company, a large block of free listings, and are paid higher dividends based on the fees (future listing and final value) they pay. Members who join later pay a reasonable fee, are allotted a particular number of free auctions as a benefit, and are annually paid a rebate (dividend) based on the total amount of fees paid annually. Anyone who was a member or member/shareholder would get to vote. One vote . Anyone off the street could participate, but they would pay a standard fee and no benefits (no vote, no dividends).
posted on January 28, 2001 09:53:51 AM
Well at least we're talking in the right direction. I hope that when the action is taken that many of you back it up.
As for people in the co-op. Not many of us will be doing actual work? If we get enough $100.00 initiations and fees into the site we will have support people who can perform. If any of them happen to be co-op member so much the better.
And I agree. A co-op had to MARKET, MARKET, MARKET. We really have to express our product and the benfits of bidding on co-op sellers auctions rather than at ePAY's!
posted on January 28, 2001 10:01:24 AM
Magazine_Guy: Edeal may not charge for setting up the auction site, but they do charge fees, ranging from 1.25% to 5%, for any items sold.
Correct- sorry, I wasn't clear in my earlier post.
As I understand it, depending on how one chooses to set up the site using eDeal- the person or group who sets up the site gets a portion of that FVF, as does eDeal.
This might be a way to generate revenue for a co-op, while keeping expenses scalable and to a minimum.
Heartsong raises a good point- dividends could be made available to co-op members depending on the agreements made with wholesalers and service providers. Auction service-related companies are willing to provide discounts to large groups, in the form of affiliate rebates that can be plowed into operating capital for the co-op as a whole, or distributed to individual members as dividends.
OAUA is in the process of finalizing just such a deal now.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:56:07 AM
"We really have to express our product and the benfits of bidding on co-op sellers auctions rather than at ePAY's!"
What are examples of these benefits, and the corresponding policy/mechanism that ensures the benefit (to buyers) will occur?
Thanks for bringing up edeal. I got one of their sites early on but haven't done much with it and I simply forgot about them in the context of this discussion.
Stockticker:
It is true that eDeal charges a FV fee for auction closings. I seem to think that they may share some revenues depending on the model of auction you select. (C=>C vs. B=>C or B=>B) but in my most recent forays there, I couldn't find confirmation of the revenue sharing.
Still, remember that auctioned items all go into the network (potentially) meaning that each individual could have their own auction or store.
The reason I forgot about edeal was I became intrigued about another similar site that also offers revenue sharing and private labeling. It is called nextag.com and it is based on a reverse auction format. (Seller puts in their ask, the buyer puts in their offer and then they negotiate.) They pay the credit the originating site one-third the FV fee if you deliver the buyer, one-third if you deliver the seller and an amazing 2/3rds of the FV fees if you co-branded site is home to both the buyer and seller (It is a network thing like eDeal.) The link from my site to nextag.com is: http://www.nextag.com/serv/paulding/buyer/OutPDir.jsp... but I show this not to solicit biz but to show how a private labeled site looks.
One more thing about nextag -- it is a better site for new or nearly new stuff as opposed to the highly collectible. You'll understand that if you look at the site.
Both of these 'opportunities' are essentially free for the individual and, again, both offer networked offerings which means that if you list on your site and I list on mine, your stuff shows up on mine and mine on yours.
all for naught
Still all this would be for naught if the tape that plays in 95 percent of all consumers' minds is "looking for the odd item, find it at ebay."
This mindset must be changed as it is the core of the eBay monopoly.
As long as the vast majority of users have that idea in their head, it makes no difference whether the sellers have a 'deal' with edeal, listings on nextag.com or listings presented through searches such as that here at auctionwatch or biddersedge.
Fact is, the best, quickest and most stable way to change the marketing dynamic of the industry would be for everyone to:
- back the search engines and their right to crawl eBay listings.
- make sure the free sites they list upon are crawled by the meta-search engines.
