posted on April 2, 2001 02:16:34 PM
Here's a thought:
It sounds as though you have a high-volume business to be pocketing over $100 per week extra on this. Why don't you try an experiment?
For 1 month do not offer your brand of "insurance" in your TOS or your EOA notice. See what happens. See how many unscrupulous buyers you get demanding refunds for breakage or loss. You've certainly pocketed enough extra money by now to cover claims for 1 month, haven't you?
Then come back and tell us about all the dishonest buyers who demanded refunds and what percentage they were to your total number of customers for that month.
If a customer gets insurance through the PO, they can easily file a claim and get their money back. Just as easy as it would be for them to get a claim from YOU. Like I said - why not at least get DC on each package? It costs only 40¢ and would give you piece of mind that no one was just trying to screw with you.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:18:27 PM
Is money returned by the post office somehow better than that returned by the seller? Why do buyers insist on trying to micromanage sellers' businesses? As long as claims are paid, what difference does it make to the buyer who provides the service?
Why?
In that case, the USPS and U=Pic are the biggest scammers of them all.
BJGrolle
I never said I felt bad about the extra money I got from taking the risk of having to refund a lost/broken item, I said I felt bad about the insurance stamp white lie.
fonze
Could you enlighten us on why it's illegal? You must have some grounds on it, don't you?
posted on April 2, 2001 02:22:10 PM, I said I felt bad about the insurance scam white lie
So you're ADMITTING you're running a "scam"?
You "say" you just want to protect yourself, and you CAN protect yourself by putting DC on each package that you insure. Is that an option you would consider?
posted on April 2, 2001 02:24:10 PM
I would guess it could technically be illegal due to bonding and all the laws that actually regulate insurance companies. In the same breath, I would also assume the post office does not have any of these laws applied to it: immunity.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:24:41 PMIf the buyer complains that they didn't get "official" PO insurance...
You can't tell for sure whether or not the post office insured a package by the stamp. One of the post offices I go to uses an oval stamp, the other two each use a rectangular stamp, but not the same one.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:33:20 PMWhy do buyers insist on trying to micromanage sellers' businesses?
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I am a seller, not a buyer.
As long as claims are paid, what difference does it make to the buyer who provides the service?
It makes a difference to the buyer whether or not they've been dealt with honestly with someone they don't know and trusted enough to send money to.
And that's why sellers like myself get upset when we hear about such deceptive practices. Some buyers don't need much to chase them away from online auctions if they have enough bad experiences. That makes less of a buying pool for all of us.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:38:04 PMI never said I felt bad about the extra money I got from taking the risk of having to refund a lost/broken item, I said I felt bad about the insurance stamp white lie.
Then why did you do it? Why not tell the truth, that it's a self-insurance charge? Because you know they'd be hopping mad, that's why!
Please edit your post, so no one would be mislead.
The above was addressed to EG, but I just have to laugh about this one. LOL
There have been some quite good suggestions as to how you can afford to assume the risk without misleading your customers.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:38:04 PM
Hmmm....8 months....about $4K to 5K profit? Nice second income. I agree that everyone has the right to run their business their way. If I ever chose to do this I would never admit it on a public message board. It is bound to draw a bit of fire.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:42:17 PM
Wow. I registered just so I could reply to this message. First of all, hats off to computer boy for this quote: "It's all about customer service!" I've just recently gotten back onto ebay again and it didn't take long to realize (or recall) that this attitude isn't nearly as common as it SHOULD be.
I'm almost in shock at the attempt to justify the "business practice" being discussed here. "$130- $150 weekly"; "99% of the orders arrive safe and sound"; "$1.10 insurance option". These numbers just do NOT add up to an acceptable "business practice". Will I, from the day forward, need to e-mail every seller I deal with who's offering insurance and ask them exactly HOW it's insured? And will they turn around and lie to my face when I do?
I have to say that being self insured hadn't even occured to me before seeing this thread, and while I'm not totally against it, the idea of someone making $130-$150 weekly off of me and others who bid on their items just off of "insurance", to me, is quite unethical. That's no different that going THROUGH the USPS but charging $2.20 for insurance and pocketing the other $1.10, except for the fact that any experienced bidder is going to know there is something fishy going on there and will hesitate to bid instead of being deceived from the beginning.
