posted on February 12, 2001 01:57:24 PM
twinsoft,
I've have read every thread on this subject.
Right now I think we need to compile ONE GOOD MISSION STATEMENT then have a show of hands to the one we want. Maybe 2 or 3 good ones will surface, in that case we will need to vote do you want 1 - 2 - or 3.
THEN we need to decide on who we want to lead us to next stages.
We can find out who is willing and able then if agreed by the majority this person will take us to the next step thats needed. If its more then one person then we vote again.
Just because we want a particular person dosen't mean they can do it.
We need willing volunteers.
So....twinsoft are you going to give us a mission statement or not?
posted on February 12, 2001 02:11:20 PM
Hello Mr. Jim,
Whether to allow sniping or not is not inherently a buyer's decision. The seller should have the option of an auction format (whatever it be) that they consider will bring the highest value for their item.
In some cases this might well be a true auction format where the auction ends only when a single bidder is left standing. In many other cases a fixed end time format makes much more sense. And in still other cases a first bid wins makes sense. Or a buy it now format.
In any event, voting on one format to the exclusion of other formats will be contentious and disruptive.
The same problem exists for voting on what constitutes an objectionable item.
These issues are all cans of worms best not ever opened.
Other than a true auction format for rare and unique items I fail to see what benefits a co-op has to offer buyers. The idea of a co-op is to combine the economic power of the membership to the benefit of all. But the buyers are all in competition with each other. Where is the common benefit to the buyer other than in a more stable and safer auction environment than currently exists? And how would a co-op make their auction site safer for buyers? It ultimately requires that the co-op not adopt a "venue" only stance. And that will cause an immense amount of conflict with the sellers.
I think that sellers are inherently in favor of eBay's venue only stance and are mostly disappointed when the venue only stance works against them (deadbeat policy, feedback non interference, restricted items, keyword spamming).
All of your questions are very valid and most likely on the minds of many others as well. For any one person to step forward and try to answer them would defeat what is trying to be accomplished.
The idea is to form a co-op so that each of your questions and concerns can be decided by the members as a group. In reading your post, I would have to guess that most sellers agree with your point of view on many of your concerns. I for one do, but again it is not for me to decide alone.
I would think (and certainly hope) that the members will vote in favor of having a level playing field for all sellers, lowest possible fees, best support services (such as picture hosting and personal galleries), and programs to increase the successful closing of as many auctions as possible.
---------------
As for startup costs and financial projections, that depends upon how the site is deployed and that is a decision that needs to be made by the members or a committee elected by them. At some point, several options will be laid out along with the expenses required to make it happen and the members/committee will have to vote as to whether or not it happens.
---------------
Please note: These are my personal observations and opinions, and not the views of any coop present or future.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:28:42 PM
Okay, MrJim. Thanks for helping me out with that. I think I understand what you're saying but I'm still not convinced buyers should participate in a decision-making process. I'll address several of your comments.
Sniping, auction extensions, etc. These are factors that naturally affect buyers, but I think it should be ultimately up to sellers as to how their auctions are run. Of course buyers should have input. They could have this input through surveys and customer "support" (i.e., complaints and suggestions forum) without having a vote as to how the co-op is run.
Regarding controversial items, I think sellers should police their own. If a particular category of items requires more support (for example, fielding too many complaints about pornography) then the sellers as a group should examine the cost and other possible impact questionable items have on the health of the co-op.
Inviting bidders to join the co-op as sellers. We want to make it easy and encourage everyone to sell. We can do this without offering a vote in the co-op's decision-making process. The benefits of selling on the co-op should be obvious to anyone. We don't need to give up our sovereignty in order to buy new members.
Let me suggest the following. The aims of bidders and sellers are not necessarily the same. Specifically, buyers want to purchase items as cheap as possible. Sellers want to make as much money as possible, or as much as the market will allow. Were we to offer membership to buyers, we might expect voting buyers to outnumber voting sellers by a margin of 10-1, 20-1, 50-1 or more. At that point, what's to stop buyers from implementing seller-unfavorable policies.