- promote the meta search engines as the best (almost only) way to find the really good stuff online.
I would encourage the sites that offer auction meta-searches to package their search field into a distributable code and pay folks for searches placed (An affiliate program approach).
The result is that while you may offer items at eBay, as a matter of practice, you would never say "eBay". Instead, you would say, search for "neomax" (your unique name) for all my listings on my site - at this link - on auctionwatch/biddersedge or whatever.
Teach your customers how to use the search. Make that your mission -- to tell the world about meta-search.
This will give you the option of listing most anywhere (sites that are meta searched), which counters the anti-competitive aspect of the eBay monopoly.
The bright side is that this costs no one anything and works to enhance the competition.
PS: My gut is that one-year down the road we'd all be happier if rather than investing $100 in a new auction venture -- coop structure notwithstanding -- grants were made to the OAUA for some purpose such as establishing an alternative system of feedback to eBay's proprietary program. (Or an alternative program to establish buyer confidence as noted by Rubylane.)
posted on January 28, 2001 11:58:22 AM
Wow, so much input. Couple of points.
Care needs to be taken that a sellers' cooperative is inclusive. We may have the resources and motivation to start our cooperative. But I don't feel that those who come later (the membership) should be placed in the position of "it's them or us." Despite our misgivings, eBay is still a viable alternative for sellers. I'd rather see an easy transition for new co-op sellers. No votes, no rebates, but the ability to list auctions with a minimum of expense and hassle. And no obligation. I don't see how a "list your best stuff with us first" policy is going to fly, because sellers in general are more concerned with making the rent than with philosophy. Ideology doesn't feed the bulldog! Let them get their feet wet, test the water, then take the plunge.
"What do I get for my $100 bucks?"
I'd prefer those kinds of questions were asked in appropriate forum. As this topic becomes more concrete, it is less eBay related. I'm not comfortable using AuctionWatch resources to plan a cooperative site, further than "wouldn't it be nice?" It is my feeling that any concrete planning should be done elsewhere. I'm not trying to hide this info, but if I need to tell Abacaxi to stick it, I don't want any flak over it.
Right now, we're looking at establishing a planning committee within a few weeks and then moving ahead. At some point we're going to have to move this discussion, so I would ask that you save your questions regarding specific details for an appropriate forum. Several posters here have the link to Online Auction Sellers Co-operative. I am grateful to AW for allowing this discussion.
It's fascinating to see the process of question to suggestion to refinement. It shows that communication is the key. Let's keep the common goal in mind and the rest will fall into place.
BTW, I'm watching the TV commercial about the start-up Internet company that gets 300,000 orders in the first minute. Maybe it's an omen.
posted on January 28, 2001 12:01:16 PM
I believe that were SELLERS to found, finance and run a site, that this would create a passion & commitment AND a sense of pride & responsibility that are variables that we have yet to have seen displayed in ecommerce to date.
SELLER-owned.
SELLER-run.
SELLER-financed.
The investment of time, money and energy by a large *mob* of experienced SELLERS may lead to the creation of a magnetically APPEALING and attractive online marketplace where NO ONE IS A DIGITAL PEONLINING THE POCKETS OF BIG BIZ.
posted on January 28, 2001 12:05:06 PM
I firmly believe that the distribution of EXCESS profits annually is imperative -- so that people feel a sense of LOYALTY to their site, because their site benefits them in ALL ways.
posted on January 28, 2001 12:11:58 PM
And ya know, due to popularity with many bidders, it would be nice to have ONE special Catagory called, something like:
ONLY a Dollar!
This category would be strictly for *only* NON-Reserve auctions with starting bids of a buck.
posted on January 28, 2001 12:16:28 PM
Meta search engines do not work, for the following reasons:
1. With an 80%+ share of the listings, 80% of the traffic is sent to eBay. (Why they are suing people for this I'll never figure out...)
