posted on January 21, 2001 11:12:08 AM new
I am curious. If and when Yahoo ever comes to it's senses and realizes that it is time to replace most of the management cadre, and try to correct it's mistake.
What would it take to bring the disenfranchised and disillusioned sellers back to what was the second largest auction site on the net?
posted on January 21, 2001 11:17:08 AM new
Problem here With the 52% loss Yahoo has already seen in listings I Dont believe they are any longer the second largest auction site.
I dont know for sure but I think if someone did some searching I think you will find that yahoo more then likely has lost this position or nearly lost too fair market at this point in time.
They are probably a close third to Amazon or fair market at this point.
posted on January 21, 2001 11:29:45 AM new
yeah I seen that Operative word
Interesting though how fast you can move from Number 1 or 2 in this world I wonder if this is some type of record yahoo has set here some thing for Ripleys Believe it or not.
In 11 days they went from pushing close to #1 in the online auction world To #3 or #4.
posted on January 21, 2001 11:30:35 AM new
Folks jumped up and down and confessed they WOULD pay a closing fee, if nothing else. That the buyer pool would not support posting and reposting fees. Yahoo chose not to listen. Now when they reflect and do the math, the will no doubt see they would have made more money doing that, rather than losing all that they will have by not going that route.
posted on January 21, 2001 11:47:48 AM new
Just imagine that task that AuctionWatch may soon need to undertake in updating the Message Center forums list.
Yahoo!Auctions may need to be removed from the "front page", back someplace like
More Online Auctions > Other Online Auctions
while one or two of those alternative auctions sites just might be impressive enough to move into the spotlight.
posted on January 21, 2001 11:55:30 AM new
Maybe I wasn't clear enough?
If and when Yahoo wakes up, I don't believe that all the sellers will go rushing back say if yahoo says, "OK, we are changing to FVF's"
As time goes on, this will only get worse.
Let's pick a date.
Let's say that around the middle of May, Yahoo realizes that it has 5 sellers left on their auctions selling multiple Dutch Auction junk, only because they have Yahoo stores, and get the listings free. There still aren't any bidders, and worse, the advertisers are going because there are no page hits.
Do you think the sellers that have now worked to establish a toehold on another site might then rush back to pay FVF's on a site that now has to rebuild again?
I am a lousy typist :-}
[ edited by jimhhow on Jan 21, 2001 11:57 AM ]
posted on January 21, 2001 12:06:10 PM new
I would imagine that a lot of damage Yahoo is doing to itself now is irreversable. Who knows the minds of these people. Maybe they are trying to make their auction site a major tax write-off. The cybermind works in sleezy ways...
By the way, Yahoo stock stablized towards the end of last week and actually started an upswing. Today, they are now going down again.
I predict this site-wide instability we are seeing today is going to drive MANY fencewalkers away.
posted on January 21, 2001 01:19:01 PM new
This is a hard business, used by a really tough demographic group - and a not very forgiving one at that. They will probably never recover from this misstep, even if they took corrective action. The tools that they provide to the seller are the best in the industry, but that wont matter in the face of their arrogance. If one wanted to deal with arrogance, there would have been no reason to leave ebaY in the first place. -Rosalinda
TAGnotes - daily email synopsis about the Online Auction Industry http://www.topica.com/lists/tagnotes
posted on January 21, 2001 01:48:37 PM new
I never left Yahoo as a seller, though I was right about to start listing. However, I've started to list on Auxpal. One of my auctions closed with a bid, and I have several more auctions with bids. I'm actually impressed, since I did not expect much (I still list on Ebay to sell) but will place items I have a lot of, or can afford to wait on Auxpal - Looks like I will start doing a lot more listing there. I am unsure if I would try Yahoo, seems that things hardly sold there before they started to crash, so why bother if they change their mind, esp. since for now Auxpal is free and Yahoo would most likely not be free.
posted on January 21, 2001 02:26:05 PM new
About 5 days ago I would have jumped back on the Yahoo ship without a second thought. However, after being shoved into the water and being forced to swim I have found 1) a better email service; 2) a better messenger service and 3) a very suitable site with sales on which to list. I have sat and watched Yahoo close accounts, had my PayDirect shut down (why I still don't know), etc and I can't imagine why I would want to do business with such a company. No, I don't think I would go back now.
