At AU we allow that single bid on all sellers' auctions including reserve items. This is a seller's right under the rules.

I never fully understood why everyone on eBay feels this rule frowned upon so much that I get the feeling many think it ought to be suspended.

In contrast, establishing this rule as an absolute "regulated right" would likely put more onus on the true shill bidding there than currently exists. (I think if eBay management had said flatly that this single bid is a right and can be exercised by sellers without prejudice, would go a long way to remove the temptation to establish secondary accounts and the phenomenon of "innocent" shill bidders."

The misguided aversion to this single-bid rule by the multitudes on eBay I believe encourages sellers to get a shill account to hide the fact they might NEED to do the single bid to avoid losing money.

I'm willing to lecture anyone (bidder or complainer) who gripes about a seller using the rule that allows them to bid once -- even on a reserve auction.

Fact is, I wouldn't find any problem with a seller using it to start bidding on an item. You know as I do that the first bid is often the hardest to get.

Nor do I find fault in using the single bid to uncover the bidder's names in a reserve auction.

You should remember also that as our feedback is transactional, there is little in the way of formal feedback that irate users can do for your use of your one bid right.

Bottom line is that it is a rule, it is, considering all things, a wise rule and those who disagree should get over it.

neomax

 

On my website, I have for ONE YEAR held a
True, No Reserve Auction every Sunday Night.
I start EVERY item at ONE DOLLAR!
What's more, the Auction only runs for ONE HOUR! No buybacks, no interference. Results?
In over a year, I have lost money LESS than five times. Bidders KNOW they are going to get the item at actual bid price....and that draws traffic! I usually end up getting more
on some items than I would have originally retailed it for!

No, I don't like that rule at all...for ME.
But I dont argue your right to make it so.
Let's hear from someone else...some opinions, anybody??
Tom

 

I do not bid on an auction that the seller has bid on without knowing why they bid and I would not like to have a bid on an item and have the seller snipe this auction in the last few seconds and raise my bid. I think it would be better if the seller were not allowed to bid on an item within the last few hours of the auction or that maybe the auction would be extended by a given amount of time if they did so that the potential buyer could ask why they bid and decide if they want to continue in this auction. I try to bid my max at the time I place the bid but not all do this and if they were given the chance they might would up their bid if they had the chance. I probably would not, but my husband does things differently than I do and he probably would but only if given the chance.

 

Seller's really ought not interject themselves into the bidding.

However, in asserting the right of the seller to bid once and once only on their own auction, I believe that right does not require an explanation.

BTW: Hellon, our auctions do not end until 5 minutes after the last bid is posted anyway.

I might also point out that if a bidder had bid a proxy-bid higher than the "one and only" bid of the seller, the seller loses the bid and the bidder wins at that amount.

Just a little quirk I insisted be a part of our software based on the understanding that the proxy bidder is the first bidder at all values up to their high bid. Our software awards the bid to the first bidder at the amount bid by the last bidder.

neomax

 

They have a set of dishes that you want and your bid is now at $75 (although your robo bid the item at $135). They have the set listed because its been in the store for ages and they just want to move it. That's why they put it up for a $25 opening bid.

However, on the day the auction is ending, a cash customer comes in and offers them $125.00 to sell it to them. This customer is not on the net.

The shop owner goes in and bids the $125.00 to win the bid and sell it to this cash customer with six $20's and a $5.00.

I certainly don't fault them making that sale...

but, low and behold, your robobid was $135.... You however, get the auction and win at $125.00.

The shop owner has to turn down the cash and, noting your high feedback, would feel confident that you'll follow through on the sale.

The point here is there are more reasons than just the "forgotton reserve" to take into consideration.

Indeed, I see no problem with the seller having the opening bid because items with bids tend to get more attention than items without bids.

Of course the seller in this case would risk having to pay the commission ... but (on eBay for instance) that could be a better investment than a $2.00 bold face charge.

I will admit that some sellers could abuse it and, waiting until the last minute to make that bid, would be considered by many as abuse.

Don't mistake my assertion of the sellers right with encouraging them to exercise that right.

