posted on March 5, 2001 01:49:01 PM
Hello Everyone,
We are posting this to address the concerns you have raised in the Fees Announcement thread. The thread authored by Mark Dodd has been locked as it has become unwieldy and difficult to read.
Here is an outline of the main issues raised, and our response to these issues.
Q. We don't like the 1% final value fee, and we're wondering how and why you decided to implement this pricing structure.
A. A great deal of analysis and evaluation went into our decision to implement the pricing structure as announced. We evaluated many different models, and based on survey data as well as competitive analysis, we came up with a plan that we felt would make sense to most users and would also support our business. Charging a small percentage of the final value allows us to keep pricing reasonable for everyone - from small sellers to power sellers alike.
The surveys we conducted with regards to fees revealed that most users felt that it was most fair to charge relative to sale price, as users who are selling $5 to $10 items with a small profit margin would not want to pay the same flat fee as users who are selling high-dollar items with a larger profit margin. We also did not want to go with a listing fee only approach as this penalizes customers with items that don't sell.
For our high volume sellers we decided to offer a more cost effective alternative. With our Power Plan you pay an annual subscription rate of $200 and $.05 per auction listing. The final value fee is then waived.
One change that we are making to the Final Value Fee is that we are changing the cap from $30 per closed item to $4.95 per closed item. This change will make the Final Value Fee more reasonable for those of you that sell high ticket items.
Q. We don't want to pay $200 up front for the power plan, even though that would be the best option for us.
A. Currently the $200 Power Plan is an annual subscription payable at the beginning of the subscription period. If you wish to eliminate the Final Value Fee on individual items, this is the plan for you. The trade off is that the $200 is payable up front.
Q. Will you offer a separate pricing plan for image hosting only?
A. This is an important issue for alot of you, because under our current pricing structure you would need to sign up under the Power Plan to use our image hosting service. There is a cost associated with hosting your images on AuctionWatch.com image servers. For those of you who take advantage of either of our billing plans and launch auctions using our services, image hosting is included in those plans. For those of you who do not launch items using AuctionWatch services or use the old image hosting system, the $200 Power Plan gives you a fixed price for your image hosting ONLY needs and helps cover costs associated with keeping these systems up and running. Keep in mind that our user agreement provisions for image hosting continue to apply.
Q. What if I have a deadbeat bidder? Will I still have to pay the final value fee?
A. If you've experienced problems with a deadbeat bidder, and would like to request a refund, you must submit a copy of your eBay account statement showing that eBay issued you a credit and we will credit your account for the Final Value Fee on that item. We want to make this as easy as possible for you.
Q. Why did you provide such short notice in advance of your fees?
A. We initially announced that we would be charging for our services eventually over 6 months ago. We have been openly stating that fees are coming for 6 months both in email and in the message center. We also allowed double the time frame stated in our User Agreement for our final announcement of fee implementation.
Q. Will your site be more stable once we start paying fees?
A. We understand that we provide services that are critical to your business success and are committed to site reliability and stability. Service fees will enable us to continue our investment in the reliability and performance of our systems.
We hope that this helps address most of your concerns. We are open to your continued feedback, but we will be addressing questions only in the AuctionWatch Services forums.
Chris Barker
VP, Customer Service
AuctionWatch.com
Got Questions? Check out AuctionWatch.com's Customer Service center at http://www.auctionwatch.com/service !
posted on March 5, 2001 02:03:54 PM
Well, it sounds like they listened to us and aren't budging. Thanks AW for letting me know, now I can go ahead and move to one of several services that offer all of the same benefits for less money, and monthly payments instead of $200 up front. Too bad for you, because I was one of the few people willing to stay here if your rates were competitive.
From what I've read here, I don't know if anyone will be staying. I honestly don't think one person has posted that they are staying.
I'm disappointed to go, it is a good service with good customer service. But why pay more for something when the store across the street sells it for half?
posted on March 5, 2001 02:10:31 PM
Not only are they not budging, they're lying through their teeth. WHAT surveys did you conduct, Chris? In all of the thousands of messages left in these forums since the fee announcement, not a single person has said that they were surveyed.
Also, if you've been announcing impending fees for 6 months, how come none of us saw them, including your own moderators? As recently as a couple of weeks ago, we were still being told in these forums that there were no plans for fees.
You guys just don't seem to get it--it wasn't the CAP on the FVF that was bothering most of us, it's the idea of the FVF itself! You have no right to my profit, period. And as a relatively small seller, this FVF cap doesn't affect me at all.
posted on March 5, 2001 02:17:02 PM
Users who might benefit from the change in price cap (those who sell $500 and up items) would already commit to the $200 per year subscription. This change means nothing to anyone. You're spinning the numbers. Do I have "stupid" tattooed on my forehead?
posted on March 5, 2001 02:21:33 PM
twinsoft: Send me your picture so I can tell ya.
