posted on September 24, 2000 09:49:15 AM
Mostly a lurker here at AW, but always a buyer on eBay.
Yesterday, while browsing auctions for the things I collect, I brought up one auction where the TOS said words to the effect "If paying with PayPal, winning bid must also pay s/h/i PLUS 1.9% of winning bid + (some nominal amount) PayPal/Ebay listing charges.
As a buyer, this completely turned me off. I would never buy from a seller with this TOS condition.
Sellers, if you are a business, or a merchant, selling regularly and accepting cc via PayPal, and you must pass on these fees to your bidders, then do what most brick and mortar business do. Absorb these fees into your retail (or, in eBay's case, resale) cost.
Determine your starting auction price, add your 1.9% PayPal fee of what you believe this item will bring at whatever the winning bid may be (search eBay for completed auctions on similar items), add in your auction-related fees, and list THIS amount as your starting bid. Anything above and beyond this amount when the auction is done should be nearly all profit for you.
As a bidder, there's a big difference in being TOLD you are paying for the convenience of using a cc in the TOS versus not being told (but the seller has already incorporated into the amount listed for the opening bid).
I believe the way a seller incorporates the PayPal charges, along with other auction-related charges, is indicative of how he/she delivers customer service.
Good point, I think what that seller may really be trying to do is let everyone know that we sellers are now being charge for what was supposed to be an "always free" service. A good number of buyers are completely unaware of what has happend between the sellers and PayPal. By doing so they also maybe trying to discourage anyone from actually using PayPal except as a last option.
Is it possible if you are willing to pass on this sellers auction , than maybe you really didn't want the item to begain with.
What's worse a seller who tells you upfront what he charges, or one who hides it in the handling fee or starting bid, both way you will pay for the PayPal service. So in this theory, PayPal is no longer free to BUYERS either. So many buyer are acting as if the recent PayPal events do not effect them. They don't really care if the seller is now "required" to upgrade or face "possible enforcement" in the future. How PayPal treats us seller should be a clue of things to come for the buyer. How long before PayPal says,"we can't make money this way, we now have to charge a transfer fee for sending money, but it is still cheaper than buying a stamp".
posted on September 24, 2000 10:35:57 AM
You are very right, antiquequest, in my opinion. Anyone who gets turned off of an auction because they see some fees that they don't like up-front, then they must not have really wanted the item.
oldfashioned: Isn't it true, that had you bid on that item and won, you would have received a **HUGE** discount off of what you would have paid in a retail store? You Bet that's true! So why squibble over a Seller trying to recover added expenses for YOUR conveinence?
The truth is, is that so long as those fees as "hidden", the Buyer couldn't care less!
And if a Seller has to offer thier product at so low a starting bid in order to compete that they have to reveal the costs incurred by them, then somehow - that's different!
All I see is GREED and SELFISHNESS on the part of Buyers when it comes to this!
posted on September 24, 2000 11:10:03 AM
I agree with the last two responses, but not completely. In the category that I sell in, a diecast is a diecast is a diecast. It is not a unique antique or hard to find item. There are many sellers auctioning identical item. If a seller states extra charges for PayPal expenses, handling, etc....., buyers will go to the next auction. For buyers, at least in my category, is not just nabbing a diecast, it's nabbing it at the lowest price. By lowest price I mean what the check, money order, PayPal transfer etc is made out for. It's easy to say: If you want it, you'll pay for it, but it doesn't hold true when there are many of the same item s for auction....
posted on September 24, 2000 11:25:09 AM
Borilla, you make some good points. Many cc buyers, whether eBay or retail, don't really care how the cost of transacting the cc purchase is absorbed into what they're buying. If it's a good deal, and the pocketbook and credit line are in agreement, consumers will buy.
Just from a purely personal standpoint, and similarly, I've been turned off by rules of sales usually posted in small brick and mortar businesses. If I see a sign in a retail store that says "You must purchase $XX amount if using credit card" or "X% added to all credit card purchases" and all I have is a cc, I walk out, regardless of how bad I want the item, or how good a deal it may be. And, in my state (WA), I seem to recall that those rules are against the law (I can't be completely certain on that).
