posted on December 23, 2000 10:30:45 AM
I just completed a transaction with a seller who charged $4.30 for the shipping of her merchandise-- and $4.60 if I paid with PayPal. I didn't really mind the extra $.30, but I was wondering, are sellers allowed to do that? I didn't think so, but then I'd never seen it done before. Just curious.
Thanks!!
kims-kloset
posted on December 23, 2000 10:47:13 AM
And then that seller will stop offering PayPal, OR raise his/her prices. Then the next one and the next one and the next one.
The BUYER want's the convenience of using Paypal. The Buyer should pay for it one way or another.
If a buyer wants to keep prices down why not try to help by signing up with free services instead of insisting on using a service that charges the sellers? i.e. PayDirect or MoneyZap.
posted on December 23, 2000 11:00:34 AM
The cost of shipping and handling is totally different than the 'cost of doing business'...
CC fees, payment services fees, etc are all 'costs of doing business' and MUST be factored in the selling price of the item being sold !
Wouldn't it be something if grocery clerk told you as you scanned your CC that an extra 4% will be added to your bill if you pay by CC..???
Duhhh...???
posted on December 23, 2000 11:47:15 AM
I disagree, only because it is an auction format and we cannot control our final price, building the "cost of doing business" into the sale price. Although it is against Ebay's rules to upcharge for paypal, I agree that it is more of a convenience to the buyer and they should be willing to pay at least the cost of a money order and stamp to use it. Of course, this won't happen, just sharing my opinion.
posted on December 23, 2000 12:42:29 PM
Are We starting this crap again?
Of course the seller has the right recover
costs--ebay or no ebay yahoo or no yahoo.
For crying out loud!!!
Don't you think walmart chg for cc use.
You bet your butt they do.
The seller shouldn't have said what the
charge was for.
You got it right..!!!
Include it in the cost of the product...
Keeps the bidder from feeling 'ripped off'
with additional charges...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perspective...
The 10 Commandments: 179 words.
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words.
US Government regs on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.
Visit http://mrbucks.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
posted on December 23, 2000 01:33:51 PM
But if you really want to tick him off sent him the lesser amount via paypal, then send the extra $0.30 via paypal seperately. Paypal will deduct $0.30 for the second payment and he will get nothing.
posted on December 23, 2000 02:20:55 PM
I had a guy do this to me : item price + ship + paypay fee, I opted to send check based on principle only... I emailed him to inform that it was against eBay policy to pass this onto the buyer.. I was very nice, just trying to be informative.. maybe he didn't know.. i dunno.
not 3 days later, I get a warning from eBay stating it is against policy to charge 'special fees' which I NEVER EVER have done.
wonder who took that step to accuse me of that?
eBay reprimands now, find the truth later. uggh.
can we even find out who turns you in for such things??
deja deja deja vu believe it and it will come true!
posted on December 23, 2000 05:03:35 PM
[i]Wouldn't it be something if grocery clerk told you as you scanned your CC that an extra 4% will be added to your bill if you pay by CC..???
Duhhh...???[/i]
And wouldn't it be shocking to go to an auction and find out the buyer had to pay a 10% premium???????
Some people really don't get it. This isn't Kroger, Winn Dixie or Toys 'R' Us. It's an auction. What works for retail, doesn't work at an auction!
Bottom line: Is the ease, speed and convenience of paying via PayPal worth 30 cents to you? If not, use another payment method!
posted on December 23, 2000 05:43:26 PM
kimskloset,
Report this idiot to safeharbor and Paypal.
If she wants .30 cents more for using Paypal then take unknown's suggestion of making 2 payments via Paypal. Send her a $4.30 payment first then send her a $.30 payment right after that. Then she cannot say you did not pay the extra .30 cents.
posted on December 23, 2000 06:46:37 PMwe cannot control our final price, building the "cost of doing business" into the sale price.
