posted on January 31, 2001 09:57:14 AM new
No matter what you are selling on Ebay, you are a business. A person setting up a yard sale on their front lawn, is setting up a temporary business. Individual or not, you are doing business. Everyone here that sells is a business woman/man. We may not have the corporate mind-set, but in a small way we are out to make a profit just the same. Of course, Ebay's auctions didn't have the "corporate" mindset either until ebay went "corporate".
posted on January 31, 2001 10:12:38 AM new
Musicman- setting up the Coop as a democratic association run by peers will keep it from becoming a corporation. That is the what the bylaws should be structured to do.Hopefully!
posted on January 31, 2001 10:14:25 AM new
You know, I've often wondered.... What keeps, say, Wal-mart from setting up a booth at the local flea market? Is it simply that Wal-mart and other "big" businesses don't have the desire, or do flea markets have some sort of enforcible policy to keep them out?
Also, I've seen a lot of flea markets that are being overrun by i-n-d-v-i-d-u-a-l-s selling brand new, mass-produced, made-in-Taiwan junk that really violates the spirit of the flea market in the first place [there's a difference between a flea market and an "everything for a buck" store, or at least there SHOULD be]. Do any flea markets have an enforcible policy to keep these sellers out?
I ask because I see the same sort of issues cropping up in this discussion, and I just wonder whether anybody in the "real" world has dealt with them before....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on January 31, 2001 10:27:03 AM new
gozillatemple
At a flea- it is every vendor welcome as long as what you sell is Legal.Even porn has always been sold in a tasteful display- covering vital parts in line with a famuly atmosphere or just a sign saying XXX videos available-ask. Each businesss owner is responsible for content of the booth.However, online we have seen bans on Nazi items and guns from auction- for example.These are grey areas that an auction has to make a decision about based on how much accountability it feels it can sustain for your auctions content. In a co-op - I believe a majority vote would have final say. One member-one vote.
posted on January 31, 2001 11:33:39 AM new
amalgamated2000 - lol! There's an idea!
But seriously, I've been watching this thread off and on and I can say that I'm very happy to see this community trying to "define" itself for the 1st time. Basically asking "what are we?" for the 1st time. Ebay did NOT ask themselves this question before/when they started. Pierre just threw a laser pointer (or something) on there and it sold for alot of money. That's when he realized that he struck Online Egold and they still run it like that over there today.
There seems to be alot of bickering in this thread and some division. I don't think that's a bad thing. It IS a democratic thing. I think that to some degree it is healthy. We all have a little different vision for what an ideal Co-op would be.
On a side note: We have a brick and morter antique/craft co-op in my home town. Comprised of individuals/micro-businesses. The prices are outrageous. Nobody goes there. Hate to see that happen with this project. Just my .02
posted on January 31, 2001 03:39:46 PM new
musicman: your point about the group of organized sellers in your town emphasizes the point I was making on the other thread about this subject.
eBay's individual dealers (including small/medium businesses) are eBay's greatest asset not only because of the items they sell, but because the dealers are not organized and are unable to act in concert to influence policies.
My question is, if sellers are able to organize, will you, as a group, have the wisdom/knowledge to set policies that are good for the health of the marketplace you are attempting to establish, and not just good for the sellers' short-term interest?
The challenge is akin to the government setting tax policy to encourage specific behavior/outcomes, or Alan Greenspan tweaking interest rates or other Fed controls.
Imagine that you have several knobs located in front of you: one for listing fees, one for FVF, one for penalty fees that punish behavior that discourage sales (like a reserve price), one for discounts for behavior that encourages sales (eBay is missing this knob). It will be the co-op's job to determine how to set all these controls. I'm not sure that is a job that a democratic process - one person, one vote - will be able to solve. Can you imagine what would happen if the US general population voted on whether the Fed should hike/cut interest rates?
I am not discouraging sellers becoming organized; I think that is a great thing, especially if you feel you are being abused by the larger sites. Your ultimate power will be in the fact that you are organized - even if you never create a web site (which is a whole 'nuther can of worms).
posted on January 31, 2001 05:16:43 PM new
Yes-I buy more than I sell and I am small time, all the more reason for this to be worth a shot at the git go.
start time doesn't matter to me, like others I wouldn't object to a yearly fee if that's what it takes to keep cost down
posted on January 31, 2001 05:35:43 PM new
I like the idea, but...