For example, let's say the question is raised about the next year's advertising budget. Perhaps buyers would feel that additional advertising revenues would bring in too many new buyers, and increase competition (therefore raising prices). If voting buyers outnumbered voting sellers 50-1, buyers could easily put a lid on new advertising and stifle competition for items. This would adversely impact sales.
I would rather rely on sellers to decide, individually and as a group, what is in their own best interests. No disrespect to buyers intended, but I don't need any group of buyers telling me how to run my business. If you like my items and the price is right, then buy. If not, buy somewhere else. If I can't run my own business effectively, I will fold. But I don't want buyers to set policy regarding my sales.
I agree buyers should have input, but granting them equal voting rights to sellers seems overly complicated and unnecessary.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:39:42 PM
Packer, maybe I misunderstood you. I think a show of hands re: a mission statement is a good idea. I think that electing a steering committee based on who has input to this particular thread is not a good idea.
I don't think that one leader is necessary or right, and I'm not sure what you mean by "taking us to the next level." I have already expressed my ideas on this subject earlier in this thread. I believe that if you'll review the Co-op Primer, you'll find that the next step is to elect a steering committee, not an individual.
As far as my own mission statement, I have made suggestions. Please don't make qualifications such as, "anybody who doesn't post a mission statement can't be on the steering committee." So far there's been no support for that idea, so let's just take it down a notch. Many people who are interested in participating are not present in this thread.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:41:28 PM
Hello Twinsoft,
I'm pleased to see that someone is starting to state what to me has appeared as obvious all along. Sellers and buyers have diametrically opposed interests and a co-op that seeks to unite both groups on an equal footing is virtually impossible.
Perhaps the nascent "mission statement" should address the co-op as a seller's co-op only and forego any mention of buyers or buyer input to the membership or management of the co-op?
posted on February 12, 2001 02:49:14 PM
Coda, I wrote a response to your comments on the other thread, but it looks like I didn't post it. Don't know what happened. Sorry about that.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:55:56 PM
Coda, just want to add that MrJim pretty much summed up my opinion. The concerns you mentioned (deadbeat bidders, etc.) are all important, but no one has all the answers at this time. Those concerns will definitely need to be addressed, along with a thousand other details, before we open our doors. I think that's why discussion forums are so important. We can make things much easier for our steering committee if we hash some of these issues out ourselves. But at this point, no has has all the answers, or even most of the answers.
posted on February 12, 2001 03:04:13 PM
Just had a moment to check in and I'm definitely encouraged to see us starting at the beginning!
The end product is going to reflect every bit of effort we put into the planning of this thing, so it serves us well to slow down and do this right!
At this stage our efforts should focus on creating a formal Steering Committee and drafting a feasibility survey. We most definitely need to recruit additional, specific talent to serve on the committee -- a co-op professional and legal and accounting pros among them. We also need respected, connected OAI members on the committee, such as toyranch, Rosalinda, etc.
All the other conversations regarding fees, membership drives, FVFs, etc. are premature.
packer, the mission statements proposed by toyranch, tentwentytwo and MrJim contain the essence of it as far as I'm concerned. I'm nothing if not co-operative!
posted on February 12, 2001 03:05:22 PM
coda, twinsoft:
In reference to your opposition to allowing bidders to have a vote in the policies of the site...
This is where the benefit of a co-op comes in. It is doubtful that there are many non-sellers participating in these posts. That means that at least intitially, the co-op committee and founding members will most likely be all sellers. This being the case, the votes would go in favor of excluding buyers from the co-op. (or at least telling them if they want to join...sell something) That may not change my point of view, but I would accept it as the will of the majority and continue to support the co-op. That is what we all need to be willing to do.
(I was already outvoted here 2 to 1 in less than 5 minutes, so I doubt anyone has to worry about bidders voting)
Any business who does not see the incredible value of input from its customers on how to run the business deserves to go bankrupt.
If Yahoo had listened to its "customers" a month ago, it could have still implemented fees (sellers were almost unanimous that FVF rather than listing fees would work much better in the Yahoo environment) WITHOUT losing 80% of its listings.
posted on February 12, 2001 03:16:55 PM
I will add one little note to think about...
