Options
ebay policy change-no optional insurance allowed
CapeMOGuy
Posts: 134
starts October 1. Searched and found no discussion.
You will be allowed to, as a seller, quote a price that includes insurance, but will no longer be able to offer insurance as an option. THey say sellers have always been responsible for safe arrival. I call shenanigans on that.
Real question is: will those of you who sell on ebay do anything differently now? I'm thinking of raising the s & h price on cards expected at $100+ to include insurance.
Opinions?
You will be allowed to, as a seller, quote a price that includes insurance, but will no longer be able to offer insurance as an option. THey say sellers have always been responsible for safe arrival. I call shenanigans on that.
Real question is: will those of you who sell on ebay do anything differently now? I'm thinking of raising the s & h price on cards expected at $100+ to include insurance.
Opinions?
0
Comments
Bottom line, as it's been mentioned on these boards, insurance protects the seller.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
CU Thread
........................
I can live with it; some folks may not be able to.
A massive round of "changes" will rollout about
March 2010. JD will then have his "world's largest
outlet mall" withing sight.
<< <i>It is truly unbelieveable that no one else has started a sight that can compete with eBay. The original eBay format worked well and made billions. Why change from what worked? >>
/////////////////////////////////////////
If you can come up with a way for a publicly-traded
company to make money with a "sales site," MSFT
and GOOG will pay you a bunch of money.
Problem is: There is likely NO way to do it.
<< <i>Problem is: There is likely NO way to do it. >>
If eBay is trying to drive away customers and still making money, why couldn't some other company like Google or Yahoo step in with an identical format as the original eBay and make a nice profit? Would have to spend a ton on advertising and expect an early loss, but still seems plausible.
Corporations like a minimum profit margin. Don't ask me for the specifics because I don't know. But there is a huge vacuum right now and something will come to replace ebay. There is money to be made, the question is whether the probable return to the site owner will be enough to make it more desirable than investing in some other play. Unless, of course, some do gooder attempts it for the good of the people, and as a strong advocate of freeware, I can tell you how well that usually works out
<< <i>
<< <i>Problem is: There is likely NO way to do it. >>
If eBay is trying to drive away customers and still making money, why couldn't some other company like Google or Yahoo step in with an identical format as the original eBay and make a nice profit? Would have to spend a ton on advertising and expect an early loss, but still seems plausible. >>
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
A public company cannot justify that kind of venture.
"Nice Profit" sounds GREAT to you and me, but it does
not fly with public companies that would have to
spend $1-Billion+ just to "get in the game."
GOOG, YHOO - and now BING (MSFT) - are getting a
nice rake of the money from EBAY. That would end,
if any of them started a standalone competitor.
If we study EBAY's SEC-filings, we see that if their
sales site was all they had going, they would have
vanished long ago.
.........................
Sometimes called: First To Market Advantage
wiki
First-mover advantage
FMA is the sometimes insurmountable advantage gained by the initial or “first-moving” significant occupant of a new market segment. This advantage may stem from the fact
that the first entrant can gain control of resources that followers may not be able to match. Originally made apparent by the ever booming Internet phenomenon, it has recently
been on the decline due to the recent economic situation. It is important to note that the first-mover advantage refers to the first significant company to move into a market, not
merely the first company. In order for a company to try and become a first-mover that company needs to figure out if the overall rewards outweigh the beginning/underlying
risks. Sometimes first-movers are rewarded with huge profit margins and a monopoly like status. Other times the first-mover is not able to capitalize on its advantage, leaving
the opportunity for other firms to compete effectively and efficiently versus their earlier entrants. These individuals then gain a second-mover advantage.
............................
.............................................
Remember, when Pierre launched EBAY he ONLY wanted
a place for his GF to sell her PEZ-dispensers.
Once the place became populated with folks infected by Bain
Capital paradigms, it was inevitable that someday - sooner
than later - nobody would have a place to sell their PEZ toys.
Can GOOG/MSFT/YHOO really "make a nice profit" establishing
a venue for refugee PEZ peddlers?
They don't think so.
<< <i>It is truly unbelieveable that no one else has started a sight that can compete with eBay. The original eBay format worked well and made billions. Why change from what worked? >>
Bill, I think a big part of that answer lies in the fact that so many want to use BIN and not auctions cuz in reality, things go way to cheap in auction and people arent willing to go that route so much anymore. I dont think a full auction site will ever work now. So many lessons learned over the years of auctioning on ebay.
"Molon Labe"
<< <i>Why would you expect the buyer to insure the purchased goods when it's in complete control of the seller to properly package and ship? I have never understood that thinking. >>
////////////////////////////
Because most old timers from B&M days always relied
on the UCC notion that the contract terms - usually
FOB - controlled the transaction.
EBAY removed the right of buyers/sellers to make a
contract that did not conform to EBAY TOS.
.......
Edit Add: I think EBAY is right in moving the total burden to
the seller. AMZN and other big sites play it that way, too.
Once the "free shipping" scheme is universal - shipping
costs included in retail price - EBAY will be a better place.
<< <i>It is truly unbelieveable that no one else has started a sight that can compete with eBay. The original eBay format worked well and made billions. Why change from what worked? >>
They have. They're called Amazon. That's who Donahoe is gunning for and Amazon is taking eBay's a$$ to the woodshed as we speak.
<< <i>
Bill, I think a big part of that answer lies in the fact that so many want to use BIN and not auctions cuz in reality, things go way to cheap in auction and people arent willing to go that route so much anymore. I dont think a full auction site will ever work now. So many lessons learned over the years of auctioning on ebay. >>
Very true...I have 99% of my inventory in my ebay store and sell things at prices I am satisfied with. Auctions just don't get the kind of action it used to get.
As for the new policy...it is the seller's responsibility, but it's a killer because if you add insurance cost to your s/h, you are just going get screwed in the Detailed Star Ratings (DSR) which is BS.
Profit Margins are so tight it is not even funny on ebay.