posted on August 8, 2001 06:48:31 AM new
Could this be what they want? Consider a day with only 1 auction to get out. The item sold for $5.00 at auction -- a small, single, inexpensive item that will fit inside of a standard first class mailing envelope.
ACTUAL POSTAGE
$0.34 Small item - First Class Stamp
SHIPPING/HANDLING
$0.20 Pull item from stock (1 minute @ salary of $12.00/hour)
$3.00 Processing order (15 minutes @ salary of $12.00/hour - emailing, feedback, addressing, invoicing, accounts payable/receiveable
$2.56 Gas/car insurance/maintenance to/from Post Office (at standard $0.32/mile - 8 miles R/T)
$4.40 Time taking item to post office (20 minutes R/T driving, 2 minutes inside post office - 22 minutes @ salary of $12.00/hour)
$0.02 Materials
$0.50 Cost averaged fees applied to all items sold
$11.02 TOTAL POSTAGE/SHIPPING/HANDLING
$ 5.00 Auction Bid
$16.02 TOTAL COST TO BUYER
I cannot believe that this is what they want yet when it boils right down to it the sellers time and costs are not part of the auction price (the auction price is the amount that the seller is willing to part with the item). What is YOUR time and REAL cost per item? When a seller does NOT take into account REAL handling, the seller is losing a lot -- yet we all (or most) cut our handling to darn near nothing to make some sales.
Does the buyer really understand when the seller charges handling fees? Most probably do not take the time to consider anything except that they are happy with the deal they got.
posted on August 8, 2001 07:07:48 AM new
With all due respect to the thread originator & posters....Does it really make a difference?...This is yet another eBay CYA rule, created to protect THEIR interests (either directly or THEIR chosen Big Boy sellers) enforceable only thru the Snitch-bayers.
In the past few months their new CYA rules have included the dropping of website links, the abolishment of email access with transactional contact (or thru them), the yet to be established New bid retraction criteria and now this. They arbitrarily make decisions even with those policies that DO have hard/fast rules, how are they gonna decide what reasonable handling charges are? (I for one would like to use Butterfields/eBay Premiere/Great Collection, oh whatever their name is/was chart!) Geez, the listings are FULL of websites/emails/links whatever!...If they wanna establish sooooo many rules & actually be able to enforce them, then then damm well better get down off the "only a venue" pedestal and control the site!
IMO best you can do is do what you think is right, hope you don't p*ss off any customers/deadbeats or upset your competition & pray ALOT!
Whoops, looks like I forgot to take my attitude adjustment pill this mornin!
~ Rancher
posted on August 8, 2001 07:25:45 AM newhow are they gonna decide what reasonable handling charges are?
Personally, I really don't think this is an attempt by ebay to define what "reasonable handling charges" are.
It appears to be more of an attempt to answer the complaints (and we've had plenty on this board) about handling or surcharges being added on "after the fact in EOA's" or being vaguely worded in the view auction pages.
To me, the GOOD news was that you CAN have a handling charge (something often hotly debated here). More GOOD news was that it should be statedin some format (which I'm still awaiting a response from ebay to know what format they expect) on the view auction page. That let's the buyer know UP FRONT they are paying for more than just actual postage. Surely something which gives the buyers MORE information cannot be a bad thing!
The BAD news is if the format is as Excalibur131 has shown. Now THAT would really aggravate me as a seller and my handling charges are quite minimal.
I think ebay is responding to complaints by buyers who are "sometimes" caught by these add ons after the fact.