Bottom line, if they abuse the right, it will not benefit them.

It is kind of like all of us have the right to burn the flag (freedom of speech and expression) but that doesn't mean I personally have to do so. Still, I'm thankful I have the right to do so.

neomax

 

What I would like is a chance to know why.

If this person comes in and is willing to pay more, that is up to the seller if they want to stake their reputation on that bid they put in at the last minute and I agree they should have that right, but if I am the high bidder I want to know why they thought they needed to up my bid, and I would have no problem with them bidding for another person but since it is my money I want to know why I had to spend the extra.

I personally have had offers outside of the auction for items (I really should say item, it's only happened once) but wasn't willing to put my reputation on the line for the extra money, my integrity is not for sale.

Wouldn't you want to know why they bid against you before you sent them money?

 

This is also where Hellon's concerns come in -- the explanation.

Lee, you've already pointed out that the bidder would not likely accept the $50 boost (although most would be unaware if it were done deceitfully) and would not complete the auction. Of course that would open both parties to negative feedback -- the level of distrust what it is.

So, it would seem that in this case, the real intent of the seller was to bid for the cash buyer in the shop and probably get the goods back... really get them back so they could complete the cash sale in their shop.

What happens if they don't win the bid for the cash sale?

Certainly, an explanation would make sense but how likely is it that the seller could contact the top bidder before the cash buyer walks out the door? Not very.

So, the seller has a choice to make.

(The first choice, of course, was to tell the cash buyer that their money was no good... With an insistent buyer, you might have to do that:-)

The seller, believeing that the auction would continue, posts the buyer and tells him/her of the story of the lady with the six 20's and a five.

So, does that change the situation? Does that story make the auction bidder any more trustful? Lee, I suspect the bidder still wouldn't complete the deal, although they are legally obliged to do so.

We also have a seller who "has" or "had" a real cash offer for the goods, attempted to play by the rules and ultimately is being ripped if they do so.

Why? Because the bidder, as you say, doesn't accept or believe in the rules and distrusts the seller so much they don't believe the truthful explanation.

So Hellon, what kind of explanation do you think would work best?

The truth or this lie?

Hi bidder:

I though the $125 bid I made under the rules was going to be high enough to win the auction.

See, I had to win because the item was broken. I'm sorry you've won the bid anyway, I'll post a positive for you about how understanding you were of this unfortunate incident.

Of course the goods were out the door for the six 20's and a five, plus I'm sure all applicable sales taxes.

So, what's the verdict here?

Should people tell little lies that benefit themselves or fall on the spike, make everyone mad, lose a good sale all because they chose to follow a rule that is their right?

Of course, I think we all agree that the seller should be very judicious in their use of this right.

We should also remember that if the seller's bid came even a day or two before the auctions' end, the "truth" might be a little easier to swallow.

And I would ask Lee one final question as well.

Would you still be upset with the boost from $75 to $125 if the item really were worth $500 or even $200?

neomax

 

When I place an item up for bid it goes into my storage area that I set up just for that purpose and would not have a chance to get broken unless something happened to destroy that room, then that would be a completely different explanation.

In all honesty, I would not think highly of the seller that ran a store and didn't remove the item from the shelf or place a sold sign on it as soon as they received a bid, as that item is now sold.

So I guess really I am just not one that could really be pleased in that situation and I consider that to be my problem and not the sellers.

Hellon

 

But all this really started because of the problem that some reserve auction sellers have because we hide the names of bidders until the reserve is met.

Would you have a problem with a seller using their one-bid to "meet the reserve" and therefore unhide the names of the various bidders so they could be contacted after the auction?

neomax

 

Seller places a fairly new vehicle up for auction and the starting bid is 1.00, and then the seller bids 10,000.00, well I would hope the seller would do something because they made a drastic mistake, and I can then understand why they placed this bid.

In your situation the auction is about to close, reserve isn't met, seller places a bid at the reserve and then offers to the actual high bidder, see that leaves room for an explanation.

Hi I was the seller on this auction and placed a bid as that is the only way I could get your email addy.