2. The large sites will not pay to be in it; they don't need the traffic.
3. The small sites have no money to pay to be in it.
4. The medium-sized sites will pay until they feel they are sustainable, then they will stop paying and are resistant to being in the search since it encourages visitors to go to the search engine instead of the site. Eventually the site feels dependent on the search engine.
5. As traffic increases at the search engine, participating sites are often not able to pay for the increased traffic they are sent.
6. Without revenue from the participants, it doesn't make sense for the search engine to pay for affiliate programs/advertising.
A fast, scalable search engine is not a zero-expense item to build or maintain. Without a revenue model that scales as traffic scales, the business model doesn't work.
posted on January 28, 2001 12:36:42 PM
I am no marketing/big-biz expert, just an antique dealer who's made a decent living on ebay. I've watched as a whole flock of ebay wannabes have created one site after another, all with the hope of reaping instant wealth and future IPOs. They dump huge sums into splashy marketing programs and some even offer bribes to attract sellers. Despite all the hype and VC money, the ones that have survived seem to be just limping along, lying in-wait for the day they might reach "critical mass."
My point is, I keep coming back to the genesis of the site they're emulating. Ebay didn't start out with "critical mass." It began in Pierre's apartment for heaven's sake, with piecemeal hardware and software of his own creation. The word "community" has become trite these days, but back then it was precisely the cause of the groundswell that kept those envelopes arriving in Pierre's mailbox, payments sent in voluntarily by happy sellers.
Have these other sites failed because, in their zest to get at the big money, they ignored the importance of community and skipped right to Phase 2? Could community be the elusive "missing link" of the dot-bombs?
When I think of this co-op, I envision (rightly or wrongly) a small group of sellers putting up a basic, plain site. Small money outlay, a project with a simple, pure mission to build something of QUALITY, a place where community can exist and spread the word. As more sellers find it, the place would grow with the revenues.
I'm probably all wet, but feel better that I've add my thoughts to the mix.
I think we may have had some of this kind of discussion way back when I know that Rubylane was one of the first (if not first) off site auction search engines. You also know that I didn't like your revenue model in particular.
I also was amazed to see that eBay had the audacity to sue sites such as auctionwatch over search, particularly since they plotted at times to keep some "competiting" sites out of such meta searches.
If you didn't know, I came full around in my attitude regarding meta searches. Initially my attitude was that the meta searches were out there to do the easy work (compile the titles for listing) from the various sites and capture traffic by aggregating the data from all sites. I did feel that the meta-search function would tend to commoditize the auction sites and still think so.
Your objections to the meta search seem to be based on general observations whereas the specific is more telling. When you say the large sites will not pay to be in it; they don't need the traffic, you mean to say that Yahoo, Amazon and eBay won't pay for it.
When you say, the small sites have no money to pay to be in it, you are absolutely correct because, unless you are eBay (or maybe Yahoo) there is no money in the auction listing business, dominated as it is by eBay.
If there are medium-sized sites (Do be specific -- egghead? C/Net, Dell, Fairmarket? Who?) I don't see their support ending when they feel they are sustainable.
Again, I understand their reluctance, (to being in the search since it encourages visitors to go to the search engine instead of the site).
Eventually the site feels dependent on the search engine. (Sound rather symbiotic to me... which is where I was sort of way back when. Maybe you just need a little different sales tack for the service
Number 5 sounds to me like a collections issue which is going to exist with most dot.coms save the one with 80 percent of the market and the lion's share of the cash.
Finally, you are right, a fast, scalable search engine is not a zero-expense item to build or maintain.
Without a revenue model that scales as traffic scales, the business model doesn't work.
I can't disagree with that observation but I would note that the auction meta search engine can also be an extremely valuable and attractive tool.
What I also know is that it is a critical tool in breaking the public's habit of going to eBay first for everything
Finally, I do think that Fountainhouse was only partly right when he said that Community was the missing ingredient of those who sought to compete with eBay.
The greatest insight is to understand that from 1996 through 1998, the online auction 'community' was at eBay.
