posted on June 9, 2001 05:54:24 PM new
>I disagree cash may be short today but fine next week it's called cash flow. Just becouse I don't have the cash in hand 7 days after the auction ends does not mean I can't afford the item and evan if I cant that is not the sellers business<
If you bid on one of my auctions, and don't have the money to pay for it in 10 days, you need to hot foot it over to bidpay, and pay for the priviledge of buying on credit. The whole IDEA that a seller is suppose to pay for the buyers priviledge of buying on credit is something that I will never understand, but the law says IF I take CC's I have to pay the fees, not the buyer.
Could I afford the 2.2 % + .30 on paypal payment and still make a profit? Sure I could, my profit margin is high enough, but WHY should I? Why is a something that is to the buyers advantage only, something a seller is even suppose to pay for. Why are cash buyers penilized BY LAW and forced to pay the MORE to the SELLER than CC buyers? (remember the CC company, or paypal, or what ever get their cut before the seller see's his money)
posted on June 9, 2001 06:14:28 PM new
microbes
The point is if i don't have the cash on hand to pay for your action in 10 days i won't bid ...but i will bid on your competitor who makes it easy to use my credit card
Could I afford the 2.2 % + .30 on paypal payment and still make a profit? Sure I could, my profit margin is high enough, but WHY should I? Why is a something that is to the buyers advantage only
no it is to the sellers advantage if it brings him a buyer who would have passed otherwise.
can you name a major store these days that dosen't take palstic...I can't
why do suppose that is while wallmart gets a more favarible rate than you or I it still cuts into the bottm line and if they thought they could get the same volume without it they shurley would.
IF I take CC's I have to pay the fees, not the buyer
I am not sure that is law but it is part of the tos from all credit card companies they want to make it more conveniant for consumer and want their cards used.
Its all part of overhead it takes money to make money
posted on June 9, 2001 06:35:48 PM new
I've NEVER offered PayPal, and approx 6 months back I quite offering Billpoint as well. [with the odd exception]
Have my sales/bids slumped, nope, not in the least. As a matter of fact when I compare some of the sellers offering the same merchandise as I do, that offer PayPal/Billpoint/ or have merchant accounts, MY items sell for as much as, and many times much more than what their items sell for.
I offered Billpoint for several months [close to a year?] and approx 80% of my high bidders still preferred to send either a check, or MO. My hunch was that the remaining 20% would also pay with either a check or MO if push came to shove. By the looks of my sales over the past several months it appears I was correct. Since PayPal started up I've had perhaps 3 or 4 high bidders ask about PayPal at auction end.
I'm also the type of seller who will ship to repeat customers before I've been paid. [just as fast as PayPal] If it's a low dollar item, I'll often times do the same, even if I have no past history with the high bidder.
I average 1 deadbeat per 100 sales & have only had 1 NSF check in 4 years, so the risk of getting stiffed is minimal.
With Billpoint it never was about the FEES, it was about some weenie waiting 5 months then charging back a $500 item. Sorry, but that kind of B.S. I can live without.
I think my feedback speaks for itself, and even on the high $ items I seem to do as well, or better, than those who offer online CC payments.
I have always accepted BidPay, and my International customers love the service as the $5 fee is peanuts compared to what they would have to pay for an International MO.
You don't need to offer Billpoint OR PayPal to be #1 in customer service.
Just ask my customers.
IF for some reason I see a drastic change in events, I'll be the first one to admit my mistake & go back to acepting Billpoint.
BUT, I honestly don't see that happening any time soon.
I know a GOLD power seller of antiques & collectibles who moves $25-40 K per MONTH, and he has NEVER accepted online payments.
I get $210 less 2.2 % (4.62) less .30 transaction fee, pay $1.50 to get a check from Paypal Net $203.58 AND I have to worry about fraudulant charge backs, Frozen Accounts, computer glitzes, etc.
Nah, I'll do it "the old fashion way".