posted on January 21, 2001 02:31:22 PM new
I'll be honest. I'm not SO sure that Yahoo!'s plan is an altogether bad one. They may have miscalculated how many items that the listing fees would make prohibitive to sell on Yahoo! But, once they analyze the fall-out, adjustments to their "plan" may be all that is necessary to salvage it. Things like: two free relists, if an item doesn't sell. A modification to their Yahoo! stores program, where sellers get a special rate less than the $100 a month it takes now. Or a new program where a seller can list "so many" auctions for a set price.
Ultimately, if the Yahoo! auction site remains a viable place to sell, and they do have a tremendous following on the overall Yahoo! site to funnel there, sellers will remain, and others will take the place of those who leave.
You see, OUR loyalty is to our own purses...just as Yahoo's is to theirs. That is the reason for the outcry now....because this has REALLY hurt a lot of people in the pocketbook. But, if it is still profitable to sell on Yahoo!, sellers will still sell there. Sure, there are a few who won't, strictly as a matter of principle,(just like eBay), but most of those who can make money will stay.
Yahoo! took a definite risk in imposing this plan. But, when it comes to raising revenue, it may have been the only logical choice they felt they could make. Yahoo! had already shown that they could not effectively police their own site, as sellers continued to spam categories with hundreds of duplicate auctions, regardless of the programs in place. These sellers, who refused to comply with (or weren't aware of) Yahoo!'s rules ultimately hurt the rest of us by clogging the site with so much stuff that many buyers couldn't find our auctions.
A FVF does nothing to eliminate this problem and Yahoo! Auction management knows that. It was a case of the "lesser" of two evils...I suspect. Maybe a beefing up of staff to police the site and FVF's would have been a better choice. To my knowledge, no on-line auction site has tried the "listing fee only" approach before. It is uncharted water and only time will tell if it is a viable option! And don't sell Yahoo! short in their ability to rescue their sinking ship.
posted on January 21, 2001 03:09:43 PM new
I was going to keep a few things on Yahoo just to keep the waters tested as I posted primarily elsewhere, but after today, I wouldn't repost on Yahoo if God himself ordered me to.
posted on January 21, 2001 03:51:22 PM new
I don't think that I would ever go back to Yawho, even if they stopped charging auction fees altogether.
A few days ago, I was touting BidBay as a good alternative site, and I still like them, but I like AuXpal a WHOLE lot better! They are willing to work with us as sellers, and my auctions have started having bids!
I predict that, with a little effort on our part in bringing in our customers, AuXpal will soon be the # 2 auction site, with a fair chance of being # 1.
Of course, I could be wrong...it's happened before...but, I feel it's a strong possibility.
Yawho is dead as far as my trading card listings go - I won't be back.
posted on January 21, 2001 06:22:36 PM new
I would never go back to Yawho?, under my seller ID. Why, because of the way they ignored us. The disrepect; the unnecessary changes that hurt, not help sales. Listening to only the "Top" sellers? Who ever they are/were? The failure to actually communicate, in a human verble vocabulary. The just plain 'we don't give a damn' attitude.
There is no excuse for that sort of treatment of anyone, ever. What sort of business expects to prosper with such an attitude? The 'we know it all, you know nothing' doesn't cut it in the business world. This is not customer service. This is dictatorial, ignorant, corporate suicide.
posted on January 21, 2001 07:36:31 PM new
I think the alternative to Yahoo/eBay that WILL WORK hasn't been invented yet... I was particularly intrigued by Amalgamated2000's second post on this thread:
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=2&thread=318885
I love the idea of having my auctions on my computer (or website) but being part of a central network.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Jan 21, 2001 07:37 PM ]
posted on January 21, 2001 07:54:13 PM new
I would never consider a final value fee on yahoo without some safeguards in place to keep from getting charged for deadbeat, non-paying bidders. Let Yahoo collect the money and cut us a check less the fees. Otherwise, what's to keep them from bidding on everything themselves and never paying? Their integrity level isn't too high right now and probably won't be again from my viewpoint.
posted on January 22, 2001 01:16:36 AM newGeorge gawooley, you must be one of those "wet-behind-the-ears" MBA kids working at Yahoo!!!!!