We we knew that (We used to have message boards early on but they were dead) and instead, I helped support sites such as auctionwatch, honesty, OTWA.com, etc. with advertising ... as we couldn't go to eBay's message boards to recruit you.
Some of that community is now at these places and that's how this conversation can even happen.
But for the most part, the online auction community ... yes call it the ebay community ... has been amazingly loyal.
I will say that Golds', with their offer of stock to early lister's, came as close as I saw, of actually splitting off a faction of the eBay community with any loyalty. In a real sense, the management style/approach of that operation, which was to share ownership with early adopters, is close to what is being suggested here.
Indeed, I would be interested in how many of the folks on board on this effort were part of the Gold's effort?
posted on January 28, 2001 01:09:04 PM
fountainhouse: I'm with you.
ANYWAY, I believe that such a proposed venture, were it ever to come into fruition would ALWAYS be waaaaaaaaaa-aY "Under The Radar" -- there is N0 waY that a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g will EVER compete with eBay, (The Mighty TheMagnificent TheUnstoppable TheUncrushable eBay.)
eBay is a permanent fixture to human reality, now. eBay will be the utility whereby all peoples in all countries buy & sell from oneanother. eBay changes EVERYTHING.
Meantime, I simply think it would be very interesting, as a NETIZEN, to do a liddle experimentation.......
One of the things that Pierre most wanted was for the really active, really productive members of the eBay c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y to have been given (freely) ten+ shares of eBay stock at its IPO.
This type of distribution is VERY difficult to do, and so this idea was squelched by the VCs and the BIG financiers. Since even then, and indeed, ever-there-after, they have had NO as to what eBay is, they were also VERY concerned that non-investors of the eBay community NOT go broke or lose a lot of money because of the gift of shares of eBay stock.
I do NOT think in terms of "critical mass" and I harbor NO delusions that any seller-run, seller-owned cooperative would EVER pose any competition, much less threat to the unstoppable uncrushable eBay.
I'd like a SIMPLE, accessible to ALL, non-bells & whistles site, with chatboards and NICE CATAGORIES filled with interesting SELLABLE items, where one can actually browse through the catagories finding mdse from Hobby Sellers (i.e., INDIVIDUALS), Independent Entrepeneurs (i.e., INDIVIDUALS), and from Small Microbusinesses (which happen to be comprised of INDIVIDUALS).
If I want either Hallmark® cards, or either Coke® 0R Pepsi®, there are an infinite number of local retail shops where I can find same.
ANOTHER thing that tech-wizard, genius Pierre Omidyar ALWAYS wanted was a banner ad-FREE site.
Libertarian Omidyar found it to be an interesting idea what would happen if you made it possible for INDIVIDUALS to sell and buy from oneanother.
Indeed!
Right now, eBay is VERY VERY VERY preoccupied and busy with NEVER EVER becoming a dot.bomb, and thus must find ever more sources of increasing revenue, and ever stronger partners in their co-branding deals.
THEY WILL NOT ====> repeat: not care whadda a buncha "spoiled" American sellers decide to experiment with in terms of a cooperative.
NADA!
We are WAAAAAAAAAAAA=aY beneath the radar, and there is NO such thing as "critical mass" - not ever.
However, as more and more of the world's citizens come online, we might have a small safe spot for a while when people who have an annual income of $28 a month, start auctioning off diamonds and rubies at 36-cents.
At some point these masses of the world, these INDIVIDUAL human beings will knock out the multi-nationals, and eBay will be the ONE utility that virtually everyone uses - in that post-megaKorporation world.
Meantime, I'll have to decide if I have a hundred dollars to throw away on this concept, as really, so much of the Internet currently boooooRES or disgusts me so much, that I've seriously considered dumping my ISP, and simply accessing edu.sites and Usenet at the public library.
posted on January 28, 2001 01:42:38 PM
Earlier, someone asked, "Was Stage 1 skipped?"
