posted on July 5, 2001 08:45:17 AM
So far, every one of my auctions I've opened with a 1.00 bid (well, except one).
I do this to get people bidding on the item. If the first person to see it is moderately interested, then may bid $1.00 and take a shot. Then when someone who is really interested see that someone else is going to get what they want for only $1.00, they are more apt to bid themselves.
Almost everything has sold for well more than I intended using this logic to get the ball rolling.
However, I see lots of starting prices at much higher than this -- and still do well. Seems to me that this would close the door to getting the snowball rolling.
Of course, higher starts are a poor man's reserved price auction I suppose.
Anyone care to share their logic/reasoning on this? Not so much to debate as to just swap stories.
posted on July 5, 2001 09:47:34 AM
IMO higher starts are a smart man's way of getting what they want out of an item.
I've tried $1 no reserve auctions, and unless it's something you are 100% certain that buyers will be looking for, in the end you may very well end with $1.
posted on July 5, 2001 10:05:40 AM
I am sort of in the middle....I don't sell high ticket items but I usually put the opening bid at enough to cover my overhead but lower than what would make me happy. I did some experimenting of my own on items that got no bids the first time around...I actually relisted them and DOUBLED the minimum bid and about 75% of them sold the second time around, some of them for ridiculously high amounts. (Can you imagine finding out you paid $35 for something that went without bids the week before at a $4 opening bid???) All this proved to me, though, is that the second time around I somehow connected with buyers who wanted what I was selling while the week before I didn't. With the relatively low number of bidders I am experiencing lately, I am sort of afraid to go too low...something selling for $1.00 just isn't worth my time and the various fees.
posted on July 5, 2001 10:27:37 AM
I am convinced that when you start out too cheap, you get a lot of cheap bidders. Most of my stuff does better since I began asking for more.
I learned a long time ago, that when selling on eBay, timing is everything. I've had items fizzle at $40 one week [reserve not met] end at $180 2 weeks later when relisted.
I don't mind giving customers good deals [many turn into repeat customers], but I'm not in the habit of giving things away either.
As far as $1 no reserve auctions, I guess it depends what you sell?
posted on July 5, 2001 11:44:43 AM
I have been listing my items at $1.00 No Reserve for quite a while. Most of my items sell for more than identical items that start at a higher opening bid. I just sold a piece of clothing for 143.00. Two other sellers listed the same thing: one sold for a bit over $60, the other $90. Why, I dont know. But it works ok for me.
I had a total of 73 items listed within the last 30 days. 3 sold for a dollar, 1 sold for over 200.00, 3 went over 100.00. I lose on some, win on all the others.
What I really like about listing at $1.00 is that I dont have to research to find a good starting bid. I was getting too lazy for that. The other thing that I like is that everything I list sells...The only downfall is that I tend to get more deadbeats. I guess many get carried away with bidding. I just relist and usually make more the 2nd time around anyway.
Overall, it works for me. I sell a lot of vintage clothing. Not sure how it would work in other categories, though.
That's great, and I'm glad to hear it's working for you. Many times each month I see items very similar to what I'm selling, ending for half as much as mine, or less.
The real surprise is that many of these sellers also offer PayPal/Billpoint, which I do not.
I know the market very well for most of the items I list on eBay, so if the bidders aren't there one week, I won't accept next to nothing in bids.
I would rather auction some of these items off locally, than give them away on a bad week/month on eBay.
Surprisingly enough, some of my items do much better with a local auction house, then they do on eBay.
Once again, I believe it depends on what you sell?
posted on July 5, 2001 12:48:33 PM
Excellent posts! Thanks!
I've been going (very) part time for the past couple of months, so I don't know trends in ebay. A lot of my sales have been software (new) that I had on my shelf -- so I just wanted it gone and $1 was better than $0.
Good points, however, about missing buyers during a down period. I've also had luck using 3 and 5 days to get the results quicker. Perhaps going back to 7 would be wise to keep the item "on the market" longer.
posted on July 5, 2001 01:01:23 PM
I say to each his own so IMHO when I listed items at low starting figures I got bitten by:
-the technical bugs that caused the site to die and then come back at the end of the auction so only the first bidders got their bids in
-the folks who really believed I would be selling digital cameras for $1. They would come in, ask a hundred dumb questions, bid a few bucks and go away. Then after they lost, they would email me to ask whether I had any more $1 cameras.
I'd rather deal with folks who have some knowledge of what they want and how much it costs. Judging from other posts I have seen here, it seems that there are more problems from the $3 bidders than from the high bidders. If I am going to spend time answering questions, I'd rather it be from serious buyers.
posted on July 5, 2001 01:20:47 PM
Reddeer: I just listed some auctions with
check/money order only. I always used PP, but the increase after increase is starting to get to me. I never did get an email from PP, so I dont know what my rate will be: 2.2 or 2.9%. Testing the waters without them, see how these auctions end. If I dont see a difference, PP is bye bye.
Yisgood, I know what you mean about asking to sell at the start price. Since I have been using the 1.00 start I get quite a few emails asking to end auction and sell directly for a buck! HELLO...Do I look like a fool? Dont answer that! These people crack me up....
posted on July 5, 2001 01:35:24 PM
>>See on something like that, I'd have a reserve for the lowest possible amount I'd take and then go from there.<<
This goes back to the debate about reserve vs no reserve. Personally, I hate reserve auctions and almost never bid on them. If you want $50 for something, say so. Don't say $1 and then say "sorry you can't have it. You didn't guess the magic number." In any case, it still won't stop the fools from emailing and asking if you have any more for $1. But if you start the item at the least you'll take for it, you should get rid of the $1 pests.
No worries on the reserve auctions, you wouldn't like my stuff anyhoo.
In the collectibles area it's kinda tough to start an item at $250, even it it's fair market value is double that amount. For "some" items, in "some" categories, reserves work, simple as that. The trick in using reserves is not to be greedy, and make sure the reserve is met early on.
pumpkinhead
I've never offered PayPal, and dropped Billpoint several months back, and have never looked back. Most of MY customers aren't impulse buyers, they're serious buyers/collectors that in "most" cases preferred to send a check or MO even when I offered Billpoint. It seems a lot of sellers are starting to find that the FREE lunch is over, and that the CC fees add up over time.
I've yet to notice a decrease in bids, or in sales with checks/MO's only in my auctions.
