posted on January 28, 2001 04:51:06 PM new
...4 0R agin' it ????????????????
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
A proposal of this magnitude would take a LARGE sum of money to execute and particularly in such away that it did absolutely NOTHING to disrupt the financial affairs and livlihood of any INDIVIDUAL and their family.
Plenty of us posters have participated in the growth of other listing venues, and plenty of us have NO intentions of w-a-s-t-i-n-g more time & energy, much less being put at financial risk by doing so again.
i dunno if the proposal has merit, if it CAN work, and more importantly, whether we can finance it at the inception.
posted on January 28, 2001 04:56:13 PM new
fountainhouse: what an interesting term you use: integrity...... seems to ring a bell somewhere, perhaps it was in use sometime in my pre-Net life. Does it still have a meaning, do you know if that term is it still in use, or is it such an antiquated idea that dictionary definitions declare, archaic.
posted on January 28, 2001 05:17:02 PM new
radh,
I think everybody must be watching the game or at Super Bowl parties.
We were headed for a party but decided to stay home and order pizza instead.
I'm for it!! Count me in.
Here are a couple of my first votes.
1. Transfer Feedback
2. Category for $1.00 NO RESERVE
3. NO WATCH FEATURE
4. KEEP IT SIMPLE and CLUTTER FREE
5. Sellers get annual dividends for incentive(in the form of rebate or listing credits) if profit margin allows.
posted on January 28, 2001 05:36:42 PM new
radh, integrity simply means staying true to the cause. Making decisions with pure motivations, not profit-based formulas.
It may be an archaic proposition, but I think there's no sense in proceeding if only to mimic the legions of wannabes. That *would* be throwing good money away.
OTOH, if a group of sellers tried to start a small, non-profit site supported by grassroots effort and guided by a strong set of principles in the form of Bylaws, now THAT would be novel.
That's a project I'd support both with my time and money.
posted on January 28, 2001 05:53:09 PM new
fountain stated: "if a group of sellers tried to start a small,non-profit site supported by grassroots effortand guided by a strong set of principles inthe form of Bylaws, now THAT would be novel.That's a project I'd support bothwith my time and money."
```````````````````````
VERY articulate!
I agree; however, I have NO problems with either a NON-profit site, nor with a DIVIDEND disbursement.
NONE of the free sites ever authentically took off in the past, and that is why I am partial to the idea of eventual disbursements to coop members, based upon whatever the lawyers instruct us.
I have NO problem with those dividends, and am having difficulty understanding why such an idea obviously is repugnant to some.
(Of course, I should add that I do NOT foresee any HUGE disbursement checks at any time, as truly would not the group of seller-owners want to continually UPGRADE (their already excellent) services?
However, keeping the entire entity ENTIRELY NON-PROFIT make have a *massive* safety factor, in that we simply couldn't attract say, 5 million new users whose sole intent is to vote in such a way as to disrupt our pleasant little experiment.
For myself personally, I have NO interest in disbursements; I was simply assuming that this reaction would be a minority position. Perhaps I was mistaken.
posted on January 28, 2001 06:23:14 PM new
radh, before a co-op can spend $$, the membership has to ratify the budget proposed by the Board of Directors. All of the costs associated with maintaining the site would be included in the budget, as well as (I foresee) a line item for a fund to cover future expansion. In fact, I'd support such a fund being required in the Bylaws, as a way to assure the future success of the co-op.
The task of the Board of Directors is to project those costs, then estimate the cost-per-member. This will be particularly important, as a shortfall of members will result in underfunding. (Obviously, it's prudent to delay start-up until sufficient operating funds are accumulated.)
Similarly, an excess of members beyond the estimate will result in a surplus. What happens to the surplus is the sole decision of the membership.
That's the beauty of it. If a majority of sellers want a rebate, or a fee reduction, or want to invest it somehow in the site, then that's what will be.
posted on January 28, 2001 06:24:06 PM new
Co-op Profit sharing
As a kid we had a summer home in Northern Pennsylvania. The electric company was too small to afford to be able to service the new builds so they formed a co-op for sevices and hardware. We got a check every year for $13-$15 dollars in profit and we paid an electric bill.
