Your post contains a lot of information that would be important to sellers, were it to come about. You said
"Word has it..."
several times regarding the information you posted- is there any chance you might provide some sources for this information? This would allow others to have an opportunity to check things out for themselves, in order to better prepare for any upcoming changes.
posted on April 12, 2001 05:29:36 PM new
As a seller of many years, experience has taught us to always insure. We insure or we don't ship. We insure because we deal mostly in breakable items; and because of a few very dishonest customers who purchased expensive items then claimed they didn't receive them.
I must admit, one such buyer actually reaped what they sowed. They claimed an item was broken when it was received. We offered to just send them this portion of the item, but the woman said she already had the pair repacked and wanted a totally new pair. We received the pair but she didn't pack well and in fact this time they were actually broken - but she lost her insurance receipt, so she couldn't recover the loss of the pair, and naturally we didn't replace them for free…..her lie cost her $400.
And folks wonder why some of us seller require insurance......insurance protects both sides of the fence.
posted on April 12, 2001 05:49:49 PM new
I request insurance as a buyer to protect myself from dishonest sellers.
I encourage insurance as a seller to protect myself from dishonest buyers.
I worry less about the Post Office losing or damaging my merchandise than I worry about a dishonest seller saying "well, I shipped it..." or a dishonest buyer saying "I haven't gotten it".
posted on April 12, 2001 06:03:01 PM newLike I said...
It is maybe a matter of what you sell. I deal in old books and magazines and having dealt with many hundreds of unique buyers/sellers, I have NEVER ONCE had a prolem such as described in the few posts above, NEVER.
Maybe you ought to consider changing what you sell. It sounds like there are some very dishonest people in your arena.
The fact remains, in the vast majority of cases, insurance is just a mental hand-holding for the buyer/seller.
Waste, waste, waste.
I bet if you add up all you've spent on insurance vs. all you've recouped from losses, you'll see my point.
posted on April 12, 2001 06:25:16 PM new
I don't even mention insurance on items under $50. If the buyer requests it I will gladly oblige.
Items that are $50 and over I automatically include insurance. no option!
One must understand the concept of insurance for this to make sense. Most of you obviously do and that is why you insure parcels of a certain value or more.
posted on April 12, 2001 08:57:48 PM new
Insurance is a profit generator for many sellers - ones that self-insure, and those that insure via u-pic and charge USPS rates.
I used to self-insure.
Now I ship FedEx ground and insurance is included in the cost [up to $100 value]. Additionally, tracking is included at no additional cost. Bidders cannot decline insurance or tracking, and that makes the transation more simplistic!! Yeahhhhh.
Buy your own boxes [approx. 30-60 cents] and you can beat USPS Priority Mail rates 20-50% over two pounds.
posted on April 12, 2001 09:00:19 PM new
I have sold over 10,000 items on ebay and won't ship without insurance unless the buyer insists they don't want insurance then I simply advise them that I will accept no responsibility for damage or loss, and yes it has happened to those buyers, tough lucky! Sorry I don't think insurance is a racket at all, I sold a 500.00 antique leaded glass lamp a while back and unfortunately the shade got broken in transit, the post office paid, where are they supposed to get the money to pay these claims? Maybe you consider health & life insurance a racket too?
posted on April 12, 2001 09:24:58 PM new
Even if you do buy insurance the post office can't , or won't, track the package unless it's lost for 30 days so you need to buy delivery confirmation if you want to track it then if the package WAS insured and if you decide to wade through the armpit deep bureucratic BS they put you through to get your money back.....guess what??? They don't reimmburse you for the shipping of the original package so you get to pay again.
SHOULDN'T THE REFUND SHIPPING TOO or SHIP IT FOR FREE!!??
I've never seen ANY business like the post office. They will gladly take your $ for shipping...........OH, you want to make sure we actually deliver it?? You need to buy DC. What if it doesn't get there even if I buy DC? Nothing, you just know it never got there. If you want to make sure it get's there undamaged you need to pay insurance. Does insurance mean I can track the package to make sure it was delivered? Nope....you need DC AND Insurance.
What a crock!!! Imagine the supermarket. I buy a can of beans for $1.00. The cashier asks me would you like to pay 35 cents to make sure the bagboy bags it? Well no. Then we can't guarrantee it will make it in your bag. Would you like to pay an extra 45 cents to make sure there are actually BEANS in the can? Well.....No. Then we can't guarantee there will actually BE beans in the can. But I BOUGHT BEANS!! Too bad, they may not be in there. Might just be bean juice. OK THEN here's $1.80 for the damn beans!!