Hogwash. I don't know what my final value fees are going to be either until it sells, but I sure can't see a seller emailing the winning bidder saying, "Gosh, my final value fees are higher because you bid so high, add another $1.10 to your final amount so I can pay my FVF." RIGHT
Sellers, if you don't want to pay the PayPal/BillPoint/Credit Card fees, then don't offer them. Don't give me the "Gosh, the buyers want it line". How many of sellers pushed it when it first came out, wanting that $10 referral & the ease & speed with which you got your money?
posted on December 23, 2000 08:13:08 PMSellers, if you don't want to pay the PayPal/BillPoint/Credit Card fees, then don't offer them.
It's already happening with a number of items. And as PayPal continues to raise its fees and as more small sellers are forced to upgrade due to the $100 a month cc limit, it will happen with more.
PayPal really played this whole fee thing in a very stupid way. It had a chance to do things differently -- but chose the traditional route (charging the seller only)
How many buyers pushed PayPal on sellers when it first came out, in order to get that precious referral fee?
posted on December 23, 2000 11:59:55 PM
You've really got to love these threads. The old debate rages on! In ANY business, the customers pay for ALL of the costs of doing business, whether they are credit card fees, bank charges, equipment, postage, packaging, labor, utilities, etc. That's right, ALL of the costs. Businesses that don't collect these costs from their customers in some form or another, along with some PROFIT don't usually stay in business for long. Isn't this entire debate moot? Whether the costs are passed on to the buyer as a separtate charge, incorporated into the S/H charge or absorbed into the closing price of the auction doesn't seem to really matter, now, does it? Anybody who has eaten at a restaurant has paid credit card surcharges, even if they always pay cash. The restaurant simply passes the charges (along with all of their other expenses) on to the customer in the price of their offerings. Don't think for a minute that it is any different. Auctions are a little different, true. Because of the variable nature of the selling price it is more difficult to "build in" certain costs.
Somebody posted here that as a seller, if I don't want to pay the paypal/billpoint fees, I shouldn't offer them as payment methods. Well, I do offer those as payment choices because I feel that by doing so, I attract more customers, I have access to the proceeds from my sales more quickly, etc. But accepting these forms of payment does increase expenses. So what do I do? Ultimately, my prices have to increase or I make less money. Since I am operating as a for profit business, I choose to increase my prices. This happens in one of two ways for auction sales: I bump my s/h charge by a fraction to compensate for the percentage (approx. 50%) of sales that are typically paid by paypal/billpoint or I sell my item for more money. Now, remember that these sales occur as a direct result of an auction so my price is driven by the market competition for my product (which has increased because I attracted more customers because I take paypal/billpoint)...You see, this could go on for ever, but in the final analysis, businesses are out to MAKE money.
posted on December 24, 2000 10:10:35 AM. The old debate rages on! In ANY business, the customers pay for ALL of the costs of doing business, whether they are credit card fees, bank charges, equipment, postage, packaging, labor, utilities, etc. That's right, ALL of the costs.
Sure. But not all costs are incurred by all customers, and it's intuitively correct to figure out a way to make the same profit on each sale.
All else being equal, a business which can make equal profit will be able to offer lower prices than a business which is making unequal profit.
That's not an argument that CC charges should be passed on, I've never passed them on and have no plan to. But there is nothing unethical or otherwise indefensible about passing such charges on, subject to laws passed at the request of credit card companies.
posted on December 24, 2000 01:42:59 PMSure. But not all costs are incurred by all customers, and it's intuitively correct to figure out a way to make the same profit on each sale.
Why is it "intuitively correct" to figure out the same profit for each sale? This idea flies in the face of "loss leaders" and other promotional marketing ideas.
All else being equal, a business which can make equal profit will be able to offer lower prices than a business which is making unequal profit.
But, offering lower prices just for the sake of lower prices isn't necessarily a good business strategy. The idea is to maximize profit overall, not on an item by item basis.
That's not an argument that CC charges should be passed on, I've never passed them on and have no plan to. But there is nothing unethical or otherwise indefensible about passing such charges on, subject to laws passed at the request of credit card companies.