I do a large amount of business with folks in Japan, Singapore, etc...selling to folks around the globe is becoming more and more mainstay for me. For this reason, brand name recognition has become all-important to me. My buyers in Japan, even if they can't understand my emails, understand "ebay." They get the dynamics, and trust in "ebay." I just can't see the same happening with a co-op.
posted on January 31, 2001 06:13:11 PM new
Julesy: What does the name ebay mean? I don't know either. The fact is that ebay was built by people like you and me. Only you and I may not be able to afford to sell on ebay anymore if things change?
All the main sites have changed and there is no protection for the small and medium seller.
A co-op would channel all of this energy and all of the funds into something that we would have some sort of say in. That means a lot to me.
Rubylane: About your question about the wisdom of decisions. When ebay started what wisdom did they have? What wisdom do they have now? The fact is that the sellers are in the front lines. The trenches. We have insights that ebay's mba's will never have.
Mix a strong voice and presence with a strong management team and I think that's a better recipe for success than what exists now.
It won't be easy and there will be mistakes made but I feel that if we don't take the frustration and energy from the past few months then nothing will ever happen.
posted on January 31, 2001 09:28:04 PM newMy question is, if sellers are able to organize, will you, as a group, have the wisdom/knowledge to set policies that are good for the health of the marketplace you are attempting to establish, and not just good for the sellers' short-term interest?
This is an extremely crucial point.
It's quite possible that the collective interest of individual sellers are not compatible with the long-term interest of the site itself.
And it's not a matter of how well informed the sellers are. In fact, it's possible that better-informed sellers will make the problem even worse, because they are more likely to act in a way that is most beneficial to their own interest.
To continue the Greenspan analogy, it's like giving the brokerage firms control of the interest rate. Maybe they will set the rates that will be best for the overall economy, but I wouldn't count on it.
posted on January 31, 2001 09:55:58 PM new"... policies that are good for the health of the marketplace ..."
If by marketplace you mean the co-op itself, much of that is set up ahead of time according to a traditional co-op model. There would need to be some minor modifications, but much of it is already covered.
These are complex issues. One poster raised the question of whether co-op sellers should buy shipping supplies from a third party, or from another co-op vendor.
"the collective interest of individual sellers are not compatible with the long-term interest of the site itself."
That could happen. A vendor's business might grow so big that it was no longer worth selling through the co-op. For instance, if it was co-op policy to offer "affirmative action" benefits for new sellers. A big seller might simply decide he had outgrown the co-op.
posted on January 31, 2001 11:18:18 PM newA vendor's business might grow so big that it was no longer worth selling through the co-op.
Yes, but it's also possible that even with small sellers, their interest might not be compatible with the interest of the site itself.
A good exmaple is Yahoo's listing fees. Obviously, those who are attempting to act in the best interest of the site itself feel that listing fees are positive. Yet the overwhelming majority of sellers disagree.
You can't discount the possiblity (however remote) that Yahoo is right. There simply isn't enought data to say for sure one way or the other.
And given the fact that you are always going to have imperfect data, it is much more likely that a group of sellers will act in a way that is most beneficial to them individually. And it is quite possible that that action might be the worst possible decision for the site itself.
The problem is that no one has a financial interest in the site itself, so no one will be acting primarily in the site's best interest.
It's possible that it might turn out that the best way to run a site is to act in the sellers' best interest, and everything will be peachy. But it's also possible that the sellers' interests and the site's interests are highly divergent and that a co-op approach will be counterproductive.
There may be ways to resolve this conflict, but failing to recognize and deal with this will almost certainly cause major problems in the future.
posted on February 1, 2001 12:39:11 AM new"The problem is that no one has a financial interest in the site itself, so no one will be acting primarily in the site's best interest."
So perhaps the best approach is something that we mentioned at the beginning of all this discussion (on the "Free Sites" thread), which has gotten lost somewhere along the way....a SELLER-OWNED AND OPERATED auction site, but NOT a "co-op" site. Rather than filing for a non-profit status with the government and forming a "co-operative", make it a FOR-PROFIT site with the sellers being the owners, and the profits being returned to the sellers in direct proportion to their investments.
By this, I DON'T mean "for-profit" in the sense that eBad, Amazon, and YaWho are "for-profit".....I think whatever fees are NECESSARY to keep the site going should be charged to the sellers, and any EXCESS revenue (were there any) should be returned to the sellers. A couple people have proposed that excess revenue be kept and FUTURE fees be reduced, but I strongly disagree---I believe that policy benefits everyone in the FUTURE without compensating those who CONTRIBUTED to that excess in the past.