Now, I will admit that if you sell "impulse buying" type items, it might help your bottom line enough to make it worth the hassle, but I know what I sell, and people aren't buying on impulse from me. Nor are the items I sell in such high supply on ebay that it is simple (or even possible) for you to find another IDENTICAL item. And on some of stuff I sell, the $5.00 charge from bidpay would be such a small % of the sale price, that if you wanted to pay by CC it probably wouldn't kill the deal.
posted on June 9, 2001 06:44:20 PM new
If you don't take online payments, you can offer lower s/h, i.e. no delivery confirmation.
Since I started actively offering paypal and getting all worried about chargebacks and charging for a method that you can put d.c. on, my sales have actually dropped. I'm not worried about bounced checks. Most people don't bounce checks.
posted on June 9, 2001 06:47:22 PM new
>"Just becouse I don't have the cash in hand 7 days after the auction ends does not mean I can't afford the item and evan if I cant that is not the sellers business"<
Unfortunately it usually does become my business because the customer doesn't pay quickly with a credit card or any other form of payment. Many times that is the type of customer who will drag out the three day notification period and say he wants to use his credit card carrier on the evening of the third day. Or he has trouble getting into the credit card web site for two days, when no one else has been. He is also the person who sends an unsigned check or money order and asks to have it sent back, rather than sending a new one! Takes longer. I am as understanding as the next guy, but the buyer's low funds do affect me and my consignment partners. No doubt about it!
We have been suckered into believing we need those Jordan tennis shoes, the Lands End jacket [even if our kids get killed for them], the newest video games, newest toy
hyped every Christmas.... and companies like PP are helping us do it. Instant gratification!
I was saying that everyone should have a choice and be able to use what payment they are comfortable with. I was comfortable with Billpoint, never was with PP! I did not like being strong armed by sellers to accept PP for the rebate, as I do not like someone telling me I need to accept CC payments because they don't have the cash. This is MY business, and no one elses. Although eBay seems to think they are in charge sometimes!
One of the reasons I took off the Billpoint logo was already given. Most of the small items I was selling the past couple months went first class. There was no way to protect myself or my customers unless I used priority. I then realized that I liked having two simple methods of paying. I like taking the checks to the bank, cashing them and using the cash for shipment. It is simplier because I don't charge shipping to my credit card.
posted on June 9, 2001 07:23:59 PM new
Night folks. Off to visit my auctions where you can buy silver lots that are 400+ years old for $10 including shipping if you use Paypal.
posted on June 9, 2001 07:49:20 PM newIsn't BidPay the one that charges the buyer something like $5.00 for a money order??? I cannot believe that anyone thinks they're doing their customers a service for offering that.
I give my customers a choice. I list Billpoint, BidPay, and PayPal as payment options in that order. Several times a month buyers will bypass Billpoint and PayPal and use BidPay, knowing full well that they are paying $5 for the privilege.
posted on June 9, 2001 08:05:41 PM new
>use BidPay, knowing full well that they are paying $5 for the privilege.
I've had a lot of bidpay payments. Most of them from overseas, but a surprising number from stateside. And some people pay more than $5.00 for the privilege, I've had bidpay customers pay the extra fees to have the money order express mailed (I am never in that much of a hurry for my money that I would ask someone to express mail it, but a lot of the buyers that do, also pay to have the merchandise overnighted back to them.)
posted on June 9, 2001 08:10:37 PM new
I spoke with a customer yesterday on the phone who loved BidPay, and said he was going to start offering it for the items he sells. Another customer called today to complain about Paypal. He was having trouble signing up. I suggested he use BidPay. I said, "there's a $5 fee for the service." He said, no problem, it's more convenient than buying a money order.
Paypal may be convenient for buyers, but it is very dangerous for sellers. It's even dangerous for buyers, from what I've read here. If you deal with crooks, it's only a matter of time before the deal comes back to bite you on the ass. JMHO.
posted on June 9, 2001 08:12:31 PM new
It would be interesting to know how many of the sellers that feel offering a CC increases their final bid amounts, also state Will Ship To US Only.
posted on June 9, 2001 08:20:32 PM new
I know credit card sales increse my bottom line and I state will ship international.
I will sell to anyone anypalce any way they choose to pay
i don't mind if they express a shipping prefrence or suggest how they would like they item packed,
posted on June 9, 2001 09:04:57 PM newMicrobes Sure, your scenario above doesn't show any benefit in using credit cards, but you're overlooking something.