As I said, I'm not against self insurance, even if it means putting a couple dollars a week in the pocket of the seller, but what I AM against is someone self insuring his items and not stating so before I bid. If I get the understanding that I'm paying for USPS insurance, I would sure as hell expect that I AM getting that insurance, headaches and all.
I'm sorry, I just get upset at things like this. I feel that customer satisfaction should be the priority to a seller, and the "refund if not happy" should be the norm, expecially if you're running an actual business and want to be treated as such on eBay. I'm not putting down insurance altogether, especially on higher ticket items, but there should be a limit, and most of all, there should be no deception.
Bill
Edited to add kudos to BJGrolle for his business practices as well!
[ edited by Hobbes1138 on Apr 2, 2001 02:46 PM ]
posted on April 2, 2001 02:44:28 PMSome buyers don't need much to chase them away from online auctions if they have enough bad experiences.
Well... okay, but the original poster said:
In the case the item get lost or damaged, I refund them the money out of my own pocket (including shipping), or immediately send them a duplicate item if I have doubles.
I'm not quite sure how a fast refund of money (which, in my experience, you do not get with postal insurance) or a replacement of the lost item (which I'm sure you don't get with postal insurance) would be considered a "bad experience".
posted on April 2, 2001 02:45:01 PM
Good grief, deception of one sort or another lies in the business in one form or another. If you buy a book at a yard sale for a buck, knowing it to be worth $50, have you cheated the seller? Have you discouraged them from having a yard sale ever again...even if they SEE THEIR book on Ebay the next day?
If one really looks at deceptive insurance practices, how about Paypal and their 30 day limit on filing complaints to qualify for their brand of insurance? How many buyers are actually jumping up and down within 30 days to file?
Time for EOA notice, delay in payment, time for item to arrive...especially if it is something sent media mail. Oh well, Paypal doesn't have to worry about assisting those claims.
Basically ditto unless you pay for business or premiere account, then I don't know how great they are.
Insurance is one big game of numbers, trying to put one over always on who is buying the insurance. Reality bites, doesn't it.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:47:13 PM
I personally think there would be nothing wrong in "self insuring" as long as the seller was UPFRONT and 100% honest to their bidders and tell them that's how they insure.
I also don't have a problem with a seller making a hundred bucks off of insurance payments - because if the seller doesn't get it, it will go to the USPS or another company that makes that hundred bucks. So SOMEONE might as well get the hundred bucks. (Plus, any claims would come out of that money anyways)
BUT... I DO have a problem with a seller making it LOOK like they are getting USPS insurance, when asked about it they LIE about the insurance stamp/receipt and then pocket the money.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:49:36 PMminnow: How fast do you refund your customers or send a replacement? Do you wait the 30 days? I've had Priority packages take 4 weeks to get from one US state to another. (happened twice). Do you wait a week, a couple weeks, a month, etc?
posted on April 2, 2001 02:52:47 PMI don't think an instant refund counts as a deceptive practice that drives bidders away from online auctions.
An instant refund is commendable, but you know that's not what I was referring to.
The practice of offering insurance without using the word self and charging the exact same dollar amount as the USPS charges while keeping the "insurance" money for yourself is deceptive.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:53:44 PM
Okay. What about this?
State in your ad something to the effect of:
"I self-insure to save you money. Ninety cents provides complete protection...plus instant refund (upon return) in case of damage in shipment." Give them a small deal.
I haven't given it much thought as to careful wording...but you get the basic idea.
I'd buy it. If I trust you with my money in the first place, why not trust you for insurance?
edited to say:
I don't like deception. Just be upfront. It could work. Would for me.
[ edited by toke on Apr 2, 2001 02:55 PM ]
posted on April 2, 2001 02:56:42 PM
I agree with Toke.
Insurance is just a pool of money used for "consideration of loss" so why not do it yourself?
Though I'd be a little nervous, but with adequate safeguards to your own peace of mind, you won't have customers feeling like there's something fishy...
You said on page 1: They wouldn't beleve that the item was self insured and that i would've assumed all responsibility if the package was damaged/lost.
