posted on January 30, 2001 03:16:30 AM
Let's give it a rest! Maybe a good idea would be for each of us to sit back and think about what we DON'T like about ebay and mail it to the appropriate person.
I think I see where Radh is coming from. There is a big difference between listing 500 different CD's and listing the same CD 500 times.
I especially like (NOT) the ones about how to made $5 mil on ebay every month and sold by a 10 feedback seller.
But that's not the point yet. This should just be limited to who is interested in a coop idea.
posted on January 30, 2001 04:30:13 AMuaru -
"I hate to be a wet blanket but I would need more than a
'launch date' before I said yes to $100.
that is NOT the date for site launch, that is the date for
indicating INTEREST is exploring the idea, and the money would
be in escrow and refundable. It's called seed money.
Money talks, and if a group can say "2300 online auction sellers
have placed $100 each into the startup fund" that's WAY more
impressive than "2300 online auction sellers say they'll join
if we get it going and it's a success but they aren't willing
to do anything until then."
siddielou - Co-ops have a lot of standard forms ...
this is nothing radical and socialist here, just a bunch of folks
discussing planning a way to BUY and DISTRIBUTE SERVICES for their
businesses, like farmers buy feed and a friend of mine buys
telephone services
The services would be Internet connectivity, advertising space,
billing (EOA mails), etc.
amalgamated2000
What do you sell? My desire to exclude the "information sellers"
stems from their lack of original material and their ubiquitousness
as "featured" in every bloody category I look in. As a BUYER it
annoys me.
If the requirement were that they be the copyright holder on
the information, AND that they stick to the "Information on CD"
(or other) category ... no problem. But spamming ads to ALL categories
because among the 650MB info is a 30K bit on online auctions is
harmful to the entire site ... a cat named "Online Auction Tools
and informaiton" would work to keep them corralled.
kerrieann -
For starters, there needs to be a big enough chunk
of money to impress site hosts (and I strongly recommend
that the site be hosted by a company that does NOTHING
but that) and programmers of the seriousness of the
enterprise.
All this is still being DISCUSSED ... it's not even molded
in jello, let alone carved in stone.
Toyranch -
"No business which has stock which is publicly traded, or is owned in
part or in whole by a company which has stock that is publicly traded"
Excellent thought ... you have to be an individual, a small business,
and if CARGILL (incredibly large, privately owned company that is a
living example of a mega-business) wants to join and sell cow-feed,
they can designate ONE individual to sign up and hand over a corporate
credit card for their fees.
bearmom -
Committes have an AGENDA, and a moderator, and are focused
on a single topic. They don't try to hash out the entire business
plan in one sitting.
deco100 -
"There is a big difference between listing 500 different CD's and
listing the same CD 500 times."
EXACTLY ... 500 DIFFERENT CDs from the same seller is a GOOD thing.
500 listings of the SAME CD from the SAME seller will be against the
bylaws, and the seller will be booted for failing to abide by the
bylaws (a DUTCH auction for those 500 would be OK, and listing 2 a
week for the next 5 years would be OK), but a limit on the number of
essentially similar products by the same seller has to be in place.
**********
BUYER MEMBERS? Any way to have a "buyer's advisory council?"
I can't see any way to charge them an annual fee (drat!) but
could verified buyers have extra privileges? Serve on an arbitration
board in buyer/seller disputes? Have a (non-binding?) vote?
*********
There ARE ways to vote on things with ID validation ... I know some
security peeps that can do this.
********
MEGA-NUMBER OF IDENTICAL AUCIONS -
They do it in order to hog the search results. One way to
keep it from being a nuisance is to limit the number of items from
ANY seller that can be retrieved by a search. Easy enough to do with
the query code, and could perhaps be under the control of the user.
posted on January 30, 2001 05:32:40 AMMy desire to exclude the "information sellers" stems from their lack of original material and their ubiquitousness as "featured" in every bloody category I look in.
My point is that if anybody is going to be excluded, that should be one of the first things decided.
I happen to find Beanie Babies revolting, and since we're excluding people...
And, beyond the individual/corporation thing, there are some very real concerns:
-Informational products
-Pornography
-Illegal pornography
-Nazi material
-Guns
And plenty of others...
If you decide to defer this decision, there are going to be some very unhappy people who have participated in the process and find themselves excluded. In fact, I suspect that individual members of any governing bodies would probably be subject to law suits.
But I really don't care how you handle it because I am convinced that this whole thing is a cute widdle exercise in futility anyway.