Customers vote every time they make a purchase, and indirectly, they do tell you how to run your business. They tell you when your price is too high by not buying. They tell you your terms are not acceptable by not bidding. My customers tell me how to run my business all day, every day. They tell me what to buy with their buying habits. They tell me how much they are willing to pay with their bids.
I have found that it is easier and much more profitable to ask your customers how they would like you to run your business, than to try to find the answers when they're gone.
posted on February 12, 2001 03:33:00 PM
Just to change thoughts for a moment, here is what I think would be a good alternative to Ebay....
No bold, highlight, featured, or other optional listing enhancements. All listings would be treated equal.
All pictures would be hosted by the auction site. The size of each picture (in kb's) would be limited to a certain file size to allow for faster viewing. For new sellers that are not "experts" an photo resizing and jpg compression, etc. there would be a tutorial section that teaches them step by step how to crop, resize, adjust, and upload their pictures as well as shareware programs that can be downloaded to do it with. All pictures would be limited to 400 pixels (or whatever size limit the layout needs) in width so bidders don't have to scroll off the screen to view them. Any pictures wider than this would be automatically resized by the server software. The server software would automatically create a thumbnail image that would be added to a personal gallery that can be clicked on and viewed from within any of the seller's auctions.
All auctions would be made available in a gallery format where bidders with fast internet connection have the option to view thumbnails rather than title listings.
Featured auctions / thumbnails would appear on the homepage as well as the category pages. These would be free listing that are rotated with each time the page is accessed. Every auction would be in the rotation. No one would be able to buy these placements, they would go in order by auction number and restart if the end is reached.
Templates would be available for free use to sellers and could be customized to make their auctions look professional and uniform, yet stand out from other sellers.
posted on February 12, 2001 03:47:26 PM
So, starting to get down to brass tacks.
Buyers input is obviously important but it is devilishly hard to solicit directly. Better to closely monitor what the real buyers are saying about a business by way of their pruchases and the prices they pay. And in order to be a successful seller, give the buyers what they want. But you must beat your competition or at least offer the same value as your competition.
I imagine that the same is true for the sellers. Forget about what the sellers are saying and pay attention to what the sellers are doing or not doing. And to be a successful online auction site you must beat your competition or at least offer the same value as your competition.
A co-op cannot expect to start out by offering the same value to its sellers as an eBay. There is simply no way to provide the sellers with a marketplace as well known and established as eBay. Not in terms of quantity or quality of sellers, auctions or buying public that browses through the site.
So, how does a startup offer equal or higher value to its sellers? Specialization. Find a category that is not too big a mouthful to bite off the hindquarters of the 800 pound Gorilla. Then bite it off. If you can organize a co-op around a specific category and convince the full time or otherwise serious sellers in the category of the benefits of moving enmasse from eBay to the co-op then you can expect that the serious buyers in the category will follow. eBay, bereft of the vast majority of sellers in that category, will have nothing to offer those buyers.
The co-op will start off small but the critical factor of "owning" a specific market place will make the site virtually self supporting. The co-op will acquire that "stickiness" of user necessary for it to continue. And the co-op will start to generate that word of mouth publicity that will allow it to grow without the requisite expensive media advertising outlay that characterizes the attempts of startups to grab a significant piece of the pie from the git go.
Choose your first category wisely. Research it as fully as possible in terms of its size and makeup and how the co-op must approach the sellers in that category. Prepare a business plan that shows the sellers how you will move their market off eBay and how that will be to their immediate advantage. Consider natural extensions to the category you choose to target. Because those extensions are exactly where you can expect the co-op to grow into.
In addition, if the co-op can establish a viable niche in the online auction business then it will be less likely to have to continually expand in order to succeed.
Or, continue to envision an "all markets all comers" co-op that cannot possibly hope to draw off enough sellers in any category in order to draw that segment of customers away from eBay. And I can guarantee that the co-op will be very short lived. Or do you think that professionals who have already tried to compete head to head with eBay are just a bunch of idiots who had no idea what to do with the impressive financial backing they had when they started?