Starting bid $100
Bidder#1 bids $200 and wants to pay by check.
Bidder#2 bids $220 and wants to pay by CC.
Bidder #2 wins the lot for $202.50. Sure, it looks like CC only made you an extra $2.50, but you're overlooking the fact that without bidder #2 it would have sold for the opening bid of $100 to bidder #1. So, accepting CCs would have made you an extra $102.50 on that lot alone.
posted on June 9, 2001 09:13:28 PM newIf you don't take online payments, you can offer lower s/h, i.e. no delivery confirmation. Since I started actively offering paypal and getting all worried about chargebacks and charging for a method that you can put d.c. on, my sales have actually dropped. I'm not worried about bounced checks. Most people don't bounce checks.
I accept PayPal and have rarely used DC. I just don't see any need for it on low-priced items. So what if I'm not covered against chargebacks? Chargebacks are probably just as rare as bounced checks. The extra money I make by accepting PayPal would easily cover any money lost by a chargeback.
posted on June 9, 2001 09:46:54 PM new
Eventer ...... Of course you do, I was just wondering how many of the others do?
I agree that accepting PayPal/Billpoint can indeed result in higher bid amounts for "some" items. But I'm convinced that for the items I sell it makes little or no difference, and the extra fees & hassles just aren't worth it for me.
posted on June 9, 2001 09:47:48 PM new
bkmunroe:
>Starting bid $100
Bidder#1 bids $200 and wants to pay by check.
Bidder#2 bids $220 and wants to pay by CC.<
A MUCH more likey scenario is:
Starting bid $100
Bidder#1 bids $200 and wants to pay by check.
Bidder #2 is a paypal only buyer, so he doesn't bid
Bidder #3 seeing that a $200 + item is going for less than half price (And is willing to buy a MO at the quick stop when he puts gas in his car, even if he would prefer to paypal), bids ~ $200
If I really believed taking paypal would DOUBLE the final price, I would sign up in a New York minute. (chargebacks and all)
Do you REALLY believe you get TWICE as much money for you items because you take paypal?
Do you REALLY believe that someone who want's something bad enough to pay $200 for it is going to pass up the chance to buy it because they don't want to take 2 minutes to write a check or buy a money order?
posted on June 9, 2001 09:50:38 PM new
Not too many fence sitters on this, is there? One side or the other.
I'm going to try not accepting on-line payments for a while, except for Bidpay. I'll know soon enough if it will hurt or not. If it doesn't, all the better for me. Simple is better.
posted on June 9, 2001 09:58:10 PM new
>It would be interesting to know how many of the sellers that feel offering a CC increases their final bid amounts, also state Will Ship To US Only.
I could name a few (I spend too much time on this board )
Shipping anywhere in the world does MUCH more for increasing prices. Somethings are hard to find some places
posted on June 9, 2001 11:10:39 PM newDo you REALLY believe you get TWICE as much money for you items because you take paypal?
No, but I do believe that more often than not the difference that a PayPal bidder makes is going to be more than one increment.
Do you REALLY believe that someone who want's something bad enough to pay $200 for it is going to pass up the chance to buy it because they don't want to take 2 minutes to write a check or buy a money order?
Probably not, but I know that the more convenient it is to pay, the more likely I'll bid and I'm sure there are others who feel the same way.
Recently, I found an item that I wanted to bid on with a high bid of $41+. I would have bid about $50+, but he didn't accept PayPal so I passed on it and it ended up getting no more bids. So, by not accepting PayPal the seller lost $1-$10 on that lot depending on the high bidder's max bid. A $1 difference would have been eaten up by PayPal's fees. But, a $10 difference would have meant an extra 20-25% for the seller. A big difference in my opinion.
posted on June 9, 2001 11:27:33 PM newI know a lot of posters say it doesn't hurt their business not taking it, but there's just no way to really know.
Sure there is. Check your records.