They are being passed on indirectly. As are your shipping costs, loabor, etc. Otherwise, you just can't stay in business.
posted on December 25, 2000 07:22:12 PM
NOW I AM MAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just bid on an item and here is what the sellers EOA states,
"Please Make a Money Oder ..MO . or a Check to ............xxxxxxx no further charges......... OR for a VISA /MC IS OK.....+3% FOR THE
BANKS../BILL POINT "" ( 2% FOR ""PAY PAL..VISA./MC."" ... "
So am I to understand that if I pay this seller using Billpoint I have to pay 3% more ?!?!?!?!?
Or if I pay via Paypal, I have to pay 2% more ?!?!?!
posted on December 25, 2000 07:57:57 PM
Well I just called this seller and explained to him that I was going to pay for my item via Paypal and that I WAS NOT GOING TO PAY ANY EXTRA PERCENTAGE !
I also explained to him that these services are to benefit both buyer and seller and that being a seller myself, the benefit is more for the seller in getting paid faster and not the buyer.
I find it hard to believe that this seller has about a 150 feedback with no negatives !
posted on December 25, 2000 08:34:40 PMIt is a shame I will have to be his first.
I'm assuming that the fee was not mentioned in the auction, right?
If that's the case, and the seller is not willing to budge on it, I think he does deserve a neg. Charging additional fees that are not mentioned in the auction is not acceptable.
If a seller is charging fees that are not mentioned in the auction, potential bidders should have the right to know that. If you don't give him a neg, you are assisting him in his underhanded techniques.
posted on December 25, 2000 09:12:56 PMCix Yes this seller deserves a neg (complaint) if they don't budge on the fees. Make sure you report them to safeharbor though.
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on December 25, 2000 10:23:22 PM
Gee whiz, Cix - It's Christmas, for Petey's sake! I think you're really flying off the handle on this one. Give the seller an opportunity to retract his/her policy, explain your point of view, and suggest an alternative way of coping with new fees that's worked for you. If the person doesn't give, then consider a neutral or neg. I've found all the fees hard to stomach, too, and am trying to figure out a way to recoup some of them while still passing along a good value to my customers. Passing along charges is a common reaction (albeit hasty, perhaps). If you wanted the item badly enough to bid on it and win, give the seller a chance.
JMHO, Di
On a scale of 1 to 10...we'd all weigh a lot less!
posted on December 26, 2000 04:34:38 AM
If the seller wants to charge fees, then he should state it in the auction. If a seller does not want to use Paypal/Billpoint, then he should state it in the auction OR simply remove the Paypal/Billpoint logo from the auction.
If I see a Paypal/Billpoint logo on an auction and there is nothing stated in the auction about extra charges or fees for using Paypal/Billpoint then I am going to bid and pay via Paypal/Billpoint.
I might even bid if the seller states he will charge fees, BUT I want to know up front and not after the auction is over !
I tried calling Paypal, but they were closed and I did email ebay, but no reply yet.
posted on December 26, 2000 05:31:13 AM
If the seller put this information into the EOA, but it was not included in the original auction description, wouldn't that constitute changing the auction terms after EOA?
And why wasn't this information in the original auction description?
It seems as though the seller knows exactly what she is doing here, and thinks her bidders don't.
My local supermarket offers a discount at the checkout if I bring my own bags, but they don't charge me extra if I don't bring my own. The cost of bags is factored into the prices of the things I buy. Similarly, many gas stations offer a discount for paying cash, but not a surcharge for using a CC or ATM card.
I'm no fan of PayPal, by any stretch of the imagination, but if sellers want to offer it (or any other fee-based payment services), it seems that they should be factoring those costs into their opening bid just as B and M businesses factor the costs of credit cards, shopping bags, and so on into their prices.
As for sending the extra 30¢ via a second PayPal payment and costing the seller an extra fee, it's a fun thought, but better check the current PayPal TOS and make sure it won't cost the bidder more than 30¢ to do it. There was quite a bit of rumbling among sellers about this very notion back when all the new fees and other changes first began to hit the fan, and there may be something in the TOS which would discourage the bidder from doing it.