And then:
I'm a red-star seller with a feedback of over 3700 and a less of 1 to 1000 neg ratio.
If this is true, then why would anyone second-guess that you would refund/replace item if it's lost or damaged in shipping? If you have an excellent feedback profile, I don't think ANYONE would hesitate to purchase from you if you stated you self-insure.
Also, did you give any thought to putting DC on each insured package?
posted on April 2, 2001 03:21:27 PMI'm not quite sure how a fast refund of money (which, in my experience, you do not get with postal insurance) or a replacement of the lost item (which I'm sure you don't get with postal insurance) would be considered a "bad experience".
No, that's not the part I was referring to. I'm referring to the right of the buyer to know exactly who is getting their money and for what.
minnow has already admitted to lying to the customers about the "missing" insurance stamp and generally there is no reason to lie unless you truly believe the buyers will be upset if they hear the truth.
One lie just leads to another and another...
Do you also condone lying to customers?
And thanks, Bill, but I'm a she!
Hey, how's this for good business practice:
Customer pays $x.xx for Media Mail shipping as stated in auction. Postal clerk takes it upon himself to change it to Bound Printed Matter without seller's knowledge or consent. Item doesn't qualify for that anyway and package is clearly marked in red Media Mail. Seller notices this when looking at receipt upon leaving. Item is heavy, resulting in an overcharge of about $2.50. Now, there is absolutely no difference in shipping time between Media Mail and Bound Printed Matter. However, does seller say, "Tough noogies, buyer agreed to pay $x.xx when she bid and won, so I'm keeping the $2.50! It'll still get there in the same time, so who cares?" However, buyer paid for a certain type of shipping, and since that part was compromised by the postal clerk, seller feels bound to offer refund to the buyer. Seller does not believe in advertising a certain shipping method for a certain price and then using different methods and pocketing the difference. Buyer declines refund, thanking seller for being honest and tells seller to go buy a cup of coffee with it.
Yes, minnow, there are scads of buyers out there just waiting to take advantage of the situation, as the above story illustrates. NOT!
In spite of the anger that is being expressed here, I find it more sad when sellers are so distrustful of the very people whose business they solicit that they resort to not telling the whole truth about what they're asking buyers to pay for. http://bjgrolle.auctioninsights.com
The refund/ replacement policy is depending on feedback. With a newbie (10 or less feedback) I might wait 2-3 week from time of delivery, depending on location (I'm in CA).
With a star feedback, (with no negs for low feedbacks or a low neg ratio for high ones) I refund immediately, with instructions on sending payment again if the package eventually shows up.
I'm reluctant about the DC, mostly because I was told the item appears as "delivered" when it reaches the local PO, not when it reaches it's destination.
I never thought about my bidders not second guessing me about the self insurance because of my feedback. I might start practicing this in future occurrences.
I would also like to add that I didn't use the self insurance during last year's holiday season, or to places with severe weather conditions. I used USPS insurance all the time.
posted on April 2, 2001 03:31:22 PM
Okay- we've got a seller who states:
I'm a red-star seller with a feedback of over 3700 and a less of 1 to 1000 neg ratio.
and
In the case the item get lost or damaged, I refund them the money out of my own pocket (including shipping), or immediately send them a duplicate item if I have doubles.
yet some people still feel a need to question this seller about who the actual insurance provider is?
I think some people have far too much time on their hands.
posted on April 2, 2001 03:33:32 PMIn the case the item get lost or damaged, I refund them the money out of my own pocket (including shipping), or inmediately send them a duplicate item if I have doubles.
That is almost never the case, as 99% of the orders arrive safe and sound, and I pocket an extra $130- $150 weekly.
What do you think?
In re-reading the above quote from the original post, I think the reason that minnow isn't addressing or acknowledging any of the very good suggestions made here regarding self-insurance is because minnow wasn't really looking for advice about the practice itself so much as looking for a few pats on the back over the "cleverness" of such a policy that allows for pocketing a significant amount of extra cash every week.
If this extra money is really to cover the cost of no-hassle refunds, and only 1% of sales result in such refunds, and the items sell for between $10 - $20 dollars apiece, then the extra cash pocketed is really excessive for the coverage needed, isn't it?