If every seller OWNS a tiny percentage of the auction, I think he'll want what's best for the auction as well as what's best for his own sales. (I think that SOME of the work of running a site can be done by sellers, as in a co-op....things like organization, customer service and email. The more done by seller-owners, the less that has to be done by paid employees.) And should the opportunity ever come to SELL the auction (if it becomes successful), and the membership VOTES to sell it, the proceeds would go to those who BUILT the site through their fees and participation. That's what's wrong with eBay. The sellers, who BUILT it, don't share in the rewards of their own creation. On the contrary, they're treated like unwanted step-children, and it gets worse every day.
I was real gung-ho about this a week ago, but after reading this thread I wonder if it really is possible to get an auction like this off the ground. I don't have the TIME to waste reading the same opinion posted over and over and over again, and bickering and mud-slinging, and vague idealogies about the fate of mankind and the world in general.
And I'm sure many of YOU don't have the time, either.
So I'm not going to volunteer my time and energy unless I have some ASSURANCE that it won't become a fighting match or a lecture dominated by one or two headstrong people pushing their views on all the rest.
posted on February 1, 2001 01:05:35 AM new
We're not failing to recognize that. As individual, self-employed eBay sellers we are already familiar with the "what's best for the seller" mind-set. What we're looking at are the more surprising and unusual aspects of the co-op. For example:
1) open membership
2) democratic control
3) equitable member participation
4) cooperative autonomy (vis. external sources)
5) education
6) cooperation
7) social responsibility
This is what we'll be bringing to eBay sellers on their plate. We want to be careful not to advertise the co-op as "make all the money you can" because that would be misleading.
The question keeps coming up, "but what if the co-op makes a lot of money?" I don't know but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't "we divide up the profits among the members."
Here's a link to some publications by the International Co-operative Alliance:
The ICA is the "largest non-governmental organisation" in the world, established in 1895 with over 730M members worldwide. They even have their own U.N. charter.
posted on February 1, 2001 08:00:32 AM new
With the cooperative movement being hundreds of years old, there is tons of data available to us, the above link being a prime example.
A thorough reading of the wealth of information available illustrates that the variety of discussions we're having, in particular the issues raised recently in this thread, are issues that have been confronted and resolved by all successful co-ops.
The question of whether seller-members will be tempted to ignore the future best interests of the co-op in favor of bestowing themselves with immediate rewards has been confronted by every co-op ever organized. For instance, farming cooperatives must decide whether to sell grain 2 cents cheaper or set a higher price. The same question confronts ALL co-ops.
As to the confusion surrounding the term "dividend" and what form of ownership that term implies, again, this question is as old as the cooperative movement itself. I'd recommend reading the link above as it sheds much light on the topic. Basically, co-ops may choose to reimburse their members a portion of excess revenues, and many do, as an incentive to continued membership. So, to answer granee's questions relating to whether dividend-incentives negate the possibility of a co-op structure, the answer is no.
The questions being raised by posters are not only normal, but have been raised by co-op organizers since the 1700s. The fact that co-ops still prosper gives testament that the answers exist.
Nancy
[email protected]
[ edited by fountainhouse on Feb 1, 2001 08:02 AM ]
posted on February 1, 2001 03:28:50 PM new
canvid13,
You are not allowed to post messages from other boards, here at AuctionWatch.com.
You are not allowed to post a personal email without permission from the other person involved, here at AuctionWatch
You are not allowed to directly insult Members of this board (i.e. radh). She can post in any manner she wishes, so long as it's within the CG's. She started this thread and you did not have to post to it if you were offended by the title.
I'm issuing you a formal warning for the above infractions.
Please review the CG's before you post your message again.
Joice
Moderator.
** I had to delete your post because of the copy and paste from another board and because of the email copy and paste.
**Edited for a typo
[ edited by joice on Feb 1, 2001 03:38 PM ]
posted on February 1, 2001 03:56:00 PM new
"The problem is that no one has a financial interest in the site itself, so no one will be acting primarily in the site's best interest."
Posted by granee:
So perhaps the best approach is something that we mentioned at the beginning of all this discussion (on the "Free Sites" thread), which has gotten lost somewhere along the way....a SELLER-OWNED AND OPERATED auction site, but NOT a "co-op" site.
