posted on January 3, 2001 01:46:56 PM
I'm curious, just what do you think now of there...
***Spam and Fee Avoidance Policy Changes***
eBay could give a rip at all the dollars YOU LOST during their outages and believe me there were MANY a couple of months ago. We all lost lots of dollars then. And none of us recouped our fees. How soon we forget.
So it really gripes my ass now to think they can prevent us from having any sales at all outside there control.
They don't own my stuff...I DO... and once it leaves there domain I can sell or give it to whom ever I want.
So for those that think eBay DESERVES a cut of your outside eBay sale....How many Dollars have you lost to them during their many outages? Does your outside sales outweigh the dollars lost during outages?
Just my 2 cents worth on this touchy subject!
.
edited for packer by packer!!
.
Having a BAD HAIR DAY! ...
posted on January 3, 2001 02:26:37 PM
Hmm. Let's take this to the B&M realm.
You put your condo up for sale with a realtor. Somebody looking for a condo contacts that realtor, who runs an "open house" tour of your property. You find out the name of the parties who toured your property and phone them directly, offering to sell your condo to them without involving the realtor (which in these parts saves you a 6-8% finder's fee). One of the parties agrees, and you close the deal. Realtor finds out. Does she have a claim for breach of contract and a legitimate demand that you fork over her finder's fee?
Say that in the foregoing situation you actually own three similar condos in that building, but list only one with the realtor. Again she runs an open house; again you obtain the names of the folks taking the tour. You sell the first condo using the realtor; you then contact the other interested parties, tell them about the other identical condos for sale, and sell those other three without involving the realtor. Can the realtor legitimately argue that, had it not been for her showing condo #1, you wouldn't have had the names of the buyers for condos #3-5, she deserves a cut of the proceeds on ALL the sales?
posted on January 3, 2001 02:33:54 PM
I still feel exactly the same as I did when I started the other thread. You pay to list 1 item, you sell 1 item, not 10.
Not only that, but the Spam policy eBay is working on will put an end to the majority of the scum sucking bottom feeders, which IMO will be worth the rest of the "small" problems/situations that may come out of this policy.
I asked this on the other thread, and never did get an answer.
Other than not being allowed by Mother eBay to sell multiples when only paying to list 1 item, what's the downside to their new policy, as it reads thus far?
posted on January 3, 2001 02:36:26 PM
Hi HCQ,
Well the first one owes, because that was a sleazy move.
The second one does not, because that is good business sense.
I don't really see what this has to do with eBay and their greediness.
Shoot, I got to go to work, I'll have more of an answer later.
.
edited for packer by packer!!
.
Having a BAD HAIR DAY! ...
posted on January 3, 2001 03:40:23 PM
It's "good business sense" to use another party's labor without paying for it?
So you won't mind, then, if I copy your auction pix and descriptions, or harvest your bidders' email addresses to offer them merchandise like yours off ebay? I won't have to pay any ebay fees, so I'll be able to undercut your prices. Whaddya say?
posted on January 3, 2001 03:58:48 PM
Hi. In the first instance the Realtor has a claim on the commission earned. In the second scenario......they do not. Why? Cause their contract for Condo #1 does not include condos 2, 3, or 4. Now....how does Seller get the info from the prospects? The Realtor does not owe that info to the Seller and if smart....does not give the info away.
I thought of another scenario while leaving the Mall the other day. I go to Mall and set up sales outta the back of my trunk. Now......along comes Mall Security, catches me at it and at the very least excorts me to the door and very possibly calls local Police and I am sanctioned with a tresspassing charge.
Does anyone think that I would have a right to do that?
Geez, that big ole Mall Co. charges rent, pass alongs and even gets a % of the sales of the stores that they rent to. The Mall advertises to get people in.....promos, special ad compaigns, even some credit cards. Sound familiar?
So.....if I got this idea while at the local Mall the other day.....what makes one think that they have any greater right to the shoppers that pass thru Ebay. Its Ebays Mall/venue/Site....they are entitled the rents that are generated by their efforts.
Of course.....un-announced blockades of the entry points are not a good thing.
posted on January 3, 2001 05:01:39 PM
Neither scenario is analogous to ebay's interpretation of its spam/fee avoidance rules, IMO.
Parking lot squatters pay no rent/commissions, and in fact are probably breaking local zoning laws. This analogy compares better to ebay bottom feeders than it does to its fee-paying sellers.
The realtor scenario also differs from what we're confronting with ebay. True, realtors bring prospects to a homeseller, but that's where the similarities stop. Realtors must be licensed, adhere to strict local, state and federal housing laws, and don't just parade a bunch of unqualified bozos through the property (at least a *good* realtor doesn't do that). They pre-qualify their prospects so that their clients can be reasonably sure they're ready, willing and able to purchase.
