posted on June 24, 2001 05:27:00 AM new
I know this is small potatos but here is a good example of passing on the paypal fees. see i just pay this or bring it to her attenion that she isnt suppose to do this? This is the letter i just recieved.
Hi,
You were the high bidder for the girls shirts and shorts lot. The final
bid was $xx.xx, so your total with shipping will be $xx.xx. I prefer
and accept paypal at this address and also money orders. If paying via
paypal, please add .35 to your total. Please confirm this email with
your address as well as your payment preference. Thanks
posted on June 24, 2001 06:01:34 AM new
Why be a snitch?
If you don't want to pay the extra fee then you can do 1 of 2 things. Tell her you won't pay the $.35 as it is a violation of paypal rules(which I think is hogwash & shows you as being petty) or go spent $.75 for a MO & $.34 for a stamp and mail her the payment.
These buyers and their pettiness is really starting to annoy me.
I don't offer PayPal on my auction anymore, but in my EOA I tell them FOR THIER CONVENIENCE I will accept it for an additional $1.00, that covers DC and related expense.
posted on June 24, 2001 06:17:44 AM new
Chuckle packer. I'm with you. While I think it's kind of sleazy to surprise a bidder with an add-on fee after the auction, the way you do it is just fine.
reneeshere, look at it this way - you're going to pay to use paypal one way or the other. After about two years of selling, I finally instituted a small handling/packaging fee in my auctions. I just state what shipping is going to be. But what led me to institute that fee wasn't the high cost of bubblewrap or mailers - it was paypal fees. I also build delivery confirmation into my shipping. In other words, because of the "convenience" of PayPal, I've added about $1.00 to the what the carrier charges me. Now you wouldn't know that by my eoa, because I just state shipping is $x.xx in my auctions, but it's there none the less.
As to snitching, not this anti-authority ex-hippie chick! The rule PayPal has about this stinks, and I could care less if people break it.
posted on June 24, 2001 06:29:25 AM new
Packer? Did I misunderstand the new fee hike? I thought it only affected totals under $15. In other words the fees are the same, but now are applied to totals under $15 as well, instead of the old 30 cent swipe fee for those.
posted on June 24, 2001 06:30:28 AM new
well i am going to pay it but i guess i just dont like actually seeing it as a paypal fee. I would rather have it buried in the shipping. i know it doesnt matter in the end. Something Packer said made me feel better about the fee, and that was the fact that mailing the check would cost me .34. so not much difference there.
posted on June 24, 2001 06:58:20 AM new
I had 60 auctions end last Tuesday night, usually about half would pay with paypal, but in my TOS and EOA email I said due to increasing fees, I would prefer not to receive paypal payments for items under $15.00, which I believe all my auctions ended under. It actually seemed to work, I had 6 regular paypal payments, another 5 that said they understand perfectly and would paypal extra money to cover costs and about 15 other responses supporting what I was doing and said although they would normally use paypal, they would be more than happy to send payment through the mail.
So as far as I can figure, I saved (paypals loss) about $10.00. I am happy
posted on June 24, 2001 07:15:56 AM new
I just gotta comment on this usage of the term "illegal."
Rant mode <on>.
To me, "illegal" applies strictly and only to actions over which a *government* body could take you to court, fine you, or throw you in prison, a violation of true statutes developed by elected representatives or appointed officials within a given country's government, in this case one sort of assumes the US but of course that's another bag of worms.
Whether you can pass fees from PayPal, or even full credit cards, along as an add-on is as far as I know of zero interest to anyone who can fine you or throw you in jail, no? It's an issue over which users of commercial services can lose their authorization to use that for-profit service. You agree to abide by their rules, but it's hardly *illegal*, as I use that term, to try to slip through the cracks when you feel that service is being unreasonable and especially if you just don't give a flip anymore if they *DO* cancel your account over it.
Illegal? As was said earlier, "Kiss my grits" if you think the seler adding charges is illegal. Let's see a man with a badge and gun *ever* ask me about adding fees to an auction, "Pfffft" to "illegal." I really dislike people trying to add validity to their arguments by implying mildly manipulative commercial behavior is fully "illegal." That said, no, I don't add fees other than a slight "S&H" surcharge; so far, I either judge a given service is worth using or not, and try to follow their stated policies if I use them. That said, I'm listing more and more without the PP logo and with no mention of accepting it at all.