I loved that comment sorry to razzz ya about it. I am sure you do not.
Yes, been hanging out to see what will finally happen. I guess I finally do not have to think about it any more. The good news is will have more hard drive space after removing AWPro.
posted on March 5, 2001 02:30:37 PM
I, too, have resisted posting until now, but after reading the above statement, I guess I'll be leaving also. I NEVER sell items over 500.00, so I am totally unimpressed with the "cap" on FVF.
posted on March 5, 2001 02:33:31 PM
Dissembling and duplicitous.
No dice, AW.
FVF is universally disliked, because sellers don't see you have any right to a percentage of their sale. AW is a SERVICE, and should be simple fee. The cap means nothing to small sellers (but perhaps they mean as little to you as they did to Yahoo).
AW is asking for a lot of trust in wanting people to stump up $200 for a service that is frequently not working properly. If the exodus proves to be what is expected by recent posts, just how long will AW stay in business? Asking $200 from those who use you for image hosting ONLY is completely laughable, given the free alternatives.
The request for screen shots of seller's Ebay accounts is way out of line. How dare AW ask for such personal information? Can sellers check out AW's financial records too? No... so don't be so ridiculous! AW obviously made a big boo-boo when dreaming up the refund policy for NPB, and is too proud to admit it made a mistake.
As for announcement of the impending fees... could you provide some thread urls that did such announcements that are more than two weeks old? Just when did you send out the emails saying fees were on their way?
And finally, service improvements... Most services recognise that their charges must represent the quality of the service offered. AW knows, and users know (bidders and sellers) that AW fails on occasion. Picture loading is slow, and sometimes fails. So, if you are going to "continue our investment in the reliability and performance of our systems", just what are you going to prioritise? I think if you are going to ask people to invest their money by staying here, they should be given an image of what you belive your "brave, new future" will be.
And finally.... WHY has it taken so long for AW to be forthcoming with the ANSWERS to our questions?
posted on March 5, 2001 02:47:20 PM
RB:
You are right, we've had so much of that lately. But it's because so many of us are shocked and disappointed, and I guess we just need to vent! Thanks to the rest of you for letting us vent.
By the way, RB, are you the one that is staying and paying?
posted on March 5, 2001 02:56:26 PM
They stays to suit themselves, when they don't be suited, they goes."
You posters are quite a hoot. If you like the service and it saves you a minimum of 20 hours per year....then bite the bullet and use it....oh and pay for it as well.
If you do not like it, well no one is holding a gun to your heads....stop using it, vote with your feet and move on.
All your whining, wailing and kvetching is not going to change things. Get over it.
Good luck with whatever your decision is and much luck in all of your hunts for stuff.
posted on March 5, 2001 03:05:37 PM
Ok, maybe I'm totally off base here, but what I had been hearing about charging fees were going to be the eventual charges applied to "certain premier services". Again, I'm probably wrong in assuming something from that, but what I took from that was that they were going to start charging for all the post-auction stuff and inventory whatever that I don't use anyway. So I was not at all concerned about being affected by this because I have just been using AW for my pics and for launching.
posted on March 5, 2001 03:06:41 PM
"By the way, RB, are you the one that is staying and paying?"
No ... I have never used any of the AW services, except the message center. I'm kinda hoping that after this thing settles out, there will still be someone here to talk to though
posted on March 5, 2001 03:07:50 PM"We also did not want to go with a listing fee only approach as this penalizes customers with items that don't sell."
Does this mean, we will have our "listing fee" refunded if the item doesn't sell or we get to keep listing it until it does sell at the original listing fee????
posted on March 5, 2001 04:07:34 PM
Based on survey data......"
"The surveys we conducted with regards to fees revealed that most users felt......"
===============
They didn't say who they surveyed...could have been the office help, the moderators,
all the execs, their friends selling on eBay!
Anyone.
posted on March 5, 2001 04:36:38 PMAll your whining, wailing and kvetching is not going to change things. Get over it
You couldn't be more wrong. In three days, the FVF was capped at 1%. Three more days and perhaps they will drop it all together and everyone will be happy.
The problem with just leaving is that many people are comfortable with using AW for their auctions. (maybe too comfortable) These people would be willing to stay if a reasonable option was presented. Currently, Ebay and Blackthorne are putting the finishing touches on their auction management program. Once it is available, AW will have serious competition and will have to adjust their fees accordingly.
