posted on January 21, 2001 01:44:02 AM new
I think that they will revise their fee structure, but not till they are at 25% of their former listing count. On the other hand they could pick up some major merchant vendors and not miss a beat....
posted on January 21, 2001 02:04:04 AM new
They won't get a lot of Yahoo Store merchants from their crowd of Auction sellers. Few of us have our own merchant accounts (or WANT them, with Billpoint, PayPal, PayDirect, BidPay, EnergyFlow, I-Escrow, and others available), and you have to either have your own merchant account or sign up for the EXPENSIVE ONE Yahoo is offering.
Now, if a Yahoo Store were available with PayDirect as the CC account, some of us might consider it. But that's a big IF.
posted on January 21, 2001 06:18:56 AM new
Here's an image to connect to another thread here... Toyranch as Klaatu and Dimview as Gort. (Day The Earth Stood Still)
Sez Bobby, "We come to promote peace and idealistic usage of net commerce by small players. You can forego Wall Street- directed motives of greed by revising these ill-considered policies and truly communicating with your users, or you can collapse as the small businesses that built your statistics abandon you. The choice is yours. Gort?"
Gort/Dimview's visor slides up and a projection ray shines on a large screen behind cringing tiny Yahoobots to show the unexpectedly huge 40% cratering of auction listings, and dropping more, in only 10 days.
I saw you posted something about this on another thread, I commented over there about what Yahoo had told me regarding "free" auctions as they related to Yahoo Store, but more importantly, RebelGuns inferred he/she had had a store and that the "free" auctions were a come on - at least that was the inference, I hope he/she will post a complete detail of their experience in having a Yahoo Store.
RebelGuns hasn't had a Yahoo Store---he was only saying that he wouldn't TRUST Yahoo to give him free Auction listings if he DID sign up for a Store. You misunderstood his post.
I think it's a moot point now, anyway. By the time Yahoo "sees the light" and rescinds or revises their listing fee policy, their Auction will be dead and buried.
posted on February 1, 2001 07:57:08 AM new
Sorry, I was away some and didn't hear my name being called
I think it's STILL to early to 'call' this thing. Yahoo was HOPING for a dropoff of about 50% and right now, they're looking at slightly more than their target, but within their planned range, as I understand it to be...
But there are still a few days to go on free auto relists and wallet credits will run for a while. Lots of people have lots of wallet credits (I've got around $1400 worth just from feedback credit).
The time to tell will be when it seriously starts hitting people's credit cards.
I think the auction total will go under 200,000 by the middle of March. We'll see...
I'll check and see what they are saying about now and report back...
posted on February 1, 2001 08:15:41 AM new
I, personally, don't care what they say, or what they do. If this worked, treating us like this, they would have stuck with it come hell or high water. The way I see it, if you try to shaft me once, that is your only shot at it. If they reverted back to no fees and the status quo, I wouldn't go back anyway. Why would anyone want to give them that break, and wait to see what they tried on you next? Are we so desparate we will let Yahoo! do what ever they want to us, as long as it doesn't work? I, personally again, have more self respect for myself, than that. We are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. We are not statisical gatherings, or material gain items, to be used at the whims of Yahoo!.
typo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by CharlieOne on Feb 1, 2001 10:45 AM ]
posted on February 3, 2001 10:33:08 AM new
Frankly, Yahoo!Auctions credibility right now is just like their auction site buyers -- virtually non-existent.
posted on February 3, 2001 09:15:05 PM new
Hi Granee!
I don't think it really matters. If they were telling the truth, it means that they were planning to drive the auctions down below the point of sustainability. If they were lying, it means that they plan on maintaining the party line and nothing in the world can save them.
posted on February 4, 2001 06:03:56 AM new
Certainly, it's not at the point that they'd say so if they were panicking about it...
But my understanding was that they were expecting/hoping for a 50% to 60% drop in auction listings. They were at almost 3million, now they're down to around 1.2million (not their figures, they don't give that info, these are from TAG).
Think of it like this...
Is it better for them to give away 3million auctions for free, or to get paid 20¢ each for 1 million?
The thing is that relists still have a couple days left, and LOTS of people have LOTS of wallet credits still, from the feedback cashout for credit promotion, etc. etc.
The true tale of the tape is still a month or two off.
And to their credit... I was talking to my sister the other day, who has some auto search reminders (she is a buyer only) at Yahoo and commented that the quality of goods on Yahoo has definitely picked up in the areas where she looks as before there was rarely anything she wanted to buy, and now she's buying more...