Your bid was only 20.00 off my reserve.
If you are still interested in this item I will let it go at your bid price.

Anyway, you get the idea, I would probably not have a problem with this seller, but would ask that s/he tell AU that the item did sell and for how much, and there wouldn't be a problem as long as they didn't tell me something like, I was trying to avoid paying AU and so I set my reserve high so it wouldn't be met. In that case I will be running as fast as I can away from this seller and put them on my list to never buy from.

 

I don't think we'd be particulary eager to refund the commission fee when the seller bids on his own item.

Maybe if the reason was the item was broken or stolen or some such, but generally they are considered, with the restriction of only one bid, as a legitimate bidder.

Indeed, that as I see it is the primary "disincentive" to bidding on ones own merchandise:-)

neomax

 

Hellon

 

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mark

 

By the way, ebay DOES allow sellers to bid once on their auctions, contrary to a prior posting.

I have also used the reserve price feature in order to run auctions. I have found that they are generally less successful than a regular auction, since bidders are typically driven away by an unknown reserve figure.

I have settled on setting the opening bid at a figure that I am happy with. This way, there are no tricks and no games, bidders know what it takes to play, they don't have to wonder whether or not they have a chance at the item, and everyone will feel that a good-honest sale has taken place. Finally, I have a winner in my mind as soon as somebody places a bid. Of course, in order to be successful with this strategy, one has to learn not to overprice stuff. Similarly, if one buys stuff to resell on the online auctions, one must be astute enough to not overpay on the items he buys.

For me, it doesn't matter whether the "seller can bid once" rule is chaged, kept as is, or disposed of, since it doesn't affect me as a seller. If I face it as a buyer, I will ask the seller what is going on (if he hasn't told us in the additional description). If I like the explanation, fine. Otherwise, I withdraw my bids and run.
 

I think that you and I are in agreement personally.

I would ask you one question, though?

Would you accept desiring not to needlessly lose a substantial amount of money as a good enough reason for the seller to bid in his auction one time?

If you do, then I not only agree with you, you agree with me.

neomax
 

Here's my train of thought that led to that:

My gut reaction was "no, of course that's not a good reason." If I ended up paying more for an auction because the seller bid me up, I'd feel as if the seller treated me unfairly--much as if I'd bought an item at a store with a $5 price tag, only to find that my card was charged for $30.

It might be argued that, by placing a proxy bid for an amount greater than the seller's bid, I was willing to pay that amount anyway, but that's not really the case. When you place a bid, you're not just bidding on the item, you're also to some extent bidding on the integrity of the seller. Consider two identical items that you know are worth $750. One item is being sold by a new user with no feedback. You'd probably be wary to entrust $750 to that user. The other item is being sold by someone with good feedback whom you've had dealings and email conversations with before. You'd probably feel quite comfortable bidding $750 on that item. The point of that being you're bidding on more than just the item itself.

If I had known that the seller bid on his own items, would I have placed that original bid? Almost certainly not, since my immediate reaction is that it's a "shady" thing to do. Whether or not it's permitted by the rules, it still sets off alarm bells that would keep me from bidding on an item offered by that seller.

Here's where the contradiction in the rules comes in.

If a seller bids on his own item, then it's not the same item I originally bid on. The seller has in effect altered the minimum bid while the auction was running. And yet I'd still be obligated to complete the transaction. This is unbalanced in favor of the seller.

On the AuctionUniverse "rules of the road" page, it states "placing an item for auction is an irrevocable offer to sell an item to the highest bidder" and "bidding on an item is an irrevocable offer to buy the item at the price in the bid (etc.)."

By allowing the seller to place a bid, it's suddenly not such an irrevocable offer anymore, since the seller can withdraw at any time. The bidder doesn't have that option.

Allowing the bidder to retract his bid doesn't necessarily solve the problem; if the seller bids close to the end of the auction, the bidder may not have time to react.

Naturally, I have a solution. :-)

Rather than allowing the seller to bid on his item, all of this unpleasantness (perceived or actual) can be avoided by changing the rules like so:

* Add "provided that the auction runs to completion" in those "irrevocable offer" rules

and

* Rather than allowing the seller to place a bid on his auction, allow him to end the auction arbitrarily and relist it once with a new minimum bid (or reserve) for no cost.