First you say, "I'm not SO sure that Yahoo!'s plan is an altogether bad one." and THEN you tell us how they need to "adjust their plan" to make it work. Where have you BEEN for the last 2-1/2 weeks?????????????
The threads here and at the SZ have been overflowing with SUGGESTIONS from experienced Yahoo sellers about how Yahoo could "adjust their plan" and continue to satisfy them/us (with free relists, or lower listing fees, or FVFs, or monthly Wallet credits for Yahoo feedback, or flat monthly fees, etc.). We also offered suggestions on ways Yahoo could rid their site of spam and violations WITHOUT INCREASING THEIR STAFF EXPENSES through prudent use of the Neighborhood Watch program and seller incentives. Go back and read the last 19 days worth of threads here if you want to see how Yahoo could have raised revenue from their Auction and STILL kept the bulk of their sellers happy.
But Yahoo chose not to listen to us, and they will pay the consequences. Once sellers have invested all the time and energy it takes to list auctions on other sites, they won't be easily lured back to Yahoo. Especially since their "trust" is gone. If Yahoo sellers wanted to pay fees to an auction they don't trust, they would have all stayed at eBad.
You said, "And don't sell Yahoo! short in their ability to rescue their sinking ship."
You're KIDDING, RIGHT??? I get the feeling you're very young yourself, just like Yahoo Management, so I'll let you in on a little secret:
You DON'T rescue a sinking ship. Once a ship has an "unpluggable" hole, it will very rapidly take on water until it hits the ocean floor.
YOU RESCUE THE PEOPLE ON THE SHIP, not the ship itself. You throw them lifelines, pull them up into lifeboats and row them to safety. You certainly don't abandon them in the icy waters to sink or swim.
And once those people have made it to the lifeboats, how many do you think you can lure back onto the ship???
posted on January 22, 2001 10:59:30 AM new
Yep, granee, you've got me pegged! Young and inexperienced, that's me!
And the KEY word in that statement was "altogether"...which means...according to M-W On-Line..."wholly, or completely"...which means that adjustment may well be all that is necessary for the Yahoo! plan to succeed.
granee, I guess you must have a problem with someone presenting an alternative point of view.
My question to you is,granee: If upper Yahoo! management came to you, with demands to raise the revenue from the Yahoo! Auction site, how would have you approached that problem?
Of course, given your response to my post, I expect that you are only able to see things from your own narrow perspective...in other words, "How does this affect me?" That's OK, there are a lot of people in this world who are that way.
But the people who know me, probably fell out of their chair, and ROTFLOL, at your suggestion that I might be a young Yahoo! MBA,....or anyone that supports Yahoo! in any way!
The truth is, six months from now, we all will know if my premise is correct or not. Just as I said, this is uncharted water...and Yahoo! MAY well be wrong...but they could also be right.
George,
who was a member of The Seller Zone when there were less than 50 members...and a former Founder.
posted on January 22, 2001 01:15:39 PM new
"Things like: two free relists, if an item doesn't sell. A modification to their Yahoo! stores program, where sellers get a special rate less than the $100 a month it takes now. Or a new program where a seller can list "so many" auctions for a set price.
"===============================
Yep. This is something thought up by somebody with a handful of auctions or none at all. It definately sounds like a YaFool exex. All the complicated little schemes just create many reasons why I would probably not go for it. Sometime simple is best, and both simple and best for the junk (Yahoo's term, not mine) store seller is FV fees. Period. They Yahoo can muck up the system all they want to and I won't have much to complain about. The bottom line is Yahoo gets paid when I get paid. That is fair and will create incentive for them to keep the chargebacks down by solving the deadbeat problem.