You get home open the beans......no beans. You call the store. No beans??? Are you sure?? Let's wait 30 days to see if any beans grow in the can. You wait. Still no beans.
You take the can back and they,less than graciously, give you another can. Here are your beans SIR! By the way do you want to pay 35 cents to make sure we put them in the bag?? Maybe some insurance on your beans again.There might not be any beans in there?
*********************************
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
[ edited by horizonod on Apr 12, 2001 09:32 PM ]
posted on April 12, 2001 10:41:51 PM new
To WhyNot: You seem to have a lot of inside information about the postal service. If the post office is so unprofitable why would FedEx want to take over the handling of parcels for the post office? As far as revenue goes, parcel delivery is a very small generator for the post office, Less than 10% of revenue. First class mail makes up about 40% of revenue as it should be. As far as the postal service being VERY unprofitable right now, their contracts with the unions expired last fall and it suits them to show huge losses to show that they can't support any raises for employees. If they had such huge losses how could they grant bonus payments to their supervisory personnel of up to 25% of their base pay?
By the way, postal inspectors do not go around looking to close post offices and cut staff. They investigate claims and abuse of the mails, internally and externally.
As far as insurance and shipping costs, I find that most of the customers who sell on EBay pass the costs for insurance and shipping on to the buyer. I tell them to try and charge a flat rate when shipping small items and that seems to work out fine. Most claims for lost shipments are for items that are less than $50 in value and we process them in a timely manner and with very little problems. I've accepted their copies of the winning bids for items as proof of their value and have only had a couple requests for further documentation from claims and inquiry.
As a 20 year employee for the post office in various levels of positions, I've always been proud of the level of service that we provide to the consumer. I feel we provide services unmatched by anyone for the cost and convenience.
posted on April 12, 2001 11:03:35 PM new
To horizonod:
Regarding the reimbursement of the shipping of the original package, it should have been refunded along with cost of insurance. Whoever filed the claim for you did it incorrectly. Make them aware of this in the future.
$0.40 or $0.50 for delivery confirmation seems a small price for that service and the 30 day waiting period is for a claim. You can always put a tracer on a parcel or letter at any time after mailing.
In my experience we have always tried to resolve any claims for lost, damaged parcels in a professional and speedy manner. If you had any specific problems they should be addressed on a customer service form which would be reviewed and acted upon with notification as to its resolve.
posted on April 12, 2001 11:17:43 PM newI knew when I started this thread that many would overlook what I was refering to:
How many times do I have to state that I deal in old books and magazines! Quite durable, as long as they are packed appropriately, which means sturdy backing and plastic cover. That's it! Even without that I've never had a problem when sellers just threw it in an envelope. Yes, I would prefer that sellers pack responsably, but even when they haven't, everything worked out---AND I DIDN'T HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE!
And don't confuse the sellers responsability to pack well with a buyers responsability to buy insurance. Every item I sell is guaranteed by ME to get there, or they get either a replacement OR their money back including s&h. If you cannot trust the type of customer you are attracting, CHANGE your product line!
Obviously, let me say it again for the slow readers, OBVIOUSLY, some items warrant insurance, but many do not---unless they are worth at least 3 digits.
Would I insure a $50 mag?
NO.
Would I insure a $100 mag?
Probably not, but I may think about it.
Would I insure a $200+ mag?
Yes.
Am I happy that many sellers try to make me buy insurance on 4-5-10-20 dollar mags?
Absolutely NOT!
Waste, waste, waste.
What a racket.
The PROOF is in the pudding. I have saved well over $1,000 by NOT buying into this extortion.
posted on April 13, 2001 10:47:47 AM new
I do not require my buyers to pay for insurance to protect myself against a loss or damage. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I believe that the majority of people are honest and will not try to rip me off.
Most of my sales are low-ticket, under $10. I once sold an item for over $300 and on that I paid for the insurance myself, since I could well afford it.
I just had a customer receive a damaged package (my first one in my year of selling) that had been shipped Priority Mail in a sturdy box, not the free ones. The customer could tell it was the PO's fault and did not expect anything more from me. However, I gave her a full refund because I do not believe that the customer should be out-of-pocket.
As a buyer I also received a refund once when the package had been returned to the seller by the PO with the package completely torn open and, of course, the item wasn't inside. That seller gave me a full refund despite the fact that I hadn't purchased insurance. Obviously, she also believed the customer shouldn't have had to pay for nothing.
I avoid auctions where the seller makes it plain they will not refund if the buyer doesn't purchase insurance. http://bjgrolle.freehomepage.com
posted on April 13, 2001 11:31:51 AM new
Slow down...