Edited for spelling.
[ edited by codasaurus on Feb 12, 2001 03:53 PM ]
"Or do you think that professionals who have already tried to compete head to head with eBay are just a bunch of idiots who had no idea what to do with the impressive financial backing they had when they started?"
posted on February 12, 2001 04:35:09 PM
OK, how we'all doing so far?
-------------------------------------------
Our mission is to create and maintain a person-to-person global trading marketplace which provides a level playing field for all who use it. We are dedicated to promoting a safe and vibrant venue for the economic and social enrichment of our unique community of individual sellers, small businesses, collectors, and all who enjoy the pleasure of people trading with people.
The Auction Co-op will provide Users an Auction site, and community associated with the site that is driven by their needs. It is the intention of the Co-op to divide the decision making power equally to ensure the interests of the community are protected, and to provide a fee/pricing structure for it that would be fair, reasonable, and competitive, yet substantial enough to provide funds for the continuing survival of the Coop.
All revenue generated by the co-op will be reinvested into the co-op in such a way that will best benefit the membership. This will include but not be limited to upgrades in equipment, additional support services, and advertising.
The Auction Co-op shall be self-supporting and will not accept outside advertisers or partnerships that would compete directly with any of its members.
The long range goals of the co-op include negotiating discount business services for their members, such as Group Medical Insurance.
----------------------------------------
All specific references to what a "User" actually is (seller, buyer, or both) ommitted until there's a consensus).
posted on February 12, 2001 04:50:44 PM
MrJim, I agree that buyers should have input. And I also agree with StockTicker on that. Obviously sellers must consider buyer wants, and put buyer satisfaction as their primary concern. However, I think that can be done without turning the reins of our businesses over to our buyers. As Codasaurus pointed out, buyer goals are anitethical to seller goals. Giving buyers the power to set seller policies just seems to open a whole can of worms that is not in sellers’ best interest. Give buyers a voice via Board Of Buyers, but let’s not give away the store just to make the customers happy. It’s just my opinion, and I’m willing to consider other ideas. But my own vision all along has been freedom from restrictive eBay fees and policies. Turning over the co-op to be run by buyers just doesn’t fit into the equation.
Many folks have raised the questions, “How do we bring the bidders?” and “How do we compete with eBay?” First of all, buyers aren’t married to eBay. They will go where the quality items and best deals are. And I emphasize quality. I have a number of expensive items that I just can’t sell through eBay. It may take many listings until the item sells for a reasonable price. I’m not ready to pay eBay that kind of money, or risk selling my items at $1 no reserve. Selling my top-quality items through eBay is just too expensive. Assuming the co-op is cheaper, and in all our best interests, I would expect sellers to list their quality items through the co-op first, and then eBay second. Quality items are one thing that will attract bidders.
How do we compete with eBay? Remember when buying at eBay used to be fun? Even window shopping was fun. That was back when browsing the categories was actually possible, before categories grew to hundreds of pages of items and became full of trash listings.
Today, buying on eBay is not fun. Browsing the categories is impossible. Most bidders only view the auctions ending in the next few hours, or use the search engine to find items. They use auto-snipe bid programs to slip in last-minute bids. The auction atmosphere, the sense of community and the fun are all gone. Those are the elements we can offer buyers.
eBay has pretty much abandoned the online flea market format that brought them such huge success. eBay’s focus is on retail items and big-ticket items like cars and real estate. Perhaps with good reason, because one house or car sold through eBay brings in far more profit than a beanie baby auction. That is our niche. eBay is dumping the online flea marketers. We can pick them up. There isn’t even a conflict, because eBay doesn’t want us little sellers any more. In fact, we’d be doing eBay a favor! So what if a million or two customers migrate from eBay to the co-op? eBay doesn’t want us or our listings anyway. Let eBay sell the houses and the cars and the movie props and whatnot.
eBay’s huge success was originally built on that online flea market format. Not fancy advertising or co-branding. Not banner ads. eBay succeeded in a big way because it was fun. For whatever reason, eBay is now focusing on that top 5% they so often cite as bringing the money into their site. We can recreate the fun of the early days of AuctionWeb and eBay by offering fewer listings and more high-quality items. That is our niche. We don’t need to blast eBay out of the water. We only want to create a site where we can sell our own items without the ever-present threat of being squeezed out by the next fee hike or the next targeted banner ad.