[ edited by amalgamated2000 on Jan 30, 2001 05:35 AM ]
posted on January 30, 2001 07:50:41 AM
When you limit who can join said co-op you fast become an organization and being able to list almost anything is what this is about. Or is it placing limits?????
I have worked for non profits for many years. My understanding of how this stuff works is that what is being proposed as a co-op may not qualify as a co-op. It reads that a co-op may be a business, but the members work for the co-op as an entity itself. It doesn't look as if a business, (in this case the sellers), can form a co-op for the purpose of running each individual business.
It sounds more to me like a business association is being proposed.
Take a look. All of this contentious bickering may be moot.
posted on January 30, 2001 08:39:31 AM
smw: thank you for the informative post.
I am still somewhat interested in personally contacting various people and organizations who I presume be interested in the future development of e-commerce, specifically in how it applies to, and in its potential ramifications upon the small digital mom n' pops. Perhaps the Net Intelligentsia could have some symposium, with public participation by those who feel they have need of a cooperative.
There are millions of people who use online auctions nowadays, and that number will substantially increase, week by week, as the entire planet is wired.
Personally, I only have any interest in spontaneous authentic movements which are truly interested in feedback and comments from 1000s of users, from the masses, -- a groundswell movement encompassing large numbers of individuals who might be able to brainstorm a set of excellent recommendations to assist the future of small digital "mom n' pops."
I have no interest in any type of eBay-clone.
And thanks, smw, too, for all your other interesting posts these last months when we've had occasion to interact. Please take care.
posted on January 30, 2001 11:09:28 AM
Hi MrJim,
I for one certainly hope that this new venture will help ALL our our businesses to GROW!
Whether you work alone or with someone. Remember its ONE person ONE vote. If you employ 10 people and all sign up just so they can vote...I don't think that would be right.
You as the owner of the business should have the ONLY vote.
However...thats not to say an employee can't start their OWN business.
posted on January 30, 2001 11:10:00 AM
MrJim: there is a LEGAL definition of the word *cooperative* and as smw has pointed out, a cooperative is formed by individuals who work FOR the cooperative. Please read her post up above. A cooperative, by its very definition cannot be comprised of independent businesses in the way this idea was initially presented.
posted on January 30, 2001 11:24:13 AM
I think another thought for this needs to be if you all have the *time* for such a venture. It seems pretty obvious that you have the will to want to do it, and a lot of you have the money to front. But, this will be very time consuming. I'm sure a lot of you have jobs were you work 40+ hours a week. Is this something that you can either cut back your hours, or even quit your job for?
posted on January 30, 2001 11:44:50 AM
Most of the co-op's operating in the US are groups of business that form a co-op for the purpose of jointly promoting their products or for the purpose of competing with larger companies by leveraging the size of the collective. (which is exactly what is trying to be accomplished hear)
Most independant grocery stores belong to a buying co-op. The commercials you see on TV for Milk and Cheese are paid for through co-ops of commercial farmers.
The "individuals" listed on the co-op website refers to an "individual" that is appointed by the member company as their representative to the co-op. In other words, if ABC company belongs to a co-op they would appoint a person to vote and attend the co-op's meetings. Only this one "individual" is allowed to attend meeting or vote. (one member = one vote) This is to prevent a large company from having 500 people show up at a meeting and disrupt voting.
posted on January 30, 2001 01:29:23 PM
Mr. Jim: I believe the definitions you have referenced are for the purposes of a group of individuals (or small businesses) to
*purchase* goods or services at a volume discount to distribute among the members.
Clearly this is not what is being proposed.
As I understand what is being proposed, a group of sellers want to form a cooperative to *sell* their varied products to the general
public, as individual sellers, not as a co-op.
To take this model further it would require the sellers to become members of the co-op and to pool their products to be sold through
the cooperative. Each member would have to their turn at the helm to "work" at the cooperative selling the pooled products. And, if I
read it correctly, profits, if any are distributed to the members on the basis of the number of shares they own in the cooperative.
If this is the fundamental premise to establish a cooperative, I can't think of any seller who would agree to pool their products or divvy
up the profits.
If you can find a more clear definition, or other cooperative models...please...I am happy to be proven wrong.
posted on January 30, 2001 01:47:14 PM
I think what we are looking at doing is to "share" the costs of running a web site on which we can sell our own goods. The web site would belong to the co-operative as a whole but through fees we "rent" individual auction pages and related services. Would this not be similar to co-op housing scenario?