While bidders may still be ticked off at a seller who does this--and rightly so, if there's no better reason for ending the auction--at least they won't be obligated to follow through on a bid they otherwise might not have placed. It's their choice whether or not they wish to bid on the relisted auction.

 

Those are valid points but I'm still not convinced and I'll tell you why.

There are several reasons.

First while the bid is an irrevocable offer to purchase at a particular price, in practice no online auction deal will be completed without the good will of both the buyer and seller. If, as you state in your example, you feel crossed by the seller in the circumstance mentioned (and you still have the high bid after the seller's bid) your primary recourse is balk at completing the deal. (I would recommend negotiating with the seller:-)

In this worst case scenario, the seller could leave negative feedback which you are able to answer using AU's feedback system. And you too are allowed to post negative feedback for the single sale which s/he could answer. If you decided to resolve the situation and complete the sale, of course, both of you could retract your negative comments and even post positive comments.

Now lets assume that we didn't allow the single seller bid.

You may have a winning bid of $200 on the $750 item and the seller is faced with losing $550.

That's a pretty good temptation and given that level of temptation and with no "safety valve" -- that is really what the seller bid is -- there is every reason to believe the seller will create a shill bidding account. Given that level of potential loss, it would be reasonable to go to great lengths to create the shill, even going as far as to signup with a new ISP for the shill account.

MGFrank... The value of the seller being able to bid once in a restricted and appropriate manner is that prevents the greater abuse -- rampant and uncontrollable shill bidding.

Indeed, the attitude associated with the seller's one bid on eBay, I'm afraid, has made shill bidding (any bid controlled by the seller not using the sellers identity.) the problem that it is. We've all heard the stories of how eBay understands this problem.

By proactively supporting the seller's right to bid once on their own auction (with certain additional regulations), it makes it easy for us to decisively and permenantly ban those who use a second identity to bid on their own merchandise -- everytime.

It is a loophole, but a needed loophole that prevents and discourages the greater abuse or rampant shill bidding.

neomax

 

That is what reserve auctions are for. To protect the sellers investment. No need for a shill or for the seller to bid on his own auctions.

I have experienced having the seller bid against me and I will never bid on that sellers auctions again. Period!!!

I don't know this for a fact, but I have seen it posted that in some states it is illegal for a seller or his shill to bid on his own auctions.

JD
 

If a seller bids more than one time then the seller is in violation of the rules and should be reported.

One needs to understand that the seller's bid is or can be a proxy bid and is handled like any other bidder's proxy or, in the case of AU, robobid.

AU's auction reporting software makes it easy to see whether any bidder is bidding multiple times as it lists the entire bidding process including the time the bid is first proffered. This allows the management and any other bidder to determine whether the seller's bid is one of multiple bids or simply a single, and legal, robo bid.

Again, by allowing the seller to bid the one time in their own name, the truth of whether the rules are broken or not is easy to see and clear to all who might look. A bidder who bids multiple times -- bids in increasing amounts and at different times -- is illegal bidding. Otherwise it is very much like a reserve auction in its impact.

Indeed, the real reason that almost all sellers choose the reserve auction if that is their intent over the single proxy bid, is that they are required to pay the commission if they are the winning bidder. They avoid this 2.5 percent (higher on eBay) penalty if they use the reserve auction format. Bidders don't like either format, by the way.

As stated above, though, the shill bidding account presents a whole host of other problems in terms of detection.

First shill bidding is never "obvious." Rather stealth and secrecy is the whole point of shill bidding. The shill bidder's name is different and often -- unless the shill bid using seller is dumb -- not easily uncovered except by the pattern of bids.

You may find the act of seller bidding once on thier own auction onerous but that act is legal and the seller won't be removed from the system for doing so.

Employing a secondary account or a friend to bid on their behalf to secretly increase the bids on an auction, however, is more than onerous -- it is illegal and, at least on AU, will result in their banishment on the first instance.

neomax