There is nothing wrong in profit. That's why we are sellers. A co-op could plow back any procedes till a goal amount and distribute the rest as profit sharing, a reduction of fees, free banner ads or maybe be available to be spent on in-house premium services . Keeping it all in the family- so to speak.
posted on January 28, 2001 06:25:38 PM new
I for one have no visions of making my money off the co-op or dividends. I plan on making my money off of my auctions(as it should be).
The number one priority to me would be sure we have SIGHT STABILITY.
Keep the sight up and running so bidders CAN bid. RIGHT?
I just don't want to see $1,000's of dollars sitting in someones escrow account doing nothing!
posted on January 28, 2001 06:33:44 PM new
Hi Folks,
I don't want thousands sitting in an escrow account either. But they have to get there for us to go forward. Believe me, if we have 500 folks who write checks in 30 days we will be news!
I'm still against profits. I just don't see a benefit of them.
I mean, if there are profits then we didn't spend enough on Marketing or upgrading or on support?
Surely there'd be some place that the co-op needed the funds assuming it was profitable that quickly which I surely doubt.
Fact is, if this is done right it will be huge. Ebay was built by millions of happy people talking with millions of people who wanted to be happy.
When did ebay start advertising in the mainstream??
Our best product is ourselves and our product.
Our greatest PROFIT would be by having a site to use these products to the best of our abilities without worrying that Meg, Pierre, or Jeff needed to buy a new Continent and would "Improve" our workplace!
posted on January 28, 2001 06:38:17 PM new
Forgot to add:
The attraction for sellers, radh, isn't necessarily the lower fees (although they're one of the reasons for pondering the creation of this site).
The *real* attraction is the opportunity to have a meaningful voice in it. Voting power and self-empowerment. No more waking up to find they nuked your category (and livelihood) overnight. No more "let them eat cake" mentality while the PTB stuff themselves at the IPO smorgasbord.
Whether that's enough of an attraction to gather enough (truly) interested people is the question...
Jamie - I agree.
[ edited by fountainhouse on Jan 28, 2001 06:40 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2001 06:42:47 PM new
If a dividend is paid out by the co-op, it is because the co-op over-estimated the costs of running the co-op and set the fees too high. This payout is not PROFIT, it is simply a partial refund of fees paid by members. And yes, I think it is better to over-estimate costs than to run out of money because there was no cushion for contingencies.
posted on January 28, 2001 07:19:16 PM new
fountainhouse: there HAS to be an address and bank to send the membership fees to --- MOST people will NOT publically comment online about ANY phase of this, as they are skeeRed of the mighty eBay, sKeered stiff.
Here is a poll messagethread, but please do not get your expectations uP, okay?
I believe that the due date for dues should be APRIL FIRST. Why, becuz I have a *bad* sense of humour. AND I'd like the actual Launch Date to be HallowEEN, proving that I have a sick sense of humor.
posted on January 28, 2001 07:30:58 PM new
I thought the general consensus was to hurry and invest $100 to prove your interest in getting this off the ground. Then, maybe $50 a month membership fees. Then listing fees, etc., etc.
Am I the only one who doesn't have $100 right now to put in an escrow account and wait to see if this flys? Nor can I add another $50 a month to the bills I'm already committed to. Nor can I consider more and more listing fees (listing fees so I don't list junk?). I don't have junk to sell but what I do sell, costs me a pretty penny so I can't tie up funds ~ I need it to reinvest in inventory. An inventory that appeals to a niche group of collectors who don't just show up on the doorstep everyday. Meaning my inventory might just sit for awhile waiting for the right collector to come along.
I was really interested in this sellers co-op because I think it is necessary for us to take some control of our destiny as online sellers, rather than be at the mercy of the eBads and YaWhos? of this world.
However, I can't get past the posts that say charge listing fees to keep junk off the site or, pay to get in or, pay a monthly membership fee... So many of the same situations that have, in the past weeks, caused serious uproars in the E & Y seller's
communities, are being considered now if you want to be a part of the Co-op.