No matter how rude or abrasive some of the posts here are, they all represent constructive feedback for the management of AW. They have only one choice, listen to their users and find a suitable compromise that will retain a substantial enough user base and also provide them the revenue they need to survive and prosper.
All that was needed to eliminate this entire bloody mess was a simple post from AW explaining the need to charge fees and ask for feedback first.
posted on March 5, 2001 04:58:27 PM
What a royal pain in the....to pull up a 50 page Ebay statement searching for that deadbeat bidder refund, making copies, sending to AW, I see alot of wasted time here trying to get a refund for a listing. It's not worth the hassel and time spent. AW accounted for this knowing many sellers would not put forth the effort for a few nickels, another way to keep money....Who's running AW anyway, politicians??You should hire _ill _linton. I think he's looking for a job....
posted on March 5, 2001 05:09:01 PM
I don't know if one is supposed to ask questions in this thread, but:
"... you must submit a copy of your eBay account statement showing that eBay issued you a credit and we will credit your account for the Final Value Fee on that item."
Via email (cut from the online account page at eBay and pasted into an email to which account at AW?), fax, or hard copy through snail mail?
posted on March 5, 2001 05:27:26 PM
I only use AW for the EBay Outlook and to insert 'free' counters in my auctions.
As AW places a promo with the counters I don't see my paying for that privilege. I'll just go to another counter provider.
posted on March 5, 2001 05:47:22 PM
Lessee....oh yes, I am sure that they have listened.
Being hypothetical - Prior to the institution of fees there were 100,00 Users of the services. [pick any darn # that suits you.] the take from these Users is '0'. Of course there were ad revenues from the subsequent 'spambners' [Banner & spanners]
Well after some time the advertisers have learned that the Web is filled with people who click OFF the banners as fast as they see them. So....declining revenues. What to do.
AW institutes fees.....and the User Base drops to say 20,000. Each one generates 20.00 per quarter. Thats 400K and you only have to service 1/5 of the mooch...uh customers.
Sounds good to me.
Those who pay the piper [provide the service] call the tune.
If you want to call the tune, well do you own web-hosting. In the meantime - pony-up!
Have fun.
Dr. Trooth
[ edited by DrTrooth on Mar 5, 2001 05:51 PM ]
posted on March 5, 2001 06:08:52 PM
DrTooth...your right, he who pays the piper calls the tunes...and AW HAs been saying there would be charges for services in the near future. And the new fees don't affect me because the ONE time I tried launching an auction through AW I thought the program stunk. i use my ISP to store my pictures and I use Auction Assistant to creat and launch my auctions (ps...i love the new AAclassic)
So this is coming from someone who is not affected by these new fees at all.
I find it interesting that a company that wants the AW user to pay the piper both coming an dgoing is the same company that tried to STEAL information from ebay when AW started their search function. And this is the same company that, when ebay found a way to stop AW from searching the ebay site, came on these boards and announced that they had found a way around ebay's blocks...got in by the secret back door, so to say.
AW thought they were entitled to Ebay's proprietial information free of charge. They were trying to build their business on Ebay's back and argued they had a right to it FREE.
Not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this, but I found it interesting.
posted on March 5, 2001 07:31:43 PM
You are probably right that fewer AWer's that pay will probably be more profitable than many that don't pay or pay little.
Ad banner revenue is declining everywhere.
Most users are not against paying a fee. The argument is this a fair price considering the alternatives offered by the competition for the service offered?
Personnally,
1- I have always hosted my pics on one of my sites so far, one located on my ISP and some on 50megs.com For others free image hosting is still available at many places that are in direct competition with AW.
2-I can launch and manage auctions myself from my preferred auctionfriendly software.
It did require an initial investement to purchase it, and more will be neccessary to upgrade the software s time goes. The question there is, which of the two options is more economical?
Software or continued AW FVF fees?
3- I can schedule my auctions using Win98 task scheduler and RtvReco with my preferred auction software and I can also use it with eBay's listng web page also. I have my own scheduler. No fees ever for this.
I have to come to the conclusion AW is not indispensable for my auctions.
Still, I would pay a reasonnable fee because I want this site to survive and grow. I like it and value the information gathered on the message boards tremendously.
AW is making a business decision to charge a FVF fee. They are within their rights to do so. If I find the value offered is not worth the fee demanded, it is my right to express it. AW has the right to disagree and maintain their fee, but a negative response to comments will force many to make a business decision also. We have to set emotions aside here, like AW management did. Our decisions might not be neccessarily the one AW management would prefer it's users do.
I think Yahoo was surprised, don't you?
Is AW next to lose a sizable chunk of its user base? Will the competition of AW seize the opportunity to grab a market share at AW's expense to destroy it? It has been done to companies before.
