posted on August 28, 2001 08:32:21 PM
Everyone seems to think that lowering the starting price = more sales. That is just not always true. When I check my competing sellers who have lower prices, they do not sell any more than I do (and many times even less) yet they continue to list at giveaway prices, and even only have one bidder per item sold.
peiklk: I don't mean to raise the opening price to cover ALL costs. Just get the price up to a more realistic level rather than giving everything away when you don't get much bidding action. That's why all of those dot coms got in trouble, they were selling at giveaway prices and found out that you can't stay in business long that way.
You didn't see this many complaints about overcharging on shipping 2 years ago when there were fewer sellers on ebay. Now its obvious that some sellers are desperate to make a buck.
posted on August 29, 2001 04:11:21 AM
First I usually state a set price NOT "at cost" or "actual" -- I also use FedEx Ground a lot. Even when it is a few cents more on a smaller item than priority because I am going there anyway and standing in a line for 20 minutes to save $1.00 is silly. When you go FedEx they don't plaster the cost on the face of the package for the whole world to see.
posted on September 10, 2001 03:51:20 AM
posted on August 28, 2001 08:38:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It never ceases to amaze me that buyers willingly agree to a payment for something that is nothing less than a tacit acceptance to the TOTAL price paid to receive something."
And it never ceases to amaze *me* how some sellers will jump to defend the unethical behavior of other sellers no matter what. Over-inflated shipping and "handling" charges *are* a rip-off, no ifs, ands, or buts. I suspect most sellers who "pad" shipping charges do so because their item didn't sell for as much as they'd hoped. Too bad. I'm mainly a buyer, selling only occasionally, but when I do sell, I charge the buyer exactly what it costs me for shipping. Not one penny more. If my item doesn't bring as much as I hoped it would, I don't try to make it up on shipping. I take the loss and hope to make it up on the next sale, as all *honest* sellers should.
posted on September 10, 2001 04:52:38 AM
When every buyer on eBay takes a moment to email every seller who does not clearly state shipping in the auction, we'll stop having these threads.
When every seller states shipping, this will also stop. On items under 5 pounds, it's easy. For over 5 pounds: Take a piece of paper, make a column that goes from 6 pounds to whatever the average weight of your items tends to be. Now go to the USPS website, and find the cheapest and the most expensive US shipping rate for each weight based on zip code. (For eg. if you live in WA state, the cheapest would be another zip in your state, and the most expensive would be a zip on the East Coast.) Now you have an easy checklist up to whatever weight you chose, and there's no more guessing - you can at least put a range of shipping costs in your auction.
There are exceptions to everything, so I know furniture and the like don't qualify for this, but most people complain about small items.
posted on September 10, 2001 12:14:46 PM
Just a followup:
The seller DID refund the $3.69 and apologized for miscalculating the weight and shipping without insurance. I am happy, he is happy...it got worked out with commnication.
Please remember that the WHOLE purpose of this thread was to say that when an UNSTATED "handling fee" increases the cost of item by more than 35%...something is DRASTICALLY wrong with the way an auction is being done.
I have NO problem paying for peanuts, and bubble wrap, and even "standing-in-line-shoe-leather" if it is listed UP FRONT! But I will.... TO MY DYING DAY... protest being POKED after the fact and being told "it's OK".
posted on September 10, 2001 12:29:04 PM
thepackratsattic said: "Please remember that the WHOLE purpose of this thread was to say that when an UNSTATED "handling fee" increases the cost of item by more than 35%...something is DRASTICALLY wrong with the way an auction is being done."
Glad everything worked out, but this statement is 100% false.
Neither shipping NOR handling have ANYTHING to do with the final price of the item. Period. End of discussion. If you had paid more, then the handling fee would not have been 35% of the value, but less. Would you have accepted it then?
I agree that it should be stated up front -- and if not, THEN THE BUYER SHOULD INQUIRE BEFORE BIDDING. But the $3.69 still seemed quite reasonable.
Regardless, as long as the buyer and seller are both happy in this matter, then so be it. But I do take exception to the "point" of the matter being stated as fact when it is something so clearly false.
posted on September 10, 2001 12:49:24 PM
"S&H have NOTHING to do with the final price of an item?????"
What planet do you operate in?