I realize that this thread was meant to throw out ideas and it is an amazing thread but would somebody please tell me where I missed the boat? It's beginning to look like even if I found the boat, I wouldn't be able to get on.
posted on January 28, 2001 07:37:12 PM new
The way I'm seeing this, externally there would be very little difference between a co-op site and any other online auction house. Trimming the "fat" (or, fat-cats) out of the equation would result in lower fees, but we can keep the parts of the eBay model that work. We're not necessarily out to re-invent the wheel here.
Once bylaws are established operations would be similar to any other site. Establishing fair fees and designing a platform that will be here five years from now are where the work lies. One big difference between a co-op and other model is that we're not out to artifically inflate our value, then sell it off to some VC boob. We need to think about the future. The advantage is that careful and creative planning will result in a stronger foundation. We won't have to answer to yammering stockholders or justify why we're not squeezing more life blood out of our customers.
I don't see a sellers co-op as a better brand of Big Brother, with huge profits being made and redistributed among the membership on a sliding scale. Even with one member - one vote, there will still be policies and decisions made that could be unfavorable to any given member.
The focus needs to remain on the individual seller. It's important that a stay at home Mom or a retired guy cleaning out his old storage receive the same benefits as the jewelry seller offering lots of expensive items. That includes "reverse benefits" such as special perks for big sellers. The co-op should be blind to the amount or supposed quality of any particular kind of item. We need to avoid the mindset of "we don't want your junk here." This is about empowering the individual, not about placing individuals in servitude to the co-op.
Look at it this way. Let's assume that to sell an item on eBay costs a seller five bucks. Out of that five bucks, two bucks pays for actual operating expenses. Three bucks is "profit." At the co-op, to sell the same item should cost two bucks. Or perhaps, realistically, two bucks and a dime to pad the operating fund. At the end of the year, that dime comes back to the seller. Keep it simple.
We need to avoid restrictive policies and policies that favor one type of seller (for example, high volume or big ticket sellers). We don't want to run each others busniesses, we just want a safe haven where we aren't worried that listing fees will suddenly double overnight for the benefit of Joe Corporate Bugger.
Perhaps there are those who look at this as a grand experiment in home grown economics. My concerns are more practical: freedom from eBay. I'm not looking for payback, or to steal eBay's customers, or even to compete with eBay. This is not about beating eBay. If we can pool our resources in a democratic fashion, and cut our fees in half, that's great. If we can provide an alternative to the eBay clones out there, great. If we can establish an online store that will be there ten years from now, and not at the bottom of some corporate digestive tract, that's great! I believe that many current eBay sellers will come at a gallop. In fact, I think we've got a bit of a black hole here: a tiny chunk with super gravity. We just need to keep our eye on the goal and step over the little obstacles we encounter along the way. GratefulDad About Me
posted on January 28, 2001 07:41:05 PM new
molly, I don't believe anyone has suggested that a co-op site could possibly be free. It simply can't, either now -or- in the future because *someone* has to pay the operating costs.
The financial benefits to sellers in a co-op would be reduced fees that reflect actual costs, without additional profit markup.
(And, of course, the ability to control one's own destiny.)
posted on January 28, 2001 07:47:20 PM new
molly: I understand that MANY individuals will not, a mere month after the holidays, simply cough up an extra hundred bucks, as their discretionary income is currently non-existent.
In the poll thread, I specifically asked for feedback for what DATE anyone would feel would be the best for the initial membership dues.
I believe that the co-op site shouldn't open until it is READY, ready to handle TRAFFIC, and a good traffic date is November 1, so let's open it for a Halloween celebration.
However, Molly, I read over at the board twinsoft set up that the OAUA is about to do a cooperative.
I know NOTHING about this, and do not wish to do any thing more about this messagethread's co-operative, until I learn what they are doing and what their co-op is for.
WHY re-invent the wheel, hey.
I wanna know more about their liddle project, which supposedly is happening soon.
packer: I am QUITE well aware that a ezboard has been set up for the discussion of this project.
IF ANYBODY HERE BELIEVES THAT ANY PLACE ON THE NET IS *PRIVATE* THEY HAD BETTER DO SOME GOOD READING & STUDY OF PRIVACY:1-001.