This was in reference to the ebaywannabee clones, one after another, during the Great SillyValley Gold Ru$h of the LAST millennium.
EVERY one of the clones wanted to have EBAY-R=I=C=H=E=S and we -- U & ME, we were the commodities to bring wealth to the eBayWannabees.
If your goal in the formation of a seller-owned cooperative is WEALTH, I do not predict that you will be a very happy camper with this proposed venture.
But if you'd like a site where rules are VOTED on by the USER membership instead of foisted down upon us unaware, unprepared commodities, because they were the brainstorm of some nouveau riche vulture capitalist who has NEVER sold a months worth of auctions, but decides that the commodities need more after-sale ""services"" and there's megabucks to be made at Mailboxes, etc., et al.
IF you are interested in what would happen in an experimental seller-owned, seller-run cooperative where WE human beings, experienced with the ACTUALITIES of online auctions -- and NOT those fantasitical stoooooooopidities, and IF you really do have a spare hundred bucks that you do NOT need to see again, well then....
BUT I will NOT permit ANYONE anywhere to m-e-m-e cyberspace and infer to INDIVIDUALS that they might make their livlihood at said cooperative, much less a fortune, much less words like "Critical Mass" or, parden me, "competition."
posted on January 28, 2001 02:06:35 PM
Also, with all our selling skills, and more importantly, with all the merchandise lying around our collective houses, here's a way during pre-launch months that we could fill the coffers of the cooperative and at the same time create interest and enthusiasm in our proposed venture.
Every once in a while, according to whatever LAWS exist regulating same, each I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L who is interested in participating in this proposed cooperative, could donate an item for auction. The proceeds from these auctions would simply be donated to the cooperative legal ENTITY.
Depending upon the way said auctions were run, and depending upon the type of quality & oddity, or both of the donated auction items, it's at least THEORETICALLY or hypothetically possible that we'd get a liddle bit o' free press.
I'm sure the Wall Street journal HUMORISTS would find all sortsa ways to l-a-m-p-0-0-n our event(s), but among the readership of the Wall Street Journal there ARE some INDIVIDUALS who would learn about the proposed cooperative for the very first time, and be intrigued & interested enuff to find out more.
posted on January 28, 2001 02:50:55 PMIf your goal in the formation of a seller-owned cooperative is WEALTH, I do not predict that you will be a very happy camper with this proposed venture
Exactly, radh. At least not in the way that auction sites today define their success. In this venture, the goal is to build a seller-owned site that one day has the potential to have as many listings as ebay, but with the *motivation* being ONLY to preserve its integrity and purpose, not images of IPOs or profit distributions.
[ edited by fountainhouse on Jan 28, 2001 02:57 PM ]
If we get enough people to cough up $100.00 over the next 30 days or so we will be able to gauge the desire for a co-op.
I believe twinsoft will have an answer regarding a TRUST or ESCROW account where funds can be held until the co-op is ready to commence.
If this group can create a mission statement and constititution the site will come to be.
With initiation fees and a monthly fee for folks who sell alot there will be enough money to set up and support a pretty good auction site.
The press from this happening (if it does) will be pretty impressive too.
I for one however will not participate if there are profits going to the members.
To me the satisfaction will be in having a stable place to run and build my business which is worth quite a bit in my opinion.
And having a vote that means something in the running in this business is important too. When was the last time ebay, yahoo,or Amazon called you up and asked your opinion??
And if Toyranch joins in and we can move a million auctions to a co-op we in fact will be in competition with ebay. We will even if we only get 1000 listings. It's just a matter of what type of competition we are??
It's not rocket science folks. It's a very real possibility that can happen if enough of us work on it soon enough.
Let's take all the energy and frustration from what Yahoo, Amazon, and Ebay have done over the last year and turn it to good!
There are plenty of ways to get attention and traffic without lots of $$. Soem take a bit of work, but it's not an impossible task.