The proposal here is to create an "advertising" co-op model for the purpose of promoting the members products individually, not a "sellers" co-op model as defined in your post.
Such co-op's exist in many different industries. Many Purchasing and Promotion co-ops do not require the sellers to comingle products or purchases. (although many regional farming co-ops comingle their products, but this is typically because the large companies like DelMonte needs more tomatoes than one farmer can produce. Additionally, most grain farms are now harvested by commercial company such ADM and the grain is measured at harvest time and combined with that of 100 of farmers before being exported or sold as a whole. This, again is because very few farmers can produce enough corn to fill a 300 foot long ship for export)
We belong to a purchasing co-op that negotiates prices with manufacturers and distributors based on the total dollar volume its members spend. Each member has their own accounts with each vendor they choose to do business with. When we purchase through the co-op contract we are invoiced directly from the distributor under our name with the co-op's name under ours to flag our account so the sales rep knows that we receive the negotiated discount.
We also belong to an advertising co-op. The members of our shopping center pool advertising funds to purchase full page ads at discounted prices and split the page up for each of us to run our own ads and sell our own products at a greatly reduced price. (which is essentially what we will be doing here)
Since none of us is capable of creating and operating our own auction site for the purpose of selling our products, we are looking to form a cooperative that will have the resources to do so on behalf of the members.
This venture would not be a "selling" co-op per your definition, it would be an "advertising" co-op.
posted on January 30, 2001 03:48:14 PM
As I said earlier, get an attorney! You need to know all the legal ramifications of what you are doing before diving in. It will help to avoid a lot of trouble later. Obviously, we all have different ideas about what constitutes a co-op. It might be wise to find out how to form it LEGALLY.
JMHO-when you start listing all the people you want to exclude, all the items you don't want listed, it begins to sound awfully similar to what we've already got-Ebay big brother. Everyone has their own prejudices, but when you start imposing them on other potential members, you are doing exactly what you complain about with Ebay.
I'm not interested in selling Nazi memorabilia, or porno. I am opposed to any infringement upon someone else's right to buy or sell anything LEGAL.
posted on January 30, 2001 04:01:09 PM
If it's legal, let people sell it. Set it up so that each seller is responsible for their own merchandise. Any "vero" type requests for removal should be the "problem" of the seller only. The only stipulation I would have is that porn type material should be in it's own adult section with credit card approval, you don't want to offend family people by having Porn Videos and Disney Videos sold side by side, but people should be allowed to sell it.
posted on January 30, 2001 05:37:24 PM
smw -
"I believe the definitions you have referenced are for the purposes of a group of individuals (or small businesses) to *purchase* goods or services at a volume discount to distribute among the members. "
EXACTLY ... we will be purchasing site programming, accounting (taking and tracking bids), advertising, and site hosting services for the co-ops members.
posted on January 30, 2001 08:13:57 PM
Sorry to be so late to the party, but "real life" [mostly in the guise of my new job] is really taking up most of my time these days....
It seems as if there are two completely different topics being discussed on this [and related] threads. First, is the notion that disaffected sellers can join together and create a "co-op" which has the potential to be more profitable and less frustrating for them than eBay. This co-op would be run by the members and for the members, and would therefore have only the members' interests at heart instead of a bunch of money-hungry shareholders. This notion has a lot of merit, in my opinion, but it really has nothing to do with WHO could join such a co-op in the first place. It has more to do with HOW things should be run.
The second notion, which I believe Radh is proposing, is the notion that small sellers can band together and form a site where they don't have to compete with, or even deal with, the mass-market e-tailers that currently account for the vast majority of eBay listings. This notion also has a lot of merit, in my opinion, but it really has nothing to do with HOW such a site should be run. It has more to do with who would be allowed to join it in the first place.
Apples and oranges, folks. No sense arguing back and forth when you're not even discussing the same topic.
As for me, I'm not all that concerned with the establishment of a member-run site. If I ran the world, I would take Radh's idea to the extreme and set up a site where anybody trying to run a business would be prohibited, plain and simple. I don't care if they are "micro-businesses", "sole-proprietors", whatever. For all of Radh's talk about i-n-d-v-i-d-u-a-l-s, there's really no way to draw the line once you allow ANY sort of business in the door. Some large companies only list a relatively small number of items at a time, whereas some i-n-d-v-i-d-u-a-l-s manage to list THOUSANDS of brand-new retail items each week.