I have "agreed" not to add fees like that by using these services and listing through Ebay, yes. I personally will honor that agreement, but won't tell anyone thumbing their nose at perceived greed by these companies that they are doing anything "illegal."
posted on June 24, 2001 07:30:44 AM newpyth00n: You hit the nail on the head. When you "agreed not to add fees like that by using these services and listing through Ebay", you were entering into an agreement, or a contract.
If you violate the terms of that contract, you are breaching it. If paypal chose to, they could sue you for breach of contract. They don't because it isn't worth it to them. Instead, they just cancel your account.
This is absolutely a legal issue. Breach of contract is a serious crime, and is fought in court every day.
So yes, charging your customers for fees that you have agreed to pay is most definately illegal.
-------------------------------------------
posted on June 24, 2001 07:39:26 AM new
Starting the 29th, paypal is charging those fees for echecks, checking account transfers, and existing balances, NOT JUST CREDIT CARDS. Why shouldn't it be legal to charge when someone pays by check or existing funds through paypal??b
posted on June 24, 2001 08:14:27 AM new
So it is illegal to tell a buyer "if you insist on using a payment method that costs money, expect to pay the costs" but it is not illegal to charge EVERYONE whether or not they use the service, as long as you hide the cost. Sneaking an extra charge into your sales is honest, but being upfront and giving the customer a choice is being dishonest. No wonder folks can accept "always free," "we will never force you to upgrade" and "I didn't inhale" and "I never had a relationship with the woman." Something very scary is happening in this country. The definition of honest and dishonest have been switched and it seems few folks have noticed.
posted on June 24, 2001 08:34:29 AM newyisgood: exactly. Not really the way it should be, but that is the way it is. However, if someone could prove that the extra fees you charged were to cover PayPal or Billpoint costs, they could get you in trouble, but it is impossible to prove.
I think it is just easier to not accept them and then you don't have the problem. I still offer my bidders many ways to pay. Paypal and Billpoint just aren't two of them.
-------------------------------------------
posted on June 24, 2001 08:38:22 AM new
Oh yisgood...get over it!
Clinton is out of the whitehouse and paypal charges fees!
I don't have to tell you that you have to price accordingly.
God if you want cheating and lying, go to any McDonalds and eat a hamburger...now that's an assault on anyone's idea of fairness in the workplace, marketplace and concept of real food.
Oh and read a little about Dick Cheney. Yoiks.
Anyhow, I price accordingly, why hassle? If I sell a $700 camera and the person pays via paypal or not, I still have the fee covered.
BAM!
I would rather cry over a lost snipe than a lost customer who is turned off over "visible" fees.
Go to any online etailer, or mail order or retailer. LOTS is rolled into the prices that we don't see. Even outlets and discount houses. Walmart is no saint, they have buying power (Walmart stinks, though, hope you don't spend money there, I think that they are one company that doesn't care that they descimate downtown shopping districts in small towns across america. Oh well, I guess if the people shop their, it's like the government - they get what they deserve) and can roll as much profit as they need to. They can buy stuff so low that it's unbelievable.
So, maybe it's time to step out of fantasyland and into frontierland.
(Don't get me started about disney! ACK!)
spelling
[ edited by Capriole on Jun 24, 2001 08:42 AM ]
posted on June 24, 2001 10:26:00 AM new
I think your post and some others here precisely illustrate the problem. The president lied to us. So what? get it over it. The new administration isnt any better. Let's just all accept that lying is okay. Silly laws now give sellers an incentive to cheat? That's okay. Just make sure you cheat legally. It's okay to make a customer pay extra for a service they don't use, as long as you don't tell them about it. Come to think of it, it might be legal to sell empty PS/2 boxes as long as you trick the customer without outright lying. Deceit is fine as long as you do it legally. Morality has no place in the real world. So if you expect to run an honest business in the real world, get over it.
The opinions expressed above are definitely not mine.
posted on June 24, 2001 11:50:37 AM new
Look, you made a blanket assumption, you can't make those and not expected to get your chain yanked a little.
If I could do it as Packer suggests, I would, but without a call to my Psychic Hotline, I won't know how the bidder will decide to pay, so I cover my bases.