The above message slants itself toward a liberal doomsday belief.
First and foremost, I find it very hard to believe that the Post office will be relieving itself of the duty of delivery parcel packages. It may, very well, decide to work with Fed Ex for logistic concerns, but there is absolutely no chance of Fed Ex grabbing the whole piece of the pie. I can already hear the Postal Worker's Union crying foul. They're one powerful lobby who is well represented and there is no chance in hell that they would allow this to happen. It is politcally unfeasable. I believe a similar rumor existed a few year's back, but it was UPS instead of Fed Ex.
Secondly, the Bush Administration is removing barriers to business, not adding them. The fact that our economy surived while the "Playboy" was in the office was amazing. Thank God for American workers and advanced technology! Bush is going to take a moderate Republican stance all business related issues. That's where the support is and its a step in the correct direction. We want our businesses to grow, not our Government!
Regarding the overall issue of insurance and the buyer and seller, the Seller has a great deal more responsibility and accountability in sales transactions. It is therefore in the sellers best interest to protect themselves by buying appropriate insurance when shipping expensive or delicate items. Regard it as a necessary evil. The seller is ultimately legally responsible for their goods to reach their buyers in a manner as represted.
Tomorrow will come and the sun will again rise....
posted on April 13, 2001 11:38:57 AM new
Buyer can not expect to reap the benefit of insurance coverage and not pay for it.
If they do not want it, fine but do not cry to me about it after if it gets lost. They get a choice. They will have to live with it.
And to those folks that say That they will not bid on an auction if the seller does not refund if the item gets lost, I have to ask,
If you do not want the Coverage, why should the seller take all the risk?
I do see where people are coming from that do not see a need for it on low $$ items. So to keep it simple, I give the buyer the choice.
Go over to the u.s.p.s site, they seem to do ok. Ask them for a refund if you refused insurance. They will just tell you no way.
posted on April 13, 2001 01:33:20 PM new
If a buyer refuses insurance when I offer it, it's his problem if the item never arrives or arrives broken. This has been hashed out on these boards forever and I have seen nothing to prove me wrong. I do have personal experience which has proven me right several times however.
Once a buyer pays me for an item and I drop it off at the post office, it becomes his property unless we work out an arrangement other than the default FOB (this will never happen). I will not pay to insure someone else's property. I was sued twice after buyers refused insurance when I offered it. I won one case outright and the other was dropped by the plaintiff after her attorney received my documentation related to the transaction.
Bottom line: A buyer refuses insurance at his own peril if the seller has a clue.
>. If the post office is so unprofitable why would FedEx want to take over the handling of parcels for the post office?
Because FedEx isn't a bloated Government Buraucracy.
computerboy:
>hear the Postal Worker's Union crying foul.
Let 'em cry, if the post office is in trouble, the Union is a big part of it.
dubyasdaman:
>work out an arrangement other than the default FOB
You are correct, Free On Board (FOB) negates the seller having ANY responsablity once the merchandise is shipped, as title changes hands as soon as the seller receives payment (and then the seller acts as AGENT for the buyer in shipping.). These "Mail order" laws others keep bringing up apply to any case EXCEPT FOB.
posted on April 13, 2001 04:01:13 PM newFor the slower reader, I'll say it again:
Don't confuse the sellers responsability to pack well with a buyers responsability to buy insurance.
Every item I sell is guaranteed by ME to get there, or they get either a replacement OR their money back including s&h. If you cannot trust the type of customer you are attracting, CHANGE your product line!
posted on April 13, 2001 05:30:52 PM new
"If you cannot trust the type of customer you are attracting, CHANGE your product line! "
LOL. Perhaps you should pay attention to your own advice. Or perhaps your obvious bias is preventing you from having a correct understanding of the situation.
Insurance is a game of averages. Beat the averages, and you make out. Conversely, and you lose.
In YOUR business, which seems to be made up of durable, lower-value items sold to honest people, buying insurance is, probably, a losing proposition.
However, there ARE businesses where it probably pays to buy insurance. We've described some of them here - breakable products, for example. For these products, you beat the averages, so insurance is a money maker.
Your generic, oversimplified advice above ignores, purposefully or otherwise, the fact that if a seller can make a good profit in a line of business by using insurance, they should do so - if that is what it takes to overcome the risks of poor handling and crooked customers, then the intelligent option is to use insurance as another business tool.
Or are you saying you'd rather make, say, $25K without insurance in a product line with fine, upstanding, 100% honest customers instead of $50K with less reputable customers? I know which product line I'd pick..but to each their own.