If ebay's said it once, they've said it three million times, and they've used the argument in several successful court cases: they're strictly a venue, no more, no less.
They are the Homes Guide that the realtor pays to advertise in. Listing fees buy space on their server, not all future rights to the prospects those listings generate. That's my take on it, anyway.
posted on January 3, 2001 05:25:07 PM In scenerio 2, the realtor didn't show the other condo units, nor helped to close the sale. The adveristing for the first unit was recooped by the sale. For ebay, they received the sale fee which brought the customer in, and got the FVF on it for closing the deal. The other items, you took the time yourself to bargain a deal, and close it. Ebay is owed nothing more than what was obtained on the first sale.
posted on January 3, 2001 05:47:34 PM
Here's one for the analogy pool:
Why is paying a listing fee any different than paying for a banner ad on ebay or any other dotcom? Does payment of a banner ad grant the hosting site rights to a cut of future sales?
I admit to being mostly ignorant about how banners work, so my questions are more inquisitive than declarative in nature.
posted on January 3, 2001 06:56:53 PM
Licensing requirements aside, the real-estate scenario IS analagous to ebay in that the owner of the property in question has agreed to pay a percentage of any sale proceeds of the property to a agent if agent's services (advertisiing and showing the property to interested buyers who contact that agent) result in a sale.
In scenario #2, the property owner is taking advantage of the agent's services (showing Condo #1 to buyers A, B and C) to not only sell Condo #1 to buyer A, but identical Condos #2 and 3 to buyers B and C. Had the other properties been a gas station and a farmhouse, rather than identical items, I'd agree with you, quickdraw, up to a point. But by showing one condo to all buyers, the agent effectively showed ALL the condos. More important, s/he showed them to buyers who would not reasonably have known about any of the properties had it not been for the actions of the agent.
Moreover, unlike e.g. a classified ad, which has a fixed price, both the realtor's and ebay's revenues are DIRECTLY related to whether and for how much the property sells.
posted on January 3, 2001 08:00:25 PM
Realizing we're in uncharted waters and just tossing around the possibilities, how about some other RL parallels?
For instance, what about the antique malls to which I pay both space rental and FVF fees (aka sales commission)? Their advertising dollars coaxed my buyers into the mall, their employees waited on them and wrapped their purchases. If some of those buyers happen to pick up one of my business cards that I place in my booths and I later transact additional, off-site, business with them, should the malls be entitled to a cut of that action?
If I'm in attendance at a RL auction to which I've consigned some items and strike up a conversation with the ultimate buyer(s) of my items, should I be prohibited from conducting additional (non-auction) business with them in the future unless I compensate the auctioneer? After all, he paid for the advertising, site rental and all other expenses of that auction, and I paid him FVFs.
I dunno, HCQ, but, in my mind at least, as long as ebay so strongly declares, both in word and action, that they're *only* a venue, I have a hard time reconciling their selective assertion that FVFs entitle them to what amounts to proprietary licensing rights to a cut of 1) every buyer's future purchases, and 2) the entire contents of every seller's *unlisted* inventory.
posted on January 4, 2001 12:24:41 AM
WOW!!!!!
fountainhouse....you really have a handle on all this stuff...I'M IMPRESSED.
I have to say I agree with your analogy of the situation.
But...just so everyone knows I DON'T practice the behavior of "bottom feeding". I sell OLD USED collectables, very unlikely that I would find 10 of a kind to offer to non-winning bidders.
I just thought it would be interesting to get everyones take on.....how e-bay is so worried about not collecting their fantom listing fees and FVF when at the same time they THUMB THEIR NOSE at us when site goes down and US SELLERS lose many dollars when our auctions close without accesess.
They don't seem to be to worried about gouging us for that.....now do they? We still have to pay ALL the listing fees, FEATURED and otherwise but get no benifit out of the last minute bidders, and when our bill comes there is all the fees, LISTING, FEATURED & FVFS. No problem with them there.
Whats wrong with this picture?
.
edited for packer by packer!!
.
Having a BAD HAIR DAY! ...
posted on January 4, 2001 12:48:27 AM
Interesting discussion, I guess it comes down to individual business practices. I have never thought about listing one item and then harvesting the emails to sell three or more of the same items. But then again I have never sold an item that captured more then 10 bidders.
ebay's premise is found in the misguided belief that the above is a widespread practice. Don't beleive me search the listings if you can gain access to ebay. Look at the auctions do you see more than 10 bidders in the average auction. Look at the hot items, and then do a bidder search of bidders 12 - 30 for the auction. You will note as I did that bidders 12 - 30 immediately placed a bid in another auction of a similar/identical item almost as soon as they were outbid. So a seller contacting them with an off ebay sale after the auction probably won't generate a sale.