And a seller, who is a a very serious longtime Yahoo seller, commented that her sales in the $25 to $200 range have picked up considerably with the thinning of her category.
This is, of course, totally unscientific, but the 'level of unsustainability' is not a million auctions. Most auction sites would do flips for a million auctions, and this time a year ago, Yahoo had about a million auctions, and they quality of goods was less than it is today.
From their point of view, I believe that things ARE looking pretty good.
All that said...
The tale of the tape is still a month or two away and then we'll all know... because if it's down to 100,000 auctions or so, they screwed up, and I think they WILL be in a bit of a panic. If it's level at a million, then they succeeded in doing just what they wanted to do, and in their eyes, they'll be better off for it.
posted on February 4, 2001 07:42:35 AM new
I agree with Toy Ranch.
If they have enough auctions it's worth it, if not, it just makes it easier for ebay to buy them out.
Yahoo, ebay, and Amazon built their businesses with what was available at hand just like Bidville and other micro-houses are starting to do.
So all the small mom&pop sellers listed and then some of them got bigger and were joined by larger companies and these companies are simply dropping off the folks that helped build them to cater to the new larger customers.
If you sell $25+ items do you really care about paying a dollar or two for fees?
These companies are becoming different beasts which is why there are opportunities for these new sites or in what I believe in, an online auction co-op.
I think sellers large and small need a home that won't be upturned just because there's more money elsewhere? Stability is important when you're trying to build or even maintain a business.
Email for the url for our message board or you can also look on Toy Ranch's site on the message board there.
posted on February 4, 2001 02:12:07 PM new
ToyRanch, you said, "Think of it like this.....Is it better for them to give away 3 million auctions for free, or to get paid 20¢ each for 1 million?"
First of all, I don't think there's ANY WAY Yahoo will stabilize at 1 million listings. When it's down to actual "out-of-pocket" paid listings, I think it will be more like 50,000 (or less). If they didn't have enough bidders BEFORE fees were implemented to enable completed sales on the first go-round, they sure aren't going to have enough bidders NOW to do it. There will be so little merchandise listed, no one will even BOTHER to look on Yahoo for it.
The vast majority of sellers were willing instead to pay LOWER fees, or the same fees with FREE RELISTS, or a FVF, or a flat monthly fee (as was offered with a Yahoo Store, until they pulled the rug on that, too).
So the question is more like "Is it better for them to CHARGE LESS THAN THEY DESIRE for 3 million auctions (and growing), or get paid 20 cents each for 50,000?"
"I was talking to my sister the other day, who has some auto search reminders (she is a buyer only) at Yahoo and commented that the quality of goods on Yahoo has definitely picked up in the areas where she looks as before there was rarely anything she wanted to buy, and now she's buying more..."
The areas that I search and buy in are empty now. I don't even get any auto reminders of new listings from Yahoo anymore.
"And a seller, who is a a very serious longtime Yahoo seller, commented that her sales in the $25 to $200 range have picked up considerably with the thinning of her category."
She's very, very lucky because the rest of us aren't even getting page views, much less bids. And I hope she sells it all very quickly, because I don't think her sales will last. Yahoo isn't even advertising for BUYERS, they're advertising for SELLERS---and what they've needed *all along* was more BUYERS.
canvid13, you said, "If you sell $25+ items do you really care about paying a dollar or two for fees?"
1) No, IF I have a decent PROFIT MARGIN at $25.00 and the buyer ends up actually PAYING ME for the item and I didn't have to fool with RELISTING it over and over and over before selling (at which time the fees are MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE than a dollar).
2) Yes, IF I've sold at or barely above MY COST because I needed to turn the merchandise and there was poor bidding activity, or the buyer deadbeats and I have to jump through hoops to get my fees refunded, and I had to relist several times before anyone even bid on it.
The FALLACY here is the thinking Yahoo has that thinning out the auction will *automatically* result in high levels of bidding activity on ALL the remaining "quality" listings.
Not so.
You still have to have a CERTAIN NUMBER OF BIDDERS/BUYERS/LOOKERS in order to have enough people who WANT a particular item to get bidding activity on it. Yahoo didn't have enough bidders BEFORE their numbers dropped, and they'll have DRASTICALLY LESS bidders now.