I've had bidders get fickle and feisty over a 25 cent typo on the math of an auction.
AND they are the winner of a $550 item!
I relented and went back to paypal because bidders asked, so I stack the fees into the auction. Systematic cheating, kind of steep in my book: more like the cost of doing business.
Last thing: Anything you or I purhase has hidden costs. Even that penny you find on the ground costs your back for the bendover.
Opportunity costs.
(Besides, if you are having so much trouble getting over clinton, you are in for a whopper of a hangover after this admin.)
posted on June 24, 2001 11:59:03 AM new
Seeing a few more nits to pick here....
I don't think "breach of contract" is a crime, so in that way isn't "illegal." My interpretation is that it's an "actionable" offense, meaning that if some other party can show financial damage from it, they ARE authorized to sue to recover money and possibly ask for extra damages too. Not put you in jail, *sue* you. There's civil law, there's criminal law. To me, "illegal" falls into *criminal* law but sticking extra fees onto auctions is simply a matter for civil courts and therefore NOT illegal.
posted on June 24, 2001 12:25:52 PM new
"Sneaking an extra charge into your sales is honest, but being upfront and giving the customer a choice is being dishonest."
yisgood, the alternative is to not sell low end items on eBay or not take PayPal. PayPal set it up this way - they say you can't charge for using their service.
I don't feel like I'm sneaking my fees in. Here's how it goes. A one pound item going media mail is $1.30 postage plus .50 delivery confirmation = $1.80. Bubblewrap, special mailer, etc. is about 30-60 cents. So for this particular item, I would state clearly in my auction: Shipping for this is $2.30 and the shipping method is USPS Media Mail. For Priority, I charge postage plus dc, period - again the actual dollar amount is listed in my auction.
The reality is that every business has to consider its overhead. You don't just pay .30 to list an item, then reap the rest. While I'd love to sell just one $1000 item a week, I'm afraid I haven't gotten there yet. I just got to the point where I couldn't start my auctions at competitive starting bids and eat the special packaging costs AND the cost of PayPal in the event the item went for the first bid. Please also note that even with my add ons, my shipping costs are still lower than sellers who only ship Priority.
An example of "sneaking fees" to me would be a seller not giving buyers a clue as to what shipping will cost and then adjusting it because an item went to low.
As long as it's clearly stated in the auction, I just don't agree it's sneaking. Any more than finding a treasure for a dollar and starting the bidding at $50 is.
posted on June 24, 2001 12:27:05 PM new
I have no problem getting over Clinton because I am under no illusions. This country is being run by lawyers and the current thinking is it's okay if it's not illegal. I just shake my head a bit when I see buyers begging "Please cheat me. Please hide fees in your pricing for services I dont even use. As a matter of fact, I'll report you if you don't." Then they want to know why there's so much fraud on the Net. They are asking for it.
What is the difference between hiding a charge and leaving out the shipping so you can cheat the buyer later? Or phrasing your auction so they think they're getting a PS/2 but are actually getting an empty box? I think all of these are legal.
I see posts where someone got scammed and the response is "it's your fault. You should have realized that the seller was a crook because...." or "you should have realized your were taking a chance when you accepted a paypal payment from someone in ..." Now the victim deserves to be cheated!
It all starts here. When a company makes a stupid policy in order to protect themselves and NOT their customers and their customers are not only stupid enough to buy into the line, they go out of their way to enforce it.
I think we should stop arguing about what's legal and start doing what's right.
posted on June 24, 2001 12:29:45 PM new
Hey the easy way to do this
I paid $2.00 for a tape player at a yard sale.
I take the player home and clean it up, test it (yes I have some (8 tracks) clean the heads, and the rollers.
Take some pictures of it, down load, do my discription and pecking on the keyboard.
Box it up with the cables included.
Cables were $1.08
Check the weight, shipping cost at WWW.USPS.COM
Add my cost at this point.
$2.00 for player
$1.08 Cables
$1.00 Cleaning supplies
$3.00 Gas to go to yardsale.
Total at this point $7.08
Paypal, eBay, Auction watch and Stamps.com fees= $3.56
*****Shipping is charged seperate ***
Now I have $10.64 TOTAL investment in the player.