This is a grass-roots movement. The co-op will succeed because fun, quality items are sold there.
(By the way, I first heard about eBay on C|NET's TV.com television show. I had something to sell and it sold well on eBay. That bit of advertising from C|NET cost eBay nothing. Since then, I've probably dumped $50,000 into eBay's coffers. Big advertising is not a requirement for success.)
posted on February 12, 2001 04:54:42 PM
I dont know What if anything I would add to a mission statement but here are a few Question to Ask your selfs and answer and a few Opinions in the matter as well
I dont see my self as much use In a committee as I have said a few times in the past.
I think we do have to ask are selves a few Questions Before any Mission statement or committees or financail or business plans can be put in to Writeing .
1. Who is it were Trying to interest and attract to a coop MY Thought is we are trying to attarct buyers and sellers, With out Buyers Not much need for sellers and the other way around.
2. What is it we are truely trying to do, I think we are looking to create a Stable Platform, safe and level playing feild for both sellers and buyers.
3. What is the grips and complaints that buyers and sellers have with the way things are going in the online auction Platforms now That already exist, I think the bigest grip most have at this point is that the sellers and the Buyers make any auction venue or platform what it is they want more recognition and say in the changes in the playing feild they pay to sell and buy in.
4. What are the Venues or Platforms That Effect both buyers and sellers They feel they could and should have more say and recognition in. Right off the top I Think its Auction Sites(Venus), credit card payment services, and auction management services for a start.
5. Do Enough Online auction sellers and buyers truely have an interest in the owner ship and the complete Running and business end of A auction site or auction sites and credit card services or auction management services. My Feeling is NO there is not enough sellers and buyers with enough interest in the running and business end of an Auction site or payment service and management services at this time.
6. Is there Good Reason and cause for the starting of a buyer and sellers Co-Op with out Actually starting up a Co-Op Run Auction site at frist. I think there is good Cause and Reason for A Co-Op Organization.
7. Are there auction Site(s) or venus out there now that if a large enough Co-Op of buyers and sellers were put togeather that might be willing To work at a barganing table with such a group of this nature To create such a stable platform that is safe and a level playing feild for both buyers and seller and would they be willing to allow such a group of buyers and sellers have a say in Such thing as categories fees and so on. if the Co-Op could show the venues that such an arrangement will and can be beneficial to all partys involved.
8. What services could such a Co-Op Provide such a group if it were Organized in to being and what would the benifits be. My feeling is that such a Co-Op Could porvide a large pool of talent and Knowlege And Would Provide both buyers and sellers with strong pull and power at any Barganing table, Such a large group could provide benifits The posiblity of group medical or health and dental insurance also buying power for such thing as packageing and other whole sales type purchases such as computer hardware and software, but I feel there would need for more benifits would be needed if this Co-Op is to have benifit and services for both US and international buyers and sellers as medical insurance type benifits and low cost packageing would be of little benifit to people outside the USA in less International CHAPTERS of the Co-Op were formed .
9. Would there in the future of such a Co-Op ever be a Co-Op Ran Auction Site. Yes I think it is a Good possibility for future growth of the Co-Op But I dont believe it is or should it be the frist goal of any Such Co-Op it Should be Writen in as Part of the Future plans Of the Organization.
10. Would there be Fee's for Such a group or Co-Op . Yes A study Of the cost of starting such a Co-Op should be made and what income would be needed to fund its current and future goals in this process I believe a part or portion of such fees of all memberships should be put in to a building fund for such future projects as A Co-Op Auction site , Co-Op Credit card payment services, Co-Op Auction management site, Portal site.
11. Should the Co-Op its self be setup as NON-Profit InCorporated and NON-saleable. Yes I think the Co-OP it self can and should be set up in this fashion but it should not look for the other partys, groups or companys it deals with to be the same includeing any auction site (Venue).