This is the only model that is attractive and sooner or later somebody will succeed with a site that does it that way. As for Spam listings, YaFool claims that most people use the search engine. For them spam doesn't matter. You can have one big category for all I care. The listing tree SUCKS and it always has. For the browsers, if they want a useful listing tree, they should let the sellers create it. They are the ones who know what makes sense and what doesn't in their own special areas.
posted on January 22, 2001 01:33:05 PM newJim, I served my time! And I expect some of the older members of the SZ will tell you I used to post a lot of analytical stuff...and I think I helped a lot of new sellers.
I even coordinated and moderated the first ever "chat" between SZ members and Yahoo! Auction management....a year and a half ago. What I learned from that experience is that Yahoo! Auction management did want to hear what we had to say, BUT what we had to say made very little difference in what Yahoo! actually did. Also, we were PROMISED things that either never came about...or were delayed being put in place for months after they were promised...an announcement board being just one example. My disappointment about the attitude and manner of the Yahoo! auction management during this time lead to a situation where the Yahoo! producer and I had a disagreement in principle about a specific incident. Rather than polarize the whole SZ group and report to them exactly what happened, I resigned as Founder in the hopes that Yahoo! Auction management and the NEW Founders could find common ground that would aid seller's interests and those chats would continue. Sadly, that didn't happen....
That is the reason I looked at toyranch's posts that "Yahoo! was listening!" with a GREAT DEAL of skepticism. I had been in that canoe...and Yahoo! punched a hole in it.
I always felt my job as "Founder" of the SZ was to grow the membership, stimulate interaction between the members, and then sit back and let THEM help each other. With all the "gloom and doom" that has pervaded the SZ lately, I thought an interjection of light-hearted humor there might clear the air a bit.
Regards,
George
By the way, Jim, I've been enjoying your posts at the SZ.
posted on January 22, 2001 01:53:30 PM new
Then you were in contact with Tom Churchill? I, too did regular emails to him and Karen Opp. Why because they asked me to report bugs and make suggestions. I even interview at Yahoo and met the Auction's team in October 1999. They wanted to hire somebody to be their spokesperson on both the SZ and Auction Watch. Since they hired nobody for this job I concluded what has been evident in all their endeavors: Yahoo is a cheap company. That may be best in the short term for big share holders who were selling off their shares as fast as the SEC would allow because they could report earnings, a rare thing for internet companys.
As for the 2 people I mentioned, they are long gone. And I quit emailing TC with suggestions after I noticed the bugs I reported where not getting fixed for weeks or months and none of my suggestions were implimented. In my opinion every major thing they have done since January 2000 has made the site worse, not better.
posted on January 22, 2001 02:14:39 PM new
Karen Opp, Tony Surtees, & Patrick McAvoy(who was in charge of Yahoo! CC...or as you often refer to them...the Yahoobots!), as well as other staff. I believe Tom came a few months later or he wasn't involved at that time...
It was late Spring or Summer of '99...before you graced the SZ with your presence, zzyzx000 I believe...and CCC gave you "the boot" due to your rude behavior.
posted on January 22, 2001 02:39:02 PM new
The sellerZone was (is?) too much like a chat club for idle wannabees. I wasn't the first to complain but when I did the regular chatters came down hard on me in unison. I defended myself as best i could and what irritated me was the moderator there (who I think is the only founder left and has GOD power) always had to put her 2 cents worth in to every post. I pointed that out and got the axe.
I don't miss it for one BIG reason: The posts here on AuctionWatch are easier to read. I can scroll thru the entire thread here and skip over the ones I don't care to read. On the SZ, another Yahoo second-rate design, you need to click on each message to get it downloaded. It's like this: SZ= Edsel. AuctionWatch = Mercedes. One more thing. The SZ is in no way affaliated with Yahoo Auctions or Yahoo Inc. I mistakenly thought for a long time it was the 'official' YaFool Auctions group because it says so, but it just ain't so. It a privately held dictatorship.
posted on January 22, 2001 03:12:03 PM newzzyzx000 said:
"I don't miss it for one BIG reason: The posts here on AuctionWatch are easier to read. I can scroll thru the entire thread here and skip over the ones I don't care to read. On the SZ, another Yahoo second-rate design, you need to click on each message to get it downloaded. It's like this: SZ= Edsel. AuctionWatch = Mercedes.