EVERY item sold (new & used) has some type of s&h value in its price whether it is a box of Cheerios or a new Town Car. It just seems that on eBay it has become an almost acceptable way to bump up a sales price COMPLETELY at the discretion of a seller and AFTER the fact, by hiding behind the generic "actual" term. I don't know what business you are in, but if s&h isn't a part of your cost of goods, then you have one of the most unique accounting systems in existence!
If a seller is too lazy to put a shipping amount IN the auction up front, then they deserve to be "nit-picked" over what actual means when they try to run up the sale after bidding is over.
I will agree to:
Emailing for clarification on the promise of EVERY seller out there to be setting in front of their computer for the final 4 hours of EACH of their auctions to IMMEDIATELY answer a question. If the seller chooses to list an item without ALL the information spelled out, and isn't available to handle inquires (ESPECIALLY during the final couple of "hot" hours!), then why should a buyer be expected to be able to make an informed decision?
The bottom line is: Gouging IS going on and it can't be defended by "the buyer should have...."
posted on September 10, 2001 12:58:27 PM
Also...."the $3.69 seemed quite reasonable."
That overcharge might seem reasonable on a $50 or $100 item, but NOT on something that sold for $9.99....that isn't "just $3.69"....it is a 37% INCREASE in the sale price! Win an auction for $500 with "actual" as the shipping and pay $185.00 ABOVE the actual charges and see how happy YOU would be to defend the sellers right to do this?
posted on September 10, 2001 01:08:14 PM
thepackratsattic: You need to re-read what I wrote. I stand by it and your response has NOTHING to do with what was said.
You stated that it's wrong when handling increases the cost of an item by more than 35%.
I corrected you by stating that the handling fee has nothing to do with the cost of the item.
You replied with insults that make it seem like you didn't read what was written.
An item sold for $10 with a $3.50 shipping and handling has had the shipping and handling "increase the cost of the item" by 35%.
An item sold for $100 with a $3.50 shipping and handling has had the shipping and handling "increase the cost of the item" by 3.5%.
And item sold for $1 with a $3.50 shipping and handling has has the shipping and handling "increase the cost of the itme" by a whopping 350%!
THE SHIPPING AND HANDLING HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL COST OF THE ITEM. Shipping and Handling are shipping and handling and are not based on a % of the item. Correctly then, shipping and handling is not judged as FAIR or UNFAIR based on what % it is of the final price of the item.
Got it now? Not sure it can get much clearer than that.
But again -- it is the BUYER'S reponsibility ALONE to ask up front before they bid. Not the sellers! Certainly sellers should (and most do) put the shipping and handling fee in the TOS (when possible, obviously. I don't for international shipments). If they seller has not listed it -- the bidder SHOULD NOT BID until they get the information they need. To do otherwise is foolishness on the part of the bidder -- no matter what the reason.
After the auction is closed, the seller can list whatever they want for shipping and handling and YOU AGREED TO IT UP FRONT. Just because you NOW don't think it was fair does not give you the right to back out of your word. In this case, the seller listed a "reasonable" shipping and handling. More than you might have liked, but still reasonable (not gouging). You failed in not finding out up front. And if the seller is not around to answer question -- THEN YOU DON'T BID. Simple.
But again, since the seller appeased you and you are both "happy" then that is cool.
But the fact remains that shipping and handling are not tied to the final cost of the item. Period.
posted on September 10, 2001 01:11:13 PM
We made over $50,000 in profit from our shipping department over the last fiscal year. We make a little more than a dollar / item on our shipping. However, you do get the item professionally packed in a custom designed box.
We have raised our shipping rates twice in the last year. Both times were to adjust for postage and packaging cost increases.
Making money from shipping is legitmate. The key is to do it without really annoying the customer.
posted on September 10, 2001 01:15:37 PM
thepackratsattic said:
"That overcharge might seem reasonable on a $50 or $100 item, but NOT on something that sold for $9.99....that isn't "just $3.69"....it is a 37% INCREASE in the sale price! Win an auction for $500 with "actual" as the shipping and pay $185.00 ABOVE the actual charges and see how happy YOU would be to defend the sellers right to do this?
"ACTUAL should mean ACTUAL
"HANDLING should mean HANDLING....and STATED!"
============
There are TWO separate charges here and you keep blurring them.
SALE PRICE = The final price of the item.
SHIPPING AND HANDLING = ALL charges associated with getting the item from point A (seller) to point B (buyer). Includes postage, packaging, labor, etc. "Actual" means he charges you for EVERYTHING included and doesn't trim it off to save you some money. "Actual shipping" does not just mean postage.