I did this with one particuar item that I sell regularly, and here are my results:
Acceping PayPal:
Over a period of 15 months: 17 auctions, average closing price: $7.13
Not acceping PayPal:
Over a period of 14 months: 22 auctions, average closing price: $8.19
-----------------------------------------
That doesn't prove that not accepting PayPal didn't hurt your business. How do you know you wouldn't have gotten $10 each if you had continued accepting PayPal? You don't. None of us knows what would've happened in some alternate future.
I accept PayPal because I think that it results in higher prices for the items that I sell. I can't prove it. I just think that it does because I know that I, occasionally, will pass on an auction that doesn't accept PayPal and I've had some bidders tell me that they only bid on auctions that accept PayPal. But, I also realize that there are people out there that hate PayPal. Maybe, to such a degree that they won't bid on an auction from a seller that accepts PayPal. For all I know, there may be an eccentric, PayPal-hating millionaire out there who was ready to buy thousands of dollars of merchandise from me until he noticed that I accept PayPal. Probably not.
[ edited by bkmunroe on Jun 9, 2001 11:29 PM ]
posted on June 10, 2001 12:45:53 PM new
I like the convenience of PayPal, but don't really mind sending a check. I'll cut the amount bid by only a dollar or two for that. Purchasing money orders feels like a lot of extra trouble and I will seldom bid on M.O. auctions (figure at least $5 to 10 off, even then would have to want it more). ebaY results vary wildly; but I think that when viewing results where similiar items gave different results the basement is very heavy on M.O. only offerings, and the high results are heavy on liberal payment options.
posted on June 10, 2001 03:37:36 PM newThat doesn't prove that not accepting PayPal didn't hurt your business. How do you know you wouldn't have gotten $10 each if you had continued accepting PayPal? You don't. None of us knows what would've happened in some alternate future.
In that case, you would have to also disregard any comparable evidence which showed a higher ending price while accepting PayPal. So where does that leave us?
Since you conclude that there is no way to know, let's go with that. Two sellers (A and B), one who accepts PayPal (A) and one who doesn't (B). A pays PayPal fees, while B does not. Since there is no way to know who will get the higher bid (as you have stated above), we're left with this:
A pays higher fees to sell his items than B does, with no way to show that it improves bids, aside from the "feeling" that it does.
Sounds like PayPal has done a very good job of advertising in order to convince people that they need their service, even though there can be no evidence to show that this is, in fact, true.
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Jun 10, 2001 03:40 PM ]
posted on June 10, 2001 03:43:36 PM new
I always look at payment possiblities when buying. I do not use a credit card unless I am immediately short on shipping materials.
I think, with all the problems, a check is the most accurate means of keeping a record of my payment. If the check is cashed, I have proof. If my buyer's check is cashed, s/he has proof.
I will save the seller the extra money. I will not go out and buy an MO. It takes too much time and extra money. If I am dealing with under $10 I usualy send cash. I usualy mail out items as soon as I receive a check. Have never had a bounced one yet.
posted on June 10, 2001 03:53:32 PM new
Just out of interest may I suggest that you contact your US Banks and say I have a UK£ cheque. How can I cash it? I guess I know the reply!
posted on June 10, 2001 03:53:37 PM new
What I don't understand is this...
...for all of the complaints about PayPal, and all of the rumblings that I've heard about lawsuits (class action or individual), how is it that nobody's actually done anything?
The beautiful part here is that PayPal just made it even easier for someone to go after them...if you read the "privacy statement" located at http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/privacy-outside
...it plainly states:
"Customer Service Correspondence
If you send us correspondence, including e-mails and faxes, we retain such information in
the records of your account. We will also retain customer service correspondence and
other correspondence from PayPal to you. We retain these records in order to measure
and improve our customer service, and to investigate potential fraud and violations of our
Terms of Use. We may, over time, delete these records if permitted by law. "
Therefore, by their own statements, all of these complaints must be on file with them.
Records that exist can be subpoenaed.
NOTE: Personally, I've gotten ticked off at them once, but things worked out in the end, so I'm letting it slide...no interest whatsoever in seeing PayPal getting taken down...but it would be nice to see them get slapped upside the head with some legal issues that would make them pay attention to the gripes instead of quoting the scripture of their policies.