I Believe we should be useing known Methods for Forming this Co-Op and we should be looking at sucessfull business plans to help the Co-Op with Building its model.
I think we should be listeng Closely to the Advice being give to the Interested partys at this time as to the legal side of putting this togeather I think some should be Ask if they are willing to Help get this started free legal advice and business advice dont come along everyday if these people want to help let them don't deter them.
I think in the begining we Should be focused On organizing A United Auction sellers/buyers Co-OP More simple terms a buyers and Sellers Union To get this entity started and Add the rest as time and funds allow it will be far easyer to Justify fees and other things once this is started it Will also have more form, shape and credibility all involved and all the people we are trying to bring in to this can understand the words United and Union and relate.
posted on February 12, 2001 05:06:20 PM
"This is a grass-roots movement. The co-op will succeed because fun, quality items are sold there."
The co-op will not succeed if users who are interested in participating are banned or censored.
There are users who do not, or can not, post at AuctionWatch who may be interested.
One of the two "co-op boards" has banned several users and deleted those posts.
Who is going to have the say? Who will be allowed to sit on the steering committee? Will we be constrained by where a user posts, as to the nominees? Will users who are posting with anonymous ID's be allowed?
Every single user, no matter where, no matter the opinion they hold or the opinion others hold about that user, SHOULD HAVE A VOICE. Every single user, not just a few select users, should be able to voice an opinion or be nominated for committee position.
The co-op will not succeed if users who are interested in participating are banned or censored
I don't think that removing people who's sole purpose is to disrupt and undermine the efforts of the co-op will have any long term effects. It may rustle a few feathers, but it will survive without hecklers. These hecklers, however, should be removed by group concensus.
There are users who do not, or can not, post at AuctionWatch who may be interested
Once the groups are brought together, all discussions will most likely take place on a new site setup exclusively for the co-op.
One of the two "co-op boards" has banned several users and deleted those posts
See reply above.
Who is going to have the say? Who will be allowed to sit on the steering committee? Will we be constrained by where a user posts, as to the nominees?
I would venture to say that at some point soon, these people will be nominated by the current participants of the combined threads to initiate the startup of the co-op. These people may or may not be in positions of authority after the co-op is running. I would assume that as with other co-ops the officers would be elected by the members.
Will users who are posting with anonymous ID's be allowed?
Comments will be welcome from anyone. I would hope that any members of any committees or positions now or in the future would be required to reveal their true identity before being considered for any such position. So if you are asking if an anonymous person can be on the steering committee, I would certainly vote no and encourage everyone else to do the same. After all, would you allow [email protected] to collect the money for the co-op? (no answer required)
Every single user, no matter where, no matter the opinion they hold or the opinion others hold about that user, SHOULD HAVE A VOICE. Every single user, not just a few select users, should be able to voice an opinion or be nominated for committee position
Absolutely. But to be considered, the mask has to come off.
posted on February 12, 2001 07:46:58 PM
"hecklers. These hecklers, however, should be removed by group concensus."
Hecklers? No hecklers were banned or censored. Only those who's opinions were not "in lock step" with the person who claims to only want to host a forum.
Nor was there any group concensus. It was an arbitrary move by a single person. No way was there ANY concensus.
And so when you say: "Comments will be welcome from anyone", on one co-op board this is most assuredly not true.
Already, before any beginnings, before anything, one person is already making decisions for the group. Acting unchecked and without concensus. Making decisions as to who can comment and who can not comment.
A co-op is about, as you say: group concensus. Not one person.
posted on February 12, 2001 07:51:58 PM
There've been various and associated discussion about BIDDERS and their participation in the co-op.
There have been suggestions that bidders need to join for their voices to be heard.
The co-op would introduce a new dynamic on the auction scene. That dynamic is that WE sellers are site OWNERS as co-op members. We are not our own customers. BIDDERS are the customers.
There has been some discussion regarding bidders that leans toward OLD models of what role customers play in our business.