Which was another thing we (the SZ) were lobbying for and was more or less promised way back in 1999...A threaded auction user's message board at Yahoo!
posted on January 22, 2001 03:19:40 PM new
Some interesting thoughts getting scattered in here regarding what form a commercially viable could take so as to be more responsive and less manipulative. I agree the "Napster" idea is flawed in that there's too much potential for abuse that would bring lawsuits and legal actions down on whatever the organizing entity was.
My "feel" is that a workable solution isn't really that distant, but that it's likely not to develop. To me, the workable entity would be created if Yahoo in particular stepped back and admitted the need for a different internal structure or operating paradigm, then simply made it happen from the top. (Perhaps a bit like Gorbachev insisting on democratic and economic paradigm shifts in the former USSR, although that may not be a particularly hopeful example to raise, eh?)
My vision would be for Yahoo Auctions to say in effect, and upfront, "We need the help of auction participants and will in fact share *power* in some ways to make it happen. We must keep ultimate responsibility in the hands of our employees for obvious legal and financial reasons but we will strive to institute as much as we possibly can of suggestions originating from our users as long as they pledge to keep OUR ultimate need for corporate profitability in mind. We have screwed up lately but will try to make it right."
I suppose I envision some sort of ideas and enforcement committee structures... users (buyers and sellers both) who would filter and debate various ideas and decide what the enforcable rules could be... perhaps with transparent debate involving posting in a board function similar to this one, some threads open to all, some reserved for the "office holders" as it were. The "power sharing" part of it would have to come from Yahoo by way of them actually instituting various of the distilled policies, and *openly* discussing them with users as they're being arrived at, sharing management concerns and data with us PRIOR to arriving at an ultimate policy.
Do any of them have any idea of the sort of loyalty that could be instilled, and the amount of useful brainstorming and volunteerism that would appear, if users were empowered in this way as a matter of structure? Probably they need different managers at the top of the Auctions division, just a couple of minor visionaries, plus corporate approval, to make it happen.
Damn, they came so close. Yahoo originated from university computer early internet users, right? Aren't Koogle or Yang or Filo still close enough to that culture and those concepts to notice this Auctions debacle and see it as an opportunity to do something idealistic and innovative with their resources? They were interviewing people to serve as an interface on these boards like PPD? They called Bobby of MAM in for consults and stayed in touch and acted on some of his advice? They had these chats and maybe listened to a few ideas but didn't dare become any more responsive??? Damn damn damn. So close, but so far. Now users' attitude has shifted to just wanting to watch the ship sink and see how long the band can play before it slides off into the icy water. Perhaps the ship won't SINK, actually, just flounder around the ocean rudderless....
Looks like the wrong people in charge of a small group, not enough vision, not bright enough. Too bad. Well, it's still an experiment and we're on the outside and don't know the overall design. Perhaps the combo of Auctions and Stores and Classifieds with some tweaking of terms will work OK for THEM. Probably not for ME, or US, but obviously that's of little concern to management as it stands now.
posted on January 22, 2001 03:35:31 PM new
If the founders of Yahoo were smart and dumped as much of their stock as the law allowed, you got to understand that they are multi-milionaires and some maybe Bilionaires. I followed the career of Pierre at ePay and he was a 2 billionaire. You got to put yourself in their shoes and figure their life has changed a great deal and it probably has little to do with any "vision" they may have had when they were poor.
I was aboard the Huge Ocean Liner called Atari in the early 80's as it sunk beneath the waves. The people at Yahoo may be a new generation, but they are no doubt the descendants of the one' I worked for at Atari. The same people were part of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Remember the "B" ark, which was full of the 'middlemen'? When Atari was the King of the world, you could sum up the place like this: management hires as many employees as they are allowed to (empire building) to make their resume look good (I have 250 people I manage). Then management finds a higher paying job elsewhere. new management then has everybody stop what they are doing, calls meetings, displays new ORG chart. Old projects are uncompleted and new ones begin. new management then hires as many....etc.
posted on January 22, 2001 04:40:44 PM new
pythOOn.....-- You mean that is all it would take for you to go back to Yahoo?
[ edited by jimhhow on Jan 22, 2001 04:42 PM ]