Where your anger is getting in the way of your argument is your choice of words. The $3.69 was NOT an increase in the sale price of the item as you keep stating. The $3.69 was part of the shipping and handling fee. The item remained the same price since the auction closed. He never increased it -- based on what you've told us.
Actual shipping, as stated above, does not mean just the postage fees. Postage is a small part of "shipping". But most know this.
Regardless, the bulk of blame falls on the buyer for not clarifying up front and then complaining after the fact.
posted on September 10, 2001 02:09:33 PM
There isn't really any anger involved here.
I am just stating what I have seen become a more and more prevelent problem on eBay; especially with lower priced items and new sellers who are seeing this be "acceptable" and defendable".Your statements seem to say "actual" can mean ANYTHING that a seller chooses it to mean AFTER an auction closes. In my experiences and from what has appeared on many other threads, this handling GOUGING occurs most often on low-end priced items and on auctions that end with only one bidder. I guess handling can also mean: "expected profit" then?
If there is anything that I am getting upset about is the fact that you keep defending a sellers "right" to treat a buyer any way they choose after the fact and HIDE behind the word "actual" by playing semantics! By using that theory, a seller is perfectly justified in tacking on ANY charge they wish and so long as they use the term "handling" and it becomes a case of "buyer beware/tough noogies cause you didn't ask first". The kind of thinking that defends s&h gouging is the type that can't see why on line auctions have been put under so much scrutiny and bad press in the recent past.
That sir, is very SHORT term thinking!
This is a no win situation until eBay does something about it. I would be willing to bet they originally meant "actual" to mean "what the postage meter strip reads" when they chose that word in the first place as an option.
It is just a shame that they haven't fumbled around deep enough in their pants to find a set of gonads big enough to FIX the problem so that buyers aren't being taken advantage of!
And just so you are clear on the "cost" issue.....s&h always has been, and always will be a part of the cost of aquistion and therefore ANY gouging for s&h DOES increase the REAL cost of an item!
If you pay $1,000,000 for a painting from a Christie's auction...AND PAY A 10% BUYER PREMIUM.....your real price paid becomes $1,100,000 doesn't it? SAME difference!
I totally agree with you that a "one size fits all" would be disastrous. However, something must be done to clarify the ABUSE of s&h and the vagueness that the word "actual" has come to mean! I would think that those of you that are sellers-only would be the most vocal with this topic since those sellers who ABUSE s&h and the word "actual" are giving all sellers a bad name!
I am getting to the point that I am starting to bypass auctions without a stated amount for shipping and/or handling just because the ABUSE is becoming far too prevelent to keep taking a chance that the seller is going to play fair with each of his auctions.
Fewer bids means fewer serious buyers and that translates into only one thing: FEWER SALES & PROFITS FOR SELLERS!
posted on September 10, 2001 03:56:41 PM
"I am getting to the point that I am starting to bypass auctions without a stated amount for shipping and/or handling "
And THAT was the solution in the first place.
I am not defending anyone's right to gouge someone. It seems that in this case, he stated after the auction what his shipping and handling would have been BEFORE the auction. It did not seem excessive.
I was also pointing out your error in comparing the shipping and handling fee to the final cost of the item. Shipping and handling are not properly gauged as a percentage of the final cost of the item.
As for your Christies analogy, it fits my argument PERFECTLY. Ebay fees are paid by the seller, not the buyer. Christie's fees are paid by the seller -- it's a different matter entirely. And if the item purchased at Christies was too unwieldy to transport yourself, you can bet you'd pay someone a delivery fee -- and that WOULD NOT be a % of the price paid, but a fee based on the effort required to get the item from point A to point B.
The final cost of the item is what the auction ends for. What is out of your pocket is a different amount completely.
Regardless, I am not and have not defended anyone cheating buyers on ebay. I also believe that the seller should be as clear up front as is good practice.
BUT, the buyer is still responsible for getting all the information they need BEFORE they make a bid. If they cannot reach the seller and bid anyway, then they are liable for their actions and must accept personal responsibility.
If this guy had tacked on $50 for S&H, then you'd have a grounds for argument. But a $3.69 handling fee is completely reasonable. You're lucky this seller was easy enough to give you back this money.
posted on September 10, 2001 04:15:09 PM
Sellers get new ideas on how to inflate their shipping cost by reading their phone bill every month...now they have really got it figured out.I am glad they finally quit charging us for the Civil War.