Before drawing conclusions from obsolete concepts of customers, take a look around at what WE are doing right now. WE are the CUSTOMERS of online auction sites. WE are talking about giving up our role as CUSTOMERS and becoming OWNERS of a co-op site. Our CUSTOMERS will become US, in a way.
If our CUSTOMERS voices are not heard. If we don't honor their wants and listen to THEIR input and TALK to them and give them what THEY want, they will NEVER buy from us, and the co-op will FAIL.
This is the PRIME FAILURE of ALL online auctions and it's what WE HATE about them. Bear this in mind, and let's not become exactly what we are trying to get away from...
posted on February 12, 2001 10:04:26 PM
Y'know, after reading all the posts on the various Coop threads, I'm getting convinced that even before a mission statement, this project needs an episode guide along the lines of the ones they have in the newspapers about the Soaps... Then, the unitiated like myself can see who is whom and what is why with all these apparently feuding factions/people, and what went on in last season's episodes of As The Auctions Turn...
That stuff can't be helping much in the overall picture, I would say...
posted on February 12, 2001 10:34:51 PM
I'm finally done playing catch-up with 3 days worth of postings in 2 threads on AW. I don't even know where some of the other boards are that have been referred to. It sounds like there's alot more out there now than what I was initially aware of.
In the other thread on AW (Stop griping...), there were discussions underway by magazine_guy, tentwentytwo, auctionfool25 and powerhouse regarding the very basics of where our coop idea would even fit insofar as profit, not for profit, nonprofit, etc. What a great start! Where did they go? Why did they end?
Those types of discussions are crucial beginnings which have perked my interests again. Tentwentytwo ended with a sequence of order as well. I agree!
In this thread, I am in agreement with AuctionFool25 (I'm mostly citing things that I am remembering - I need to go to bed, almost 2 a.m. but the only time I have for reading) - excellent post!
I am also in agreement with Dman 100%. I think first and foremost we need to organize (within the guidelines) an organization or coop of online auction users/sellers (buyers?). Then, "maybe" consider setting up an auction site but maybe not....because the power of numbers in negotiating is evident.
And, yes, Nancy, I agree.
I wish I could say more but so far my post looks like mumbo-jumbo to me.
We've got to start at the beginning and people trying to advocate this need to be listened to.
posted on February 12, 2001 10:41:10 PM
ten - isn't it the truth? Amen! It's also a big reason that many people are not interested in participating in the discussions or are afraid to post publicly.
posted on February 12, 2001 11:04:46 PM
I hope to god this doesn't devolve into "I-have-the-right-to-sell-and-that's-all-that-matters" kind of uber-preneurial kind of co-op. Which is fine, but unless bidders are respected and concerns are valid, it will get swallowed up by all the other wannabe sites.
I'll go if I can get the items I want without the shilling, newbie-dumbf___'s and shielding. Where sellers know a thing or two about ad copy, their product and the sense to offer customer service.
All right, so far, two things...does anyone remember who invented the car? Of course not, but Henry Ford is a legend.
Meg didn't invent ebay, corporate brains are squeezing every last nickel out of ebay. And none give a damn if you pay fees for dead end auctions or I pay inflated prices on items from sellers who don't neg the newbie deadbeat.
And the other thing...why is everyone afraid to take a leadership role? If this is big enough, good enough, then stand up and do it, it will gel on it's own. You may only be there for a while, but it needs to happen with a few people who care enough to pour time and energy into it.
Do I have to quote Margaret Mead????!?!
(wink)
"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. "
- Margaret Mead
(read several times I think several of you folks ARE these people)
remember...it's not Meg's show over on ebay, she's only a handmaiden to the queen, the stockholders.
posted on February 13, 2001 12:42:04 AM
I see a lot of people seriously interested in the idea of a co-op. I do believe that eventually it will happen. However, I have disagreed with Jamie's ideas from the start. I think they are bad, and Jamie's co-op will be worse than no co-op at all. Jamie associates himself with people I consider the worst kind of message board trolls. I will not respond to Ross and his many bogus IDs. The sellers co-op has become a power play and fresh meat for Ross' message board games. You asked for leadership, so here it is. Jamie and Ross have no place at the helm of a co-op. If that's not what you wanted to hear, I am sincerely sorry.