"The fact remains, in the vast majority of cases, insurance is just a mental hand-holding for the buyer/seller"
A ha! I see you've grasped the basic definition of insurance...to spread the risk of UNLIKELY events across many people, so that many small payments go towards paying off the few large losses! If it weren't for the fact that, indeed, insurance wasn't needed for the "vast majority" of cases, there wouldn't be much point in buying it.
"insurance is a waste. waste, waste, waste".
Again, your advice is oversimplified to the point of being useless, if not just plain wrong. Insurance is a waste in SOME cases, and not in others. The smart businessperson knows when it is useful (and when it isn't).
"I bet if you add up all you've spent on insurance vs. all you've recouped from losses, you'll see my point"
Interesting that you use this to support your own position. You do understand, don't you, that by definition *most* people "lose" money on insurance, when comparing the cost of insurance to the recouped losses? That's how the game is played. The ONLY people who "make" money are those who are relatively unlucky, and suffer, say, multiple high-cost losses. People who never suffer a loss, of course, "lose" by the amount they've paid in. Even those with moderate losses might "lose" due to the fact that insurance premiums cover not just the actual cost of losses but also the cost of administration by the insurance company.
Plus you ignore the value of "peace of mind" of having shared the risk, as well as you ignore the value of having proof of mailing/delivery, which will tend to reduce the scammers ("I never got it!" ).
There are, no doubt, sellers and product lines for which insurance is a bad deal, but you've hardly made your case in terms of making such all-encompasing claims ("insurance is a waste" ). We await, eagerly, your further buttressing of your arguments with some combination of valid logic, evidence, statistics, etc. You've got a ways to go yet.
[ edited by captainkirk on Apr 13, 2001 06:57 PM ]
posted on April 13, 2001 06:15:56 PM new
Would someone please explain FOB - Free On Board, and how a seller goes about shipping items with that clause?
posted on April 13, 2001 07:14:52 PM new
I agree with wilburcall 100%. I've been selling on eBay over 3 years, have 3,000+ positive feedbacks..(3 negs) and I do not mention insurance at all in my TOS. It cuts down on so much garbage & red tape. If the item is over $50, I'll pay to insure it. Otherwise, if an item gets lost or damaged, I replace it or give a refund including shipping. No one has even mentioned insurance when responding to my EOA emails. Only lost 4 or 5 items in all this time - nothing ever arrived damaged. I sell mostly nonbreakables, though ...(horse related stuff - saddle pads, blankets, bridles, saddles, etc...)
I simply state on my web site, my TOS, and my EOAs that insurance is recommended for the buyer's protection in case the postal service loses or damages their widget. I go on to state that I cannot be held responsible if they refuse to insure their merchandise. Most people who bid understand this and either buy the insurance or are willing to assume the risk. I have had a few high-dollar items get lost after shipment and I've been sued twice. I prevailed both times however because I keep meticulous records of all correspondence and use delivery comfirmation on all packages. The DC isn't intended to prove that the item was delivered. It is used to prove that it was shipped. Very effective.
posted on April 13, 2001 08:49:19 PM newcaptainkirk:
I have to laugh at your rather unimpressive attempt at being a junior lawyer, arguing as if you are before the Supreme Court! LOL!
Your overly pedantic post does not impress me at all. I suggest you re-read my initial posts and recognize that I WAS NOT hiding anything. The specifics of MY situation, that's my situation, were spelled out very clearly.
The intelligent posters could see that I was expressing my opinion about insurance given the specifics of my situation.
I'll say it one more time for...shall we say...those who still do not get it:
I cannot stand sellers who mandate that you buy insurance, particularly on items that are clearly:
A) non breakable
B) of minimal value
Why is this so hard for some to understand?
WHY do I have to do the e-mail tango with a seller who automatically insists that I insure a $10 magazine?
posted on April 13, 2001 08:52:29 PM new
I'm pretty sure this thread was locked yesterday. Yet here it is, open. All evidence of the Moderator's post locking the thread -- the one that called it "combattive and unproductive" -- is gone. Like it never happened. But it did happen.
I have a few "why's" that need answering. Why was the thread locked in the first place? It didn't seem any more "combattive or unproductive" than the usual threads here. Why was it reopened? Why was the Moderator's original post locking it WOMD? Why is there no post from the Moderator explaining to everyone that the decision to lock it was reversed? That's always been the procedure here.
The best way for us to understand the application of the CGs is to see Moderation in action. But when threads are mysteriously locked and unlocked, when Moderator posts are WOMD from one day to the next, it deprives us of the opportunity.
...(horse related stuff - saddle pads, blankets, bridles, saddles, etc...)