Why? I'm looking for a certain widget, so I put "widget" in Yahoo Auction's search engine or go to the "widget" category. Last week there were 200 widgets to choose from, but today there are only 50 to choose from, and next week there will be 5 to choose from. Now last week I didn't find *exactly* the right widget, but with 200 to choose from I figured I'll check back today. I still didn't find the perfect one in the 50 offered, so I might look next week. But next week when I look, there are only 5 to choose from (none of which is the one I want). I DROP Yahoo from my list of places to look for my widget, and I don't bother to look there for the whatnot my husband wants, either.
posted on February 4, 2001 03:59:50 PM new
Granee: I think we all agree with the fact that what yahoo had done besides hurting the majority of its sellers and bidders has hurt itself.
It's just a matter of when and how?
That's why I want to see an online auction co-op created.
Email me for the url to our message board or look for our threads here on AW.
posted on February 4, 2001 04:49:05 PM new
A month or two away - agreed.
If it's level at a million - would take a miracle.
If it's down to 100,000 auctions or so - looks possible but I'd guess more like 150-200K. Any speculation on how they'll feel about that level?
I do not believe this will benefit Yahoo Auctions in the long term. I've told them that from the beginning. My opinion of that has not changed. All I really meant was that they have some signs to indicate they are right and this will benefit their site. I believe they are looking at the data and info that supports their theory/position, and ignoring the data that does not support it.
figmente~
I have no idea how they'd feel about 250,000 steady paying auctions. I guess that depends on if they are increasing or decreasing and sellthrough, etc. etc. There's more to this than raw auction counts. Really, what they want is a higher sellthrough rate, because they know that will cause their site to grow.
According to TAG, they're down to 800,939 auctions.
Some of the freebie relists run out on the 10th, the rest of them end on the 22nd.
posted on February 5, 2001 02:47:41 PM new
The problem, I see, going along with Yahoo!s thinking is this. It doesn't matter at what level they 'level off'. The problem, (and this is where their thinking makes no sense), is how to maintain that level? Whatever it is. If you keep the same sellers, and they agree to 'pay and stay'. Unless they roll their inventory over very often bidders/buyers will go elsewhere. Page views will dive, and the 'pay and stay' sellers will bail too. It's a different thing to stick with low views on a 'free site', compared to a 'pay site'.
posted on February 5, 2001 05:29:06 PM new
CharlieOne, you said, "It's a different thing to stick with low views on a 'free site', compared to a 'pay site'."
Exactly. We all learned that we'd have a certain PERCENTAGE of our Yahoo listings sell every 7-10 days, so the more we listed the more we sold, whether our sell-through rate was 90% (I wish) or 30% or 10% or 3%. Only those with VERY good profit margins and VERY high sell-through can afford the fees Yahoo implemented. Now my typical sell-through rate of 10% *would have* been higher had I lowered my prices, even reaching 90% had I lowered them ENOUGH (probably below cost), but I wouldn't have made enough PROFIT to even bother with it. The only way I could PAY Yahoo a listing fee AND get a sell-through high enough to sell on the first list is to set the price BELOW MY COST....which, of course, I'm not willing to do. Of the 200+ listings I still have on Yahoo (closing Thursday night), I currently have bids on only 5 (one bid each at opening price). One of them with an $8 bid cost me $5, and another with a $15 bid cost me $12 (both are worth more than three times their bid prices plus shipping). I could make more money working at McDonalds.
toyranch, you said, "Some of the freebie relists run out on the 10th, the rest of them end on the 22nd."
The 10-day free relists run out on the 8th, and the bulk loader relists start their second run by midnight tomorrow and run out on the 20th. By Wednesday morning it will be clear how many "paid" (whether with feedback credits or actual money) listings Yahoo has now. The estimate I came up with last night is under 200,000.
posted on February 6, 2001 02:35:53 PM new
No matter what all you $1.00 auctioneers say and want to think, yahoo did and is doing the correct thing. it will only sink the other little sites who will pick up the useless auctions. one of the smartest moves ever on the net.
posted on February 6, 2001 05:28:51 PM new
gem10a1
Why do you, and others, always come back to this chant? Do you think all of the sellers who left, are "$1.00" sellers, get real. A good seller may have a variety of priced items. I sold from $1.00, (sportscards), up to $150.00 items, (other collectibles). So do a lot of others.
You claim Yahoo! made "One of the smartest moves ever"? If you really believe that, you need to apply to Yahoo! for a management position. Maybe even the CEO.
posted on February 6, 2001 06:20:07 PM new
If YaWho? is so smart, then why are they collecting $0.00 from me in listing fees rather than $6,000 per year they would have collected with a 5% FV fee which I would have paid if they had let me list my 2000 items for free?
If you really believe that, you need to apply to Yahoo! for a management position. Maybe even the CEO. 