-------------
I agree 100%. This concept would solve many of the problems. Raising capital by "pre-selling" listing would be a lot easier than collecting money as a donation or "membership" fee. It would enable any person, regardless of income to "invest" in the site. It would make the sellers more motivated to support it, because they "own" it. (how much would you be worth today if you were one of the people that bought a "part" of Ebay for a $ .25 listing fee) It would be easier to recruit sellers. Spend $ .25 to list your auction with us and we will give you one share of stock in the site.
Own as many shares/listings as you can afford to buy, but only one vote. This would allow the site to take advantage of the resources of those that can afford to pump money and inventory into the venture, but still allow the small seller to have an equal say in the policies. Why would the co-op only want $100 when I am willing to invest $1000.
Without having some type of potential return, most sellers will not leave Ebay to join another site. They may go through the motions and list a few token items (as rubylane mentioned) but they will not give it full support.
posted on February 1, 2001 04:53:36 PM new
A seller-owned site is one idea. Just to state the obvious, that is a different animal altogether. Members of a co-op certainly do have an interest in the co-op. The co-op would have lower listing fees. That would be the primary advantage, or at least the advantage most people would notice.
A seller-owned site is fine, but since decisions are made by the membership (as at a co-op), you're back to the problem of the bigger sellers, those with more money, taking over. Decisions would be made based on who brings in the most money.
One of our goals in putting together a non-profit co-op would be to offer small sellers an alternative to eBay, Yahoo, etc. (Not people who can "pump money" into the co-op.) Right now fees are squeezing out eBay's small sellers and frankly, things are only going to get worse.
The problem with shares of stock and dividends is that the bigger sellers have a de facto greater say in how the money is spent. Even with "one-man, one-vote" the voting would tend to favor the sellers bringing in the most money. At some point, a big seller will say "either my way or I'm going to the co-op down the street." Over time, voting tends to favor the big sellers and the small sellers are squeezed out.
There's nothing wrong with that approach. The question of dividends (actually, in a co-op they would be 'surpluses' ) is something we're looking at. There are several models. I believe that the strongest co-op is the non-profit model with no surplus. We want to build something that will be here five, ten, twenty years from now.
.
Email me for information on the Online Auction Sellers Cooperative! [email protected]
posted on February 1, 2001 04:59:56 PM newMrJim, please see my post above. The NCBA (National Cooperative Business Association) has an excellent website devoted to education about the co-op concept.
Briefly, I would respond to your post by saying that your proposed formula-based reward system for seller-owners is part and parcel of the co-op concept. Many, if not most, successful co-ops practice the very methods you're advocating.
I believe a lot of the current confusion stems from the well-intentioned request for the $100 dues/initiation fee. Many interpreted this method of "buying into" a seller's co-op as written in stone or somehow required. An up-front fee (particularly at this stage) is not a pre-requisite to organizing a co-op, and in fact is, I believe, premature and ill-advised for a number of reasons.
When and if the time comes for sellers to "buy in" (more aptly termed a membership drive), it will be AFTER the cash requirements are known, the budget is prepared, the incorporation papers are filed, and a Board of Directors elected.
For now, suffice to say that your thoughts are ENTIRELY compatible with a cooperative structure; in fact, they're the foundation of it.
posted on February 1, 2001 05:44:24 PM new
I want to clarify, many co-ops do offer dividends. It is my opinion that the strongest type (that is, the most stable and long lasting) is a non-profit model.
posted on February 3, 2001 08:20:27 AM new
I lost interest once a person appointed himself king of the mountain and started throwing words around like "my idea" and "my board"
posted on February 3, 2001 08:39:02 AM new
Hi:Karry
I lost interest once a person appointed himself king of the mountain and started throwing words around like "my idea" and "my board"
Doesn't sound like a co-op anymore.
You do have a point there that is the reason why i left the board, but if we all work toghether we can make this work out , lets all join hand and team up , Don't let power hungry you know who spoil everything for us . Thanks Kat
posted on February 3, 2001 08:52:19 AM new
At first I thought it was a lost cause. That a Grass Roots movement couldn't work now. I've changed my mind, anything is possible. I'm willing to help with this effort. Count me in for the $100 and any other help I may offer...
MTown
[ edited by morgantown on Feb 3, 2001 12:47 PM ]
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