IF you do NOT realize that among the charter members will be ALL sorts of people with ulterior motives who are SPYING for their corporations on us, then you don't understand ecommerce, and how they've spread their paid shills far and wide.
posted on January 28, 2001 07:52:10 PM new
twinsoft,
I think someone(you)should read over all these post and extract some of the best ideas , organize them in a simple understandable way and then present it here for a vote.
Just give us the basic outline of what our goal should be.
With that we should be able to get a pretty good idea of who is really interest.
Then we can take it to the next step of collecting money if it looks like it could be a GO!
I think as it is anyone reading this whole thread wouldn't really know where anything stands for a workable co-op.
posted on January 28, 2001 07:54:28 PM new
Hi All,
When this thread first started, I didn't realize the direction it would take, and have not been back. The last couple of days, as it has added entry after entry, I added it to my to do list of "look sees" and then today one of my subscribers emailed me asking about it, and describing the direction, so here I am, having just read it all....
I have been convinced for 2 years that a user/owner based auction/trading site IS the way the industry MUST go, if my personal goal of assisting in the assurance of a universal worldwide person to person marketplace is to be more than a dream. I am often asked WHAT my agenda is, and I have been trying to distill that. Achieving that universal worldwide person to person marketplace is it!
HOW to accomplish this has occupied my thinking and many discussion for the last couple of years. How do you get the most independent, downright ornery, incredibly intelligent, distrustful, suspicious, many times burned so justifiably shy, generous, loving, and diverse group of folks, to get together and agree on a frame, to build this structure on. I don't have the answer yet, but it is good to see folks working on it, as I am absolutely convinced that it HAS to be. I also am not sure there can be ONE answer. Probably several models will develop and be implemented, and succeed.
Some of the things I think (just my opinion folks - for whatever it is worth) are necessary for such a venture to work -
1. One person one vote - no matter how big or small a seller, no matter if seller or buyer (and almost everyone is both), an organization of equals, where every voice gets heard equally, every vote counts, and no one is more equal than anyone else. WHAT that member gets to vote for (probably a board of directors, and CERTAIN kinds of organizational changes) will change over time as the organization grows.
2. Make Organization a PRIVATELY held member owned for profit corporation, with the legal mumbo jumbo to prevent the corporation from ever going public and from ever being sold. If necessary, the company will be dispersed with all assets dissolved and resultant moneys divided amongst members.
3. Profits disbersed based on member subscriber accounts that tracks the amount of money spent by a member (fees, initial investment etc). Profits are disbersed as an equal percentage on all account balances. This takes care of the little vs the big seller, the fact that folks come and go, and some leave permanently, the initial contributions of the "founding" members. It allows EVERYONE to participate, and profit according to that participation. Members could get PAID for providing services in subscriber account dollars - no cash in hand until profitability is reached, but no working for free either. IF the thing succeeds efforts will be rewarded equitable and fairly across the board. there are lots of ways these accounts can be controlled to make them work as equity for the company, many details I have not completely thought through on this, but I know it can work - someone else is already doing it in another industry.
4. Decide what you want to do, and do it. I do not think it is a good idea for an auction/trading site to also try to be a professional organization, an insurance company, a shipping company, a management tool provider etc. Provide basic tools and allow third party service providers (forget allow - ENCOURAGE!) to do the rest. Don't be the fox trying to guard the hen house. Be a VENUE that is user friendly and supportive and leave all those other services to third parties much more capable of providing them.
5. Be open to everyone, all types of listings, trash and otherwise. Have categories and listing rules as to like item quantities, and enforce them. Let the Disney corps list, maybe in a "large corporation" category - but they have to play on the same level playing field as everyone else - no special priviledges, no special terms allowed, and no say as to what else can be listed on the site.
6. No banner ads. Promote internally. Someones stock market point was excellent. This site will not have to worry about stockholders, cause there aren't going to be any. Charge fees to pay costs and use subscriber accounts to fill in what the fees don't pay for. If the site is successful, everyone will benefit based on their contribution. If not, members will lose what they invested. Further ways to benefit from success can be found and voted on by members.