I guess it could be an attempt to try and flush out some fee avoidance problems but I think it's more ebay's way of being able to say..."hey, the s/h was stated in the TOS, you agreed to it."
posted on August 8, 2001 07:31:53 AM new
I hope you are right Eventer I add a small handling charge to my auctions as well, but it is plainly stated in the auction. And no, I don't even come close to adding the types of things that I gave in the example, but I have had to explain to two buyers in the past why it wasn't exact postage. Amazingly, one of those wrote me back and said they truly didn't think of things like that and when I got payment they had actually rounded-up to the next dollar for payment AND have gone on to be a repeat customer
posted on August 8, 2001 07:51:35 AM new
Eventer, I can understand the points you are making, however, it burns me that good, honest sellers like youself bend over backwards to make sure that they follow the letter of the eBay law (which certainly helps to keep the customers coming back) BUT the slimeball sellers will continue to hid costs and it will be business as usual for them, without them even blinking an eye or worrying about any stinkin' rules...
Looks like I need a double dose of the attidude adjustment pills today!!!
posted on August 8, 2001 08:08:06 AM new
It seems to me pretty clear that you can specify the shipping and handling fee upfront.
If it required them to be listed separate, then it would have said FEES and not FEE.
People who say "buyer pays actual postage" don't charge a handling fee anyway, so it doesn't affect them.
I will still leave mine open for International orders. I refuse to list every possible country and the shipping and handling fee. I list US Shipping and Handling and then let the International Folks get an updated total at the end.
posted on August 8, 2001 08:32:23 AM new
rancher24,
I understand completely!
Recently our Wal-Mart started requiring photo IDs when using a credit card. When I asked WHY the policy had changed, the manager said it was because some people were using fraudulent cards & they were checking photos against CC names (DUH...like if I was going to use a fraudulent CC, I wouldn't have fraudulent DL and other ID as well).
When I asked what percentage of customers did this..he replied less than 1%. So the other 99+% of us are made to feel criminal because of less than 1%.
To me, it's stupid to hassle 99% of your responsible customers just to "maybe" catch up w/the other 1%, but that's their way of thinking.
Of course, I'm always bemused when they ask me if the information on my check is correct. If I was passing bad checks, do they think by asking I'm suddenly going to blurt out, "No, it's all a LIE!".
posted on August 8, 2001 09:02:23 AM new
Eventer -- Most people who bounce checks are just being careless, not committing fraud.
When I had a B&M store, we never asked for IDs from check writers (and made a point of refusing to look at them if offered). But we did ask if the info was current, so that, if a check did bounce, we could call the customer & ask them to stop by & take care of it.
In six years, we had plenty of bounced checks, but fewer than a dozen that were not quickly covered after we contacted the writer.
i hope the reason you haven't heard back yet isn't because they hadn't thought of having sellers spell out what the handling is, and now they're thinking, 'hmm, now *that's* a good idea!'
posted on August 8, 2001 04:44:06 PM new
Hot darn..the phone lines to Miss Cleo are back up & running. I just heard back from SafeHarbor on my original questions.
Remember by original question was:
"I use the wording "$2.50 shipping/handling" in my auctions. Will this be sufficient to meet the policy or do I have to change it to read, "$2.00 postage and $.50 handling"?
Here's their response:
Combining the shipping & handling cost and stating them as one price is acceptable. Having "$2.50 shipping/handling" is permitted. If you would like to break it down, that is also permitted.
So, looks like no breakdown is needed (WHEW!) unless you WANT to. Using a single number and the words "shipping/handling" is sufficient.
kitty3,
After reading your post, I was beginning to wonder if I'd given them "ideas" also. But, if it were THAT easy, I have a LOT more ideas I'd gladly share with them.
DAMN ubb!
[ edited by Eventer on Aug 8, 2001 04:44 PM ]
[ edited by Eventer on Aug 8, 2001 04:46 PM ]
posted on August 8, 2001 05:42:45 PM newRecently our Wal-Mart started requiring photo IDs when using a credit card. When I asked WHY the policy had changed, the manager said it was because some people were using fraudulent cards & they were checking photos against CC names (DUH...like if I was going to use a fraudulent CC, I wouldn't have fraudulent DL and other ID as well).
It is strictly against VISA/MC regulations to ask fopr ANY other ID before accepting one of their cards. Anyone besides a giant like Wal-Mart would likely lose their merchant account.