Looks to me that ebay management is once again trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And the fix like most of their fixes is doing more harm than good. I think they need to stop prancing around with young zero experience managers and get some top notch professionals in there. But then again top notch professionals don't work just the prestige of working for a company. They expect big bucks, and sadly with the exception of Meg and ebay's founders they aren't paying the big bucks.
posted on January 4, 2001 12:51:48 AM
How about this variation of HC's scenario:
You put your condo up for sale with a realtor. Somebody looking for a condo contacts that realtor and schedules an "open house" tour of your property but the realtor's car breaks down (has an outage) and he/she isn't able to do the tour. You find out the name of the parties who wanted to tour your property and phone them directly, offering to sell your condo to them without involving the realtor. One of the parties agrees, and you close the deal. Realtor finds out. Does he/she have a claim for breach of contract and a legitimate demand that you fork over her finder's fee?
I don't know the answer. Just curious what you think.
posted on January 4, 2001 01:07:08 AM
cybercat the realtor gets their fees regardless. You have a contract with the realtor. I recently sold a condo to a relative. The day after I listed the condo with a realtor the relative expressed an interest in it. We drew up a contract and closed the deal in three days. I informed the realtor the condo had been sold and they asked for their commission. I didn't feel I owed the commission since I found the buyer, drew up the contract, and closed the deal. My lawyer advised me that I didn't have to draw up the contract, didn't have to close the deal and had a contract with a realtor to perform all of those services for a fee. My choice to not take advantage of what I was paying for was my mistake. But he negotiated a reduced commission with the realtor, instead of 5% I paid 3%.
posted on January 4, 2001 01:20:32 AM
You should have let the listing period run out and you would have been free to sell to the relative as they were not brought to you by the realtor.
posted on January 4, 2001 05:46:37 AM
Last year I sold more items "after auction" to bidders who COULDN'T BID during eBay outages. Do I feel guilty eBay didn't get their commissions? NOT A CHANCE. Were they consoling me while I was freaking out my listings were closing and they weren't declaring hard outages? NO. So, after being contacted by my bidders, should I have said, sorry you have to go through eBay? NOT A CHANCE.
Fee avoidance, I take to be, when scum sucking bottom feeders go to other seller's auctions and spam their client list to sell identical items. That is FEE AVOIDANCE.
To sell identical items to your own clientele, without the benefit of eBay is also FEE AVOIDANCE, but at least they were your own clientele and not someone elses. I sort of understand eBay's position here, but since I have not had any multiple item sales, I really don't have anything to base an opinion on.
OFF TOPIC about the realtors. I recently had my home up for sale. The first open house, the realtor came over, announced no-one comes until 3:00 p.m. and left to do some shopping, leaving my husband at the house. Shortly after she left, a client showed up and viewed the property, came outside where my husband was, asked some questions about the house, which my husband answered and then announced she wanted to purchase the house. There was NO realtor around to help. My husband then spent 20 minutes trying to locate the realtor, while keeping the buyer at the house. This same buyer purchased and closed on the house. Did I have to pay for the realtor commission? You betcha. Can you imagine how frosted I was about paying that fee, when the realtor decided shopping was more important than selling my house and when it was my husband that answered all the buyer's questions and toured the house with her and managed to keep her in place while trying to locate the MIA realtor. However, we had a contract and HAD to pay - I still to this day believed the realtor DID NOT deserve that commission. But the laws were in place to protect her commission.
posted on January 4, 2001 05:51:05 AM
Good Day to all. Been a while since I posted as I got tired of the soap-box response attitude. I will refrain from further Grand-standing on that one.
Subject of the Listing via a Real Estate Via an Agent or a broker is very different. Some simple things here have been missed.
1. The contract used by a listing agent has a time-line that automatically extends the agents sale Time frame. Any sale generated via the original listing, ie... person finds out about property, delays purchasing until after listing contract is up. Still requires the listing agent to be paid in most cases. Most Agents have a clause in there that says "any contact that the "Open House" brings to the table for '90 days to six months' after listing is due to the listing therefore the agent is responsible for the sale and due the %".
2. Contracts are not a strong point among most of us here in the online sales Venue as we mostly sell our own merchandise. We Rely on the Forum of Ebay to advertise our wares. The end of the sale is strictly our responsibility. Ebay is in no way going to assist in helping us close the sale. They are an advertising method, forum!!!!! Real Estate Agents Do the Dirty Work For Us and Allow Us to Collect with little or no work.