In this auctions' case, it was a collectible vintage item that occassionally pops up on eBay. I've passed on this one, knowing that there'll be another one coming around the corner soon. I may or may not get as good a deal. But even if the item was a one-of-a-kind, I'd likely still pass. Or at least email the seller and explain why I passed on his auction.
My husband thought of a great idea that he's seen in b&m stores -- why not have the seller offer a percentage discount on total sale (1.9% perhaps?) if paying via money order or check?
posted on September 24, 2000 11:26:34 AM
You are right about when there are many of the same item. If that's the case then the one with th loset price would most likely be the one that doesn't take paypal or credit cards because that would drive up the cost.
I hope the part you agree with is that in reality PayPal is no longer free the the buyer either, because these fes WILL be passed on in some way shape or form.
My point is that, BUYERS, THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM TOO. Higher business expense is in direct relation to higher retail or auction prices. This is a consumer issue, not just a seller issue. Besides the fact the we feel like we have been lied to by PayPal and no longer trust them with our money or your.
posted on September 24, 2000 11:32:17 AM
oldfashioned
"My husband thought of a great idea that he's seen in b&m stores -- why not have the seller offer a percentage discount on total sale (1.9% perhaps?) if paying via money order or check?"
In your scenario you will still pay the fee for using PayPal so whats the difference.
Give discount, charge a fee? Either way it is the same thing.
posted on September 24, 2000 11:58:54 AM
antiqequest:
The original spirit of the thread was, OLDFASHIONED correct me if I'm wrong, some sellers are starting to add more to the "final bid price" that has turned this buyer off. Tell me what you would choose:
1. $25 final bid, $7 shipping
or
2. $25 final bid, $9 shipping/handling, $2 Paypal charge if you choose to use.
If you want to use PayPal, as a buyer the choice is clear.
I have not added any "additional" charges to either my starting price or shipping price. That's just what I choose to do. If someone chooses to pay by PayPal, I accept and transfer the money faster than it enters. I have my money in my personal account quick, and the customer receives their item quicker. For the quick transaction, I pay PayPal a minimal fee. I can live with that until another service catches my eye.....and trust me, others are starting to......
posted on September 24, 2000 12:04:03 PM
The thing is it is very irritating to be nickeled and dimed to death. How about--
Buyer pays 1.9% PayPal fee 3% package fee 1%
tape fee and .5% bubblewrap fee 2% fuel surcharge due to gasoline prices now special fee may apply if I don't have enough orders to bother going to post office. 50¢ fee for more than one e-mail question.
Just set a price that will cover all your costs and don't expect your custoomers to be interested in how they break down.
posted on September 24, 2000 12:14:13 PM
Macandjan:
You and me both!
If I ever win an auction with ridiculious charges (which I will not) I would request the following off the final bid:
$.33 for the stamp on the envelope
$.05 for the envelope (hey I like the expensive ones)
$.05 for the check I bought (again, I choose to buy the fancy ones with pictures)
$.xx for the price of the money order
Now, these are all cost the buyer eats for Ebaying. Some sellers will say.....well you can get money orders for free, well I say you can accept payment for free to, there are other services.
posted on September 24, 2000 12:56:28 PM
Report the auction to Safeharbor and that seller will probably fnd out it's NOT ok to do that.
Response I received from eBay:
Hello,
Thank you for writing with your questions.
No, eBay does not permit any type of surcharge for credit card use
(which is basically how funds are collected by PayPal). This is illegal
in our home state of California and we do not permit it in our auctions.
If you would like to report these surcharge auctions, you may do so at:
posted on September 24, 2000 01:00:37 PM"As a buyer, this completely turned me off. I would never buy from a seller with this TOS condition"
I would be turned off also. If it was a unique item I'd swallow my pride, but if there was competition that didn't employ such practices then 'poof' I'm off to bid on another seller's auction. I wouldn't say anything to the seller, I'd just move on. I'm not buying anything 'critical' on eBay, so if the sellers reads me a riot act on what they'll do if I don't pay, nickel and dime me with extra charges for handling, extra fees for payments etc. I'm not attracted. As a buyer I choose. As a seller I think I should make my auctions as inviting as possible. Before I charged extra for a payment method I'd drop the payment method.
When sellers thinking as a buyer don't find extra charges tacked on here and there a problem then I guess they've validated their decision to tack those charges on.