I start my auction out at what the least amount is I will take useing the above totals.
Now if you figure you pay more to PayPal because you get more than the starting price you still make good money.
I like paypal because I put the item on on Saturdat Morning, By 3:00 sunday afternoon I have recived my money ( Buy It Now ) PayPal collected for me Item was boxed up to go out Monday morning, By Wednesday person will have his tape player, I have my money, eBay made money, PayPal made money, and the USPS made money.
Hey this is a business, If you want to pinch every little fee from the cost of doing business then start at $5.00 for fees than add cost of item selling and profit, add it up and start from the sum.
Yes I would rather keep the 35 cents as profit but I get things moveing faster, now next weekend I have $14.34 profit to use on something to sell.
[ edited by impactdas on Jun 24, 2001 12:31 PM ]
posted on June 24, 2001 12:37:28 PM new
>>the alternative is to not sell low end items on eBay or not take PayPal<<
It's not the low end items that are a problem, it's the high end ones. If I sell a $500 digital camera, it will cost me roughly $12 extra to accept Paypal. If I add $12 for paypal, I am "illegal" but if I add $12 for everybody, I feel I am cheating those who don't use paypal. My solution is that in my auctions I state that I only accept non credit card payments (free to my personal account).
>>An example of "sneaking fees" to me would be a seller not giving buyers a clue as to what shipping will cost and then adjusting it because an item went to low. As long as it's clearly stated in the auction, I just don't agree it's sneaking. <<
I agree. Anything stated clearly in the listing is legal. If I wrote "$50 shipping" for a 1-ounce item, it would be legal (though it would probably violate ebay's fee avoidance policy). But sellers that state $4.20 shipping, giving the impression that it is being shipped priority and then stick it in an envelope for under $1 are foolisng buyers. And sellers that hide the paypal fee in their handling are being forced by silly policies to fool buyers. But why are buyers so silly as to believe that these are the "honest" sellers while the ones who only charge for services actually rendered are dishonest?
posted on June 24, 2001 01:06:13 PM newyisgood:
"And sellers that hide the paypal fee in their handling are being forced by silly policies to fool buyers. But why are buyers so silly as to believe that these are the "honest" sellers while the ones who only charge for services actually rendered are dishonest?"
When I do accept a PayPal or Billpoint payment, I don't charge any more than the Post Office Charges me to ship the item.
Since that was not one of the options you gave, what does that make me?
-------------------------------------------
posted on June 24, 2001 01:22:08 PM new
>>When I do accept a PayPal or Billpoint payment, I don't charge any more than the Post Office Charges me to ship the item.
Since that was not one of the options you gave, what does that make me?<<
That is a question only you can answer. When you set your price for the item, did you take your PP fee into the cost and add it to the item? Then you are overcharging the customers who don't use PP. If you didn't, then you are either cheating yourself (which is your right) or you are making enough profit that the fee isn't a hardship.
posted on June 24, 2001 01:41:52 PM new
Yes Y......
You have made a good point......with
the statement “When you set your price for the item, did you
take your PP fee into the cost and add it to the item?
Then you are overcharging the customers who don't use PP.”
But let say you go in to a retail store and buy a lamp...
The store has all their cost figured in the price of the lamp.....
Let say the store has a good employee who turn down the heat in the store
ever night at closing......saving the store money that was
set in the fixed price of the lamp......so in your opinion
the store is over charge the lamp customer because their fees where
based upon worse case scenarios ?
posted on June 24, 2001 01:43:05 PM new
I don't consider not charging for PayPal fees cheating myself. It is not a necessary thing for auctions. I got along just fine before PayPal, and am doing just fine now that I have chosen to not accept it. But if I choose to take PayPal, either for the convenience or for another payment option, it is MY responsibility to pay the fees. Nobody is twisting my arm into taking PayPal.
When you go into a store and use a credit card, would you like it if they told you "we can only let you use your credit card if you pay the fees for using it"? I seriously doubt it (considering if they did, they could be in some serious trouble). Are those fees included in the price? Maybe. Can you prove that? No.
But I can guarantee that if the same store decided not to take credit cards anymore, you wouldn't suddenly see a drop in their prices. Therefore, they are using some of their profits to pay for the CONVENIENCE of using a credit card.
-------------------------------------------