3. For Ebay to play two sides of a coin and tell a seller, via the "Venue", that they can not contact underbidders to sell additional product is ludicrous. Ebay can do nothing to stop it, its like stepping on a spark in the wheat field. One spark does not light the fire, the Fire lights the spark in this case.
posted on January 4, 2001 07:45:20 AM
So there are no misunderstandings, I consider a seller's habitual solicitation of underbidders, intentional use of unreasonable reserves, and listings designed for the sole purpose of circumventing FVFs to be precisely those incidents that *do* qualify as fee avoidance.
I don't condone these practices (in fact, I hold a pretty high disdain for them), nor are any of my arguments meant as a defense of this behavior.
Rather, when speaking of fee avoidance I'm referring to the occasional off-site transaction initiated by a bidder at the conclusion of an auction. Examples include deals transacted with high bidders either for additional units of the same product, or for other, unrelated merchandise the seller may have in inventory (but which wasn't listed on ebay).
Like you, packer, I don't sell in bulk. My merchandise mix (antiques and collectibles)initiates the latter scenario fairly frequently. When a high bidder inquires whether I happen to have a #16 Watt Apple pitcher to go along with the #15 pitcher she bought at auction, assuming I didn't design my listing to invite that inquiry, I don't feel I have an obligation, either ethically or legally, to reimburse ebay any FVFs on the additional purchase.
If and when ebay ever revises its TOS to include the extensive legal verbiage that would be necessary to render any contacts made on the site proprietary (such as is contained in real estate contracts), then I would either comply with them or find somewhere else to sell.
[ edited by fountainhouse on Jan 4, 2001 07:47 AM ]
posted on January 4, 2001 02:40:08 PM
gravid - You live and learn. Next time I know what to do.
Well I guess ebay thinks that if it wasn't for them no contacts would take place. Whether that is true or not is another question. Now I sell computers and software on ebay. I notice that many of my competitors on ebay sell bare bones systems and then list all the upgrades on the auction listing with prices for the upgrades. Since ebay only gets FVF's are they entitled to a cut of the upgrades if purchased?
Afterall the contact generated from their site. But their site isn't exclusive to me, my customers from ebay could also be any of your customers on ebay. If ebay wants a cut of anything they view as originating from their site they risk surrendering venue only because if they want fees from all contacts. They have to assume liability for non-contacts. Which means they owe me a refund if my item doesn't sale. I can't see how legally ebay can have its cake and eat it too. By the same if they want the rewards of all contacts don't by the same create a sense of liability for the contacts that don't result in a sale, turn into a NSF Check, and so on. I can see no legal premise for them wanting the rewards of all the contacts without them sharng the liability of the bad ones. Again can't have your cake and eat it too.
Next thing they'll be selling the user database to the disney's and other preferred partners. Seems to me they looking for ways to fatten the purse without actually doing anything for it. Not a good way to stay in business. I think profits should be earned not created on technicalities. Espcially when you look at the limited liability they take for outages. If they want fees from all the contacts what do they do when the contacts aren't made due to instability and outages. I guess they use we didn't earn so you can't earn mindset.
posted on January 4, 2001 03:17:21 PM
I'm confused about what's being discussed. I know it pertains to sellers selling items off auction, but is it sellers contacting underbidders or underbidders contacting sellers?
I mainly buy and sell collectible crystal Christmas ornaments. If I sell one on auction and I am contacted by an underbidder wanting to know if I have any others to sell am I supposed to say I even though I do have another I can't sell it or am I supposed to send ebay a percentage as though I had listed it?
For the record, I've often contacted sellers when I wasn't the high bidder to ask if they had any more available. Not one single seller has ever told me no; if they had extras they have always been glad to sell them.
For those of you who think that after auction sales shouldn't take place, if you're contacted by an underbidder, what do you say? Wait until I list another one?
[ edited by london4 on Jan 4, 2001 03:19 PM ]
posted on January 4, 2001 03:48:54 PM
I guess what po'd me the most about eBay's policy is their declaration that I can't contact my high bidders in the future for off-line sales. Now mind you, I have never done this, but I think eBay is dead wrong on that issue. The analogy I have in mind is mailing lists. If I buy a mailing list, I get to use it once. However, anyone that responds to my mailing, ad, etc. becomes MY customer and I am permitted to contact her/him for future sales, without owing the mailing list company further monies.
posted on January 4, 2001 03:56:12 PM
bridwatcher - you just hit the nail on the head. Now what do sellers do to get ebay to see it this way. I think part of the problem is this mindset that some fellow sellers have created in ebay's minds that we all need them or we all go under. Sorry that is just not case.
In scenerio 2, the realtor didn't show the other condo units, nor helped to close the sale. The adveristing for the first unit was recooped by the sale. For ebay, they received the sale fee which brought the customer in, and got the FVF on it for closing the deal. The other items, you took the time yourself to bargain a deal, and close it. Ebay is owed nothing more than what was obtained on the first sale.