The original eBay was set up to allow individuals to buy, sell and trade stuff back and forth. Not to allow people to have a second income, not to allow people to run their business cheaper than if they had to sell from a shop. Now, granted, it didn't take long for people to realize that they COULD make a lot of money selling on eBay, and next came the realization that existing businesses could SAVE a lot of money selling there as well. And for a long time the private individual and the people running businesses were able to co-exist peacefully on eBay. But then came the e-tailers, and the category spammers, and the people who felt that they should charge "handling" fees "just like real businesses", etc., etc., etc., and ruined it for pretty much everybody else.
I don't want a seller co-op. I just want a site where I can get together with like-minded individuals to buy and sell collectibles, antiques and used junk of all types. Think of it as a giant electronic swap-meet, if you like. And it doesn't matter if we're talking about $5 Pez dispensers, $50 beanie babies, $500 watches or $5,000 paintings, either. But we ARE talking about individuals and not businesses using the site as an electronic storefront.
Sadly, most of the sellers here at AW reading this thread probably are businesses of one sort or another, and therefore wouldn't be invited to participate in such a venture. Which means, of course, that my idea isn't likely to get much support. And I fully realize that, which is why I haven't started any threads of my own trying to drum up support for this idea. But hey -- a fella can dream, can't he?
Have a wonderful night, all, and please try not to argue too much.....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on January 31, 2001 08:46:19 AM
Barry, thanks for posting. Breath of fresh air, as usual. There are lots of thorny topics and who can sell is one of them. Personal politics are coming into play.
We want this co-op run fairly, but ultimately it is the co-op members who decide. I will offer my personal opinion. I would like to see part of the co-op's mission include educating co-op members and also a committment to encourage and empower "microbusinesses" (i.e., individuals). I would like to see a small percentage of costs go to charity, because that is the right thing to do. It should be part of our purpose from the start. Providing Adobe with a cheap way to market their warez is not high on my list of priorities.
If certain businesses (like Sun Microsystems) start selling at the co-op, and paying $1,000,000 per year to the co-op in the form of final value fees, it will create a system of "weights and balances" that could wreck the co-op. We should be educating everyone about the purpose and nature of the co-op so that we all understand the benefits and the responsibilities.
At this point, there's not much to tell. We've got some very good people who have expressed an interest and are willing to volunteer some of their time. We want to continue soliciting input, and in the meantime, we need to begin with product research, cost analysis, financial projections, etc. Then once we have some numbers, we can create a business plan. There are resources out there. We can get advice and help from the Small Business Association and check into getting some federal grants. The single most important factor in the success of the co-op is the formation of the planning committee, and that's where we're focusing our energies right now.
posted on January 31, 2001 08:57:20 AMIf I ran the world, I would take Radh's idea to the extreme and set up a site where anybody trying to run a business would be prohibited, plain and simple.
OK, but, again, how do you define a "business". Anyone attempting to make a profit?
If you can get a bunch of people together to run a site where all sellers are selling at a loss, I will certainly be one of your best customers.
posted on January 31, 2001 09:02:01 AM
The "system of weights and balances" is:
one member, one vote.
It's the very foundation of a co-op. No one seller's wishes can override the wishes of the majority, no matter *how* much they pay in FVFs.
The scenario you describe (Sun Microsystems paying $1M, thereby "buying" greater influence) is the current status quo of online auctions -- and part of the reason we're even talking about forming a co-op.
There is a definite need to educate ourselves on the fundamentals of the co-op concept.
Nancy
[email protected]
[ edited by fountainhouse on Jan 31, 2001 09:08 AM ]
posted on January 31, 2001 09:30:13 AM
There must be some way to do it still. Farms are businesses. Quite a few of them are incorperated but there are still farmers co-ops. The farmer may be the member and not his business. Still works.
We would be buying Server space and bandwidth together. We have to look at it that we are buying the whole and selling the part of time and service in increments to do one auction to each member.
We may offer access to third parties for members also like insurance.
posted on January 31, 2001 09:53:58 AM
gravid-Yes- I still think there is a way to do this.
Looking the step by step plan that
the NCBA proposes the COOP seems to be here:
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.
It's time for people to act if they can help on Committee or with the feasibility survey.I you have any info or skills that could be used by the steering committe - join them. This is short term til the site idea can be solidified.But a Co-op does mean doing your part!Even if you haven't a lot of time - volunteer info! Please email canvid or twinsoft.Or go post on the COOP Message board.
As they say in the Marketing Business- Your Opinion Counts!