I have too many real life issues, and too much respect for my own vision of a sellers co-op, to stand by and watch the co-op prostituted to trolls. I've said my piece, and it's not my desire to play kindergarten cop. This is not a game to me. I wish you success in all you desire. I will not participate in these discussions again.
posted on February 13, 2001 12:45:49 AM
I originally posted this on the alt.marketing.online.ebay newsgroup, but I thought I'd share it here as well:
As much as I like the idea of a co-op auction site in theory, I haven't seen
any discussion that I would characterize as "serious". $50,000 to $100,000
in starting capital sounds like a drop in the bucket to me. (Anyone know
how much venture capital eBay had before they went public?) Starting small
just isn't a strategy that is going to work for a general purpose auction
site, IMO, and the collapse of Gold's demonstrated that enthusiasm is not a
substitute for numbers.
"eBay needs competition to keep it in line" has not been enough to motivate
sellers to list at other sites in sufficient numbers, even though
competition would be in the sellers' long term interests; neither will
"we're in charge of this site's policies". Sellers are going to list where
the bidders are right now, rather than listing strategically to protect
their position for the next decade.
So.....the question in my mind is......what would a co-op offer to attract
the bidders away from eBay? If they're talking $50-$100K starting capital,
it's not going to be site stability, customer service personnel, or quantity
of merchandise. Since they're talking about a general auction site, it's
not going to be depth or quality of merchandise in a particular area. And
since they seem to be trying to make everyone happy, it's not going to be
any sort of standardized policies that buyers can rely on no matter which
seller they deal with.
IMO, the only way a co-op is going to work is (1) think a lot bigger, or (2)
do something *dramatically* different from eBay, either in terms of
specialization or requirements placed on sellers.
I also think the co-op planners are doing things ass-backwards in developing
a business concept. It looks like they started out asking what sellers (who
will be their primary members) want in an auction site -- low fees, etc.
IMO they should have first asked what *buyers* want in an auction site, and
what it would take to get them to move from eBay. Then turn that into a
concept paper, and ask how many sellers are willing to invest in that
concept. And they need to be willing to tell the sellers who aren't
interested in providing what the bidders want to stay at eBay. Low fees are
not going to keep sellers in a co-op; lots of enthusiastic bidders will.
Judging from the bidder/buyer complaints I see frequently, I wonder whether
an auction site could succeed if it required its sellers to:
* Guarantee the accuracy of all descriptions, with a back-up money-back
guarantee from the co-op itself
* Guarantee safe arrival of all merchandise, through insurance or otherwise
* Use no music, bizarre backgrounds, or moving graphics in their listings
* Ship internationally, unless prohibited by law
* Clearly explain in their listings how the shipping & handling will be
calculated, with either a dollar amount or a formula, and indicate whether
multiple items will be combined for reduced shipping cost.
* Provide a method for accepting credit card payments at no extra cost to
the buyer (i.e. Bidpay doesn't count)
* Refrain from using any word containing "@" in the auction title
* Etc. (I'm sure I could find a few more in the "I won't bid if...."
thread.)
Perhaps a site which offered "no hassles, no music, no unpleasant surprises"
for buyers would be different enough from eBay to draw a critical mass of
bidders. Of course, it could be that these restrictions would prevent the
co-op from attracting a critical mass of sellers. Given the "Don't Tread on
Me" philosophy that seems to prevail among online auction sellers, it could
be that even the customer-centered sellers wouldn't sign up for a co-op that
required them to do what they already do by choice.
OTOH, if this concept were accepted by a critical mass of sellers, pulling
the customer-oriented small to mid-size sellers away from eBay, and leaving
eBay with the scam artists, incompetent sellers, and unpleasant jerks, I
could see the new site becoming very successful and eBay's reputation
worsening with time.
I've been a member, officer, and director of several co-ops, , and
participated in one successful and several unsuccessful attempts to found
co-ops (most recently an attempt at forming an antique mall co-op). So I'm
certainly not biased against co-operatives; I'm just not impressed with
anything I've seen from this one.