7. Don't reinvent the wheel. Use a currently working successful business model and adapt it to the special needs of the OAI/OTI. Pick an online auction with the tools most wanted by sellers and buyers and buy the software, OR - buy a site currently working - lord knows there are plenty of them out there. If new, different, better technology emerges in the future - adopt it, or even have those members interested in doing so, participate in cutting edge development supported by the site.
There ARE ways to be successful AND profitable without being greedy or having to destroy everyone and everything around you. There are ways to be profitable AND ethical. There are ways to be profitable and successful where you bring everyone along with you, rather than stepping on and over bodies. Other corporations are doing it, and we al can get together and do it too.
Finally - this does not need to be an either or proposition. Continue to list on the commercial sites, but move 10 percent, or whatever you can afford, to the member owned site. Or list an EXTRA ten items each week. Get ten of your friends to do the same. Build a site FOR MEMBERS while you still have the luxury of using ebaY et al - cause I am not sure they will always welcome us all, or allow us to list on their sites.
Well as usual, this is probably way too long a post. -Rosalinda
TAGnotes - daily email synopsis about the Online Auction Industry
http://www.topica.com/lists/tagnotes
posted on January 28, 2001 07:59:23 PM new
twinsoft, I agree. Although my initial reaction was to restrict participation of "junk sellers," I now think it's much better to allow open membership (just as Pierre did originally) and deal with the various unsavory/undesirable listings in the bylaws.
IOW, someone mentioned religious or cult-type recruitment listings and those selling get-rich-quick schemes. I'd be a proponent of the bylaws forbidding sleaze-type listings such as these.
While we don't want to exclude sellers, we DO want to maintain *some* level of quality, lest we degenerate into one big infomercial.
posted on January 28, 2001 08:15:55 PM new
Decide what you want to do.
I think there is less agreement here than some of the posters think.
Auctions vs take it offers?
Active sellers vs occasional?
Fees high enough to discourage slow selling, or insignificant price offerings vs minimal to keep site going?
All seem to agree they don't want the "Secrets of the Power Sellers" and "Airline ticket coupon" spams, but do you welcome the .20 baseball card seller or SMC or only the more substantial offerings?
Controversial offerings such as adult, racially offensive, firearms, etc. (as far as legal)?
posted on January 28, 2001 09:10:24 PM new
hi, figmente: I agree with you. This whole proposal has not even reached the stage of an actual brain-storming session. AND, until a mission statement is agreed upon, it is WAY toooooo early to set up an escrow account for membership dues.
You see, once the mission statement is actually agreed upon and composed - then individuals will have some basis on which to form their decision of whether they wish to participate.
When the discussion began veering this direction, abacaxi brought up the idea of what she could do if 10,000 sellers pledged $50 each.
However, many of us lowly INDIVIDUALS have NO expertise with anything, much less with the legal technicalities of co-op law or technological wizardry.
I imagine people will be hashing this over for quite some time, for a long time before the mission statement comes along.
Some have said they won't participate unless the co-op entity is non-profit.
I know that I have NO enthusiasm about any venture which opens its catagories to megaKorporations. I am strictly interested in a venue for INDIVIDUALS, but if the final form is something I cannot join, I still will wish the people well, and hope that they make sure that the PUBLIC can place bids, LOL!
posted on January 28, 2001 09:40:52 PM new
I think if you make sure that each person feels they have a voice and their needs will be considered most will comprimise on a few points to attain the major ones.
eBay has been scrambling to stay ahead of the number of hits they must serve. Starting an enterprise from scratch should offer a chance to start with a newer hardware base and some idea of what scale will be needed in the future. It would be nice to have a dispersed
system not dependant on one physical location with power outage problems and political problems due to being under one set of laws.
Co-ops often offer services to businesses that they can't buy on their own such as a credit union or access to group insurance.
Some would join just for that and sometimes these things can be offered for no cost. The companies offering them are happy to have access to a certain mass of customers.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
- but they have to play on the same level playing field as everyone else - no special priviledges, no special terms allowed, and no say as to what else can be listed on the site.