posted on February 24, 2001 08:22:00 AM new
Think about it. Listing fee. IF they EVER decided to refund a listing fee from deadbeats, isnt it easier for the yahoobots to calculate how much to give back, iunstead of a FVF which require a yahoobot to use a calculator?
Also Yahoo's goal was to be better than Ebays.Many sellers whines about not getting their listing fee back from deadbeats. so there. kill two birds with one stone. FVF refund (or even billing a FVF) would have been a headache to yahoo CS, and by only having a listing fee, makes CS bots job easier, and by refunding a LISTING FEE, yahoo felt it would make them better than ebays.
posted on February 24, 2001 09:28:26 AM new
How hard is it for a computer to calculate the FVF? It's a simple millisecond calculation.
Yahoo may have thought a FVF penalizes successful auctions while the non-selling auctions keep getting relisted for free.
More likely, Yahoo probably would have lost the same amount of listings with a listing fee or FVF. So, let's say listing fees bring app. $40,000 a week (200,000 auctions at .20¢), and FVF app. $10,000 (10% close successfully at $10 ea.), it's obvious that listing fees is the route to choose.
[ edited by quickdraw29 on Feb 24, 2001 09:38 AM ]
posted on February 24, 2001 10:20:39 AM new
I do not agree. I believe alot of people like me would have stayed with yahoo if they would have put in FVF! But Yahoo underestamited what amount of listings they would loss with the listing fee's. They also figured ebayers would come over but they forgot they have not much in the way of bidding going on and some bidders moved on with the sellers I know some of mine did. Yahoo dropped the ball and they cant pick it back up. Like someone else said they are now like a mad dog kicked into a corner and because of this they will turn on the sellers left behind. I have moved my auctions to bidville and am very happy with them they have a customer service dept with real people and are growing and improving my bid's are down but the hits are up (It was worse though when I first started with Yahoo.) Yahoo had a good thing going but no more.
posted on February 24, 2001 10:22:29 AM new
I do not agree. I believe alot of people like me would have stayed with yahoo if they would have put in FVF! But Yahoo underestamited what amount of listings they would loss with the listing fee's. They also figured ebayers would come over but they forgot they have not much in the way of bidding going on and some bidders moved on with the sellers I know some of mine did. Yahoo dropped the ball and they cant pick it back up. Like someone else said they are now like a mad dog kicked into a corner and because of this they will turn on the sellers left behind. I have moved my auctions to bidville and am very happy with them they have a customer service dept with real people and are growing and improving my bid's are down but the hits are up (It was worse though when I first started with Yahoo.) Yahoo had a good thing going but no more.
posted on February 24, 2001 02:00:41 PM new
telwil
Listen to Brian, the reason you left is because Yahoo wanted you to. That is why they started Listing fees, so that the junk sellers would leave. This is not me saying this, this is my interpretation of Brian Fitzgerald's words. I also left, So I guesss I sell junk too.
But the important thing I have learned is that Yahoo wanted us to leave to improve the auction experience for it's users.
Someone correct if they read something different into the words of Yahoo's latest spin wizard.
posted on February 24, 2001 02:11:54 PM new
["FVF refund (or even billing a FVF) would have been a headache to yahoo CS, and by only having a listing fee, makes CS bots job easier"
Determining whether to give ANY refund is the same "headache to Yahoo CS" whether it's the listing fee OR a FVF. Calculating FVFs to refund is no more work than calculating listing fees---the computer deducts the appropriate amount of money from your account in either case, and a person just pushes a button to add it back. The only "headache" involved is determining WHETHER to refund a fee, not WHICH fee to refund, or HOW MUCH to refund. And, from what I've read, the poor seller has to jump through hoops to get the fee refunded.
The decision to charge a listing fee rather than a FVF was made STRICTLY in an attempt to get rid of (what YaWho considers) "bad" listings. The problem is that YaWho threw out the baby with the bathwater. Because YaWho doesn't (and didn't) have enough BIDDERS/BUYERS, the only listings that will sell QUICKLY enough for sellers to justify paying the present listing fees are "HOT" items. Everything else will soon be gone, including "quality" items that take several relists to sell on Yahoo (but DO eventually sell). In its attempt to rid its Auction of "junk" listings (which we THOUGHT only meant advertisements, duplicate/spam, and undesirable common overpriced items), YaWho has ALSO gotten rid of THE BULK of its "good but NOT HOT" merchandise, too.
And it takes a lot of "good but NOT HOT" merchandise to keep an auction viable.
"More likely, Yahoo probably would have lost the same amount of listings with a listing fee or FVF.....it's obvious that listing fees is the route to choose."
You can't POSSIBLY believe that. I strongly disagree with you.
Had Yahoo gone to a reasonable FVF instead of the listing fees they implemented, they would have KEPT the overwhelming majority of their sellers, the sellers who WERE selling (not as quickly as they would have liked, but selling nonetheless). And Yahoo would be raking in FVFs on all those slow-but-steady-selling items right now (like the 3-4 per day I would still be selling, and countless others like me). Had they simply given a tiny incentive to users for policing the site for spam and TOS violations, it would have been a *quick and easy job* for one of their employees to rid their site of "undesirables" (i.e. respond to reports by correcting the violations/ending the listings/suspending the accounts of violators). They could have had their cake and been able to eat it, too. Now they'll just have the crumbs.
