posted on March 10, 2001 07:22:19 AM new
I wouldn't use Yahoo Mail if they paid me $5/mo. But I think Yahoo would do very well to quit offering all their services for free and charge users a monthly fee on a package deal.
This would include: Auctions (unlimited listings), Geocities (with no advertising banners), Mail, Yahoo Clubs (everyone would have access to read, but only paying members could post).
This might sound extreme for services, users are accustomed to using for free, but I believe this will be the norm in the near future.
Not so crazy when I think of a girlfriend who use to run up $200/mo bills using AOL's chat before they had unlimited hours. The standard for hosting web sites with no advertising is 9.95 and up for basic service.
Yahoo could easily charge $20/mo to $40/mo considering that this would include the auction listings.
posted on March 10, 2001 07:30:27 AM new
I wouldn’t post under a package deal with Yahoo, till Yahoo changes it attitude and gets the TOS account cancellations under control, and the "neighborhood watch," under control - neighborhood watch, is merely a way to eliminate one's competition.
posted on March 10, 2001 08:31:26 PM new
There might be some auction sellers who would take advantage of this initially. Let's be generous and say they could get 10,000 auction sellers at $20 per month. That's less than 3 million per year. Which is very close to nothing for a global corporation.
And who else would take this deal. All of Yahoo's other services are available elsewhere for free.
Sure, people used to run up $200 AOL bills. I know I did. But would anyone do this today? Of course not. People also used to pay $3,000 for a 486. I've got several that I'll sell for half that price if anyone is interested.
posted on March 10, 2001 09:39:29 PM new
mint4you, You might be a little overdue for a reality check. Its very likely that many of these websites we are so familiar with, will soon be history if they can not generate enough money from user fees to replace the declining advertising revenues.
Or I should just ask you where you believe this money is going to come from if not from advertising or user fees.
A win/win situation requires that Yahoo profits from providing the service and users profit from using the service. The alternative is sites like Yahoo, and eventually Bidville, go under and eBay is a virtual monopoly.
I don't know what the average eBay seller is paying in fees, but I have a strong suspicion most would consider $20 to $40/mo a bargain.
I was making a meager income listing and relisting 200 to 300 items per week on Yahoo ($10 to $20 items). At the current rates that would cost me about $75/week on average.
I don't know what alternatives you are suggesting but I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider $20 to $40/mo as a suggestion that Yahoo "charge more fees".
posted on March 10, 2001 10:45:32 PM new
mint4you writes:
>>To impose more fees on top of that, for those that remained, would surely be business suicide.<<
Whoa horsey! Please review my original post. The $20 to $40/mo includes everything. Unlimited auction listings, email, 15 megs on Geocities, and Yahoo clubs. NOT $20 to $40/mo on top of the current listing fees.
$20 to $40/mo was just a suggestion. And a conservative one at that. I would consider any monthly fee under $100 reasonable, but that obviously depends on the volume and price range of listings.
As far as the additional services or "package deal" goes. I don't believe Yahoo offers the option of banner free web pages. Why not? They are looking for additional revenue. Or from another perspective, why should auction sellers be carrying the entire load to subsidize all of Yahoo's free services. If advertising isn't creating the revenue to support Yahoo Clubs then charge the club users not the auction sellers.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:43:15 AM new
There may be some value in a package deal, as there is obviously some loss of income recently from banner sales. But the problem with Yahoo, in general, is there is a lack of quality Customer Service.
We have seen more web sites that were previously free start proposing or increasing fees, so the trend is there. Yahoo just needs to wake up & remember that the company that services the Customer will do well, and they just do not do that...
posted on March 11, 2001 05:20:52 AM new
The problem with Yahoo is GREED. Not just your everyday simple greed, no. This is a super greed. It is not enough to make a profit, unless the profit is totally OBSCENE!
We should all be crying tears of blood because poor YAHOO is probably only goin to make half of what they thought they should this quarter. $174,000,000.00 >>>>GIVE ME A BREAK, please!take ofur or five of those zeroes out and I would be happy with that.
What ever happened to this country that a company has to be making totally obscene profits, or be on the verge of collapse.
This is all Wall Street manipulations. The street is now far more concerned with selling stocks on speculation rather than a company's value and stability. Therefore if OBSCENE profits canot be generated to prop up the price per share, then Wall Street is in trouble. But THEY can't be in trouble, so the company is in trouble.
I'm not sure, but could this have been the same kind of mindset that led to the the Crash of the 20's?? It just seems we have all gone TOPSY TURVY! What is wrong with making Millions in profit rather than billions?
I think that if Yahoo canot survive by making Millions, then when they are gone, someone will be glad to take those millions.
posted on March 11, 2001 09:35:08 AM new
"GREED, for a lack of a better word, is good." Michael Douglas (Wall Street)....Just joking.
jihhow; I don't disagree with you, but greedy or not, Yahoo is looking at ways to offset their declining advertising revenue. The only point I was trying to make is that laying the total burden on their auction sellers isn't working.
posted on March 11, 2001 09:57:00 AM new
Jim is right.
If Yahoo had been reasonable on the fees, we could have worked with them. But they gambled that they could be as arrogant as egreed with fees and they lost.
They were warned. God knows we did our best to tell them they were committing suicide. But they didn't believe us.
posted on March 11, 2001 11:00:30 AM new
I doubt I would pay a flat rate. What we were used to in the Old Yahoo, is no more! Who's to say that it would be the same? They blew it and big time! The Yahoo stocks have crashed. They should have listened to the people, instead they were arrogant enough to believe they didn't need us or our junk and clutter. Well, now they have a very de-cluttered auction site. Nothing is there.
I read this being compared to Coca-cola a few years ago, when they pulled coke and introduced New Coke. People were livid! It didn't take long for Coke to realize that they made a mistake, and they brought back Coca-cola "classic" and kept the New Coke also. So, why hasn't Yahoo admitted their wrong-doing? Because it is run by idiots, who believe they are above the people.
posted on March 12, 2001 01:05:11 PM new
I may be in the minority here, but I think a flat monthly fee would be great. I would be more likely to pay it if I had the option of sending a money order though. As things are right now I wouldn't be able to pay a monthly fee on my MAXED credit card.
edited to add, assuming of course that the fees were reasonable and included everything including use of auction services. If it only included use of mail and yahoo clubs I would stop using mail and clubs, because the only real reason I use yahoo mail is to support my yahoo auctions.
[ edited by CAgrrl on Mar 12, 2001 01:08 PM ]
posted on March 13, 2001 05:28:10 AM new
The flat rate sounds like something YaWho would do. Listen to a couple sellers who like the concept then implement it for all.
Of course not everybody is like you or is in the same situation. It wouldn't work for me. So they would still lose out on the $500 a month they would be making off me if they would just listen to the majority of the sellers and charge 5% FV fees with no listing fees.
As for the spam, they could teach people to use the search engine and perhaps rewrite their code to make it work right. And they could let the sellers rewrite the listing tree so that there is a meaningful category for nearly every item. And hire somebody to kick the spammers off the site.
Of course these suggestions were made countless times and fell on deaf ears. So I won't hold my breath. I'm hoping bidville catches on with buyers.
posted on March 13, 2001 07:47:44 AM new
"Of course not everybody is like you or is in the same situation. It wouldn't work for me. So they would still lose out on the $500 a month they would be making off me"
We all have different situations and preferences but if you estimate that "they would still lose out on the $500 a month" they would be making off you, please explain how a $20 to $40/mo flat fee (or even a $100/mo) wouldn't work for you. If your estimate is correct, you would be saving $400/mo with a $100/mo flat fee.
If you meant to say "$500 in gross sales", 5% of $500 would be $25, so a $20 to $40/mo flat fee should be a workable solution for you.
Anyone who would object to $20 to $40/mo as excessive does not list or sell enough where this should even be an issue. Thats just my opinion, but if I thought this was excessive, I wouldn't be concerned with Yahoo, I would be concentrating on how to make Bidville work for me.
posted on March 13, 2001 08:49:08 AM new
The MAJOR problem with a package deal on Yahoo is that you can't trust Yahoo! Hypnotically speaking, if today Yahoo implemented such a program, you could purchase your monthly "package," post your auctions, and tomorrow, based on their nebulous TOS rules, they could cancel your account, and keep your money for the "monthly package deal."
Yahoo has totally lost its credibility and trustworthiness -
Of course this whole discussion is moot, since Yahoo isn't going to implement anything, or admit any mistakes.
At one point in time, I would have welcomed such a program – but now Yahoo has become totally disreputable.
