Meya
|
posted on March 1, 2001 09:49:40 AM new
I posted this earlier in one the locked threads:
Could it be that the PTB at AW knew full well that the members wouldn't stand for a FVF on sales? Perhaps they only tacked that on to give us something to gripe about, and make the 5 cent per picture charge seem ok? So, it leaves them room to back down from the % fee, and get what they wanted all along, a per picture charge.
Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they?
You can have 5 cents per image, but you can't have a cut of my sales.
|
labrat4gmos
|
posted on March 1, 2001 09:51:38 AM new
Meya, I wonder about that too.
|
cdnbooks
|
posted on March 1, 2001 09:56:28 AM new
Meya
You mean that there are locked threads?
Where?
Bill
|
toke
|
posted on March 1, 2001 09:59:47 AM new
Meya...
Could it be that Willy and his ilk have made us somewhat cynical?
|
atticques00
|
posted on March 1, 2001 09:59:59 AM new
One thing I do know, come March 14 I will not be signed up to sell with Auctionwatch.
That doesn't mean I wont buckle and use them for some selected auctions in the future. But, I am definitely not going to hurry to sign up when a lot of issues are unresolved, I can find other ways to post while I monitor what happens here post March 14.
|
nanastuff
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:05:05 AM new
Meya, Yes I do remember you saying that and that could very well be true, but I don't think so. The subject of fees have been discussed many times and we all knew they were coming, so there is no reason for them to pull this kind of swicharoonie. They mean it....sad to say. Many questions, and you have said this also, have been asked and there have been NO answers!
|
meplz14
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:08:04 AM new
Along w/ most customers of Auctionwatch we will be saying goodbye. The flat fee of $.05 I can handle but the 1%. EBay is already taking a large chunk and then if the buyer uses Paypal that is more money lost. I have enjoyed using Auctionwatch services and can understand why some sort of service charge is necessary. For me, I sell items that don't make alot of profit and another service charge is not worth it to me.
|
Meya
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:10:57 AM new
I've already uploaded my pictures to my web space. I even revised a couple to see if it would work ok. My pics will all be gone from AW within the next 6 days.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those who don't sign up for the fee based hosting will no longer be allowed to post here either. We won't be considered members any longer will we?
You can have 5 cents per image, but you can't have a cut of my sales.
|
gc2
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:12:17 AM new
Meya: "Could it be that the PTB at AW knew full well that the members wouldn't stand for a FVF on sales? Perhaps they only tacked that on to give us something to gripe about, and make the 5 cent per picture charge seem ok?"
That would smack of eBay tactics, wouldn't it? And, in the past, Mark has been a real "no BS" guy with us.
But AW is being strangely silent at this point. Makes one wonder if there is more to come, as soon as the initial flurry abates. Or maybe there is just no point in any of us discussing it further?
|
nanastuff
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:13:01 AM new
Meya......PERFECT!!!!!
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:13:08 AM new
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those who don't sign up for the fee based hosting will no longer be allowed to post here either.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're still not trying to get you. 
|
toybuyer
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:13:44 AM new
Could it be that the PTB at AW knew full well that the members wouldn't stand for a FVF on sales? Perhaps they only tacked that on to give us something to gripe about, and make the 5 cent per picture charge seem ok? So, it leaves them room to back down from the % fee, and get what they wanted all along, a per picture charge.
Is that like raising gasoline prices to $2 or more a gallon and then we are all happy and pleased when it levels at $1.40? Still above the price we paid a year earlier? Is that a similar principle?
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:18:51 AM new
At the risk of alienating, well... just about everybody, doesn't any business have the right to charge whatever amount they wish for their product?
|
RB
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:22:57 AM new
toybuyer ... it would be, if that is what the "plan" is.
I'm not convinced that that is the plan, although AW has been strangely quiet in responding. Mark has either gagged them all or read them the riot act: "If you so much as respond to ANY of their unanswered questions without an upper echelon meeting first, your job is history."
As a matter of fact, they're not even locking all those discussions about alternate sites anymore. Maybe he has already fired them all ..
Time will tell, I guess.
Wonder where radh is - this thread is getting close to the record (or has it already surpassed the record?)
[ edited by RB on Mar 1, 2001 10:24 AM ]
|
mballai
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:25:27 AM new
Of course they have the right to charge what they want. And they even have a right to become a dot.bomb instead of a dot.com. But I'm being redundant...
I could maybe understand a listing fee, but they lost it on the FVF.
|
toke
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:28:00 AM new
Hi, mrpotatoheadd...
Sure they do. Folks here are merely pointing out to AW that they may be pricing themselves right out of their target market. In fact, they may put themselves right out of biz by overpricing what many are saying is a somewhat iffy product.
|
Shoshanah
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:28:42 AM new
Mr.P...You are absolutely correct...A Business can do ANYTHING it wants....even things which might ALIENATE it's customers. If that is seen as good practice and a business wants to go belly-up, or at least see a substantial decrease in business, then SURE, GO FOR IT...
********
Gosh Shosh!
About Me
|
gk4495
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:30:11 AM new
Well, folks, I think it is becoming clear as to why all other threads regarding the upcoming fees are locked and posters are directed to post here only. The reason is simple: It makes it easier to avoid having to answer questions. There are so many posts in this thread (332 at last count as I post this) that they have us talking over each other, repeating ourselves, and getting increasingly confused. By keeping us in here there is only one thread they have to ignore.
I took a fairly moderate "wait and see" attitude yesterday in another post in another thread. Now I'm mad. It is one thing to introduce fees necessary to make a profit (and no one has begrudged AW that right), on the other hand it is quite another to exhibit poor customer relations by ignoring questions, locking threads, and creating a forum where only chaos results.
In short Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms Moderator: WE NEED ANSWERS TO SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS! CAN YOU HEAR ME IF I SHOUT OVER THE DIN IN HERE??
|
toke
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:33:33 AM new
This isn't the moderators...it's management. Soon management will become very angry. 
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:39:21 AM new
toke-
Folks here are merely pointing out to AW that they may be pricing themselves right out of their target market.
Some in more convincing fashion than others. I guess my point is that I think ranting and raving is not the best way to accomplish that goal. A reasoned response to the fee schedule is more likely to result in a reply (and possibly, an accomodation) than "TAKE IT AND SHOVE IT".
shosh-
If that is seen as good practice and a business wants to go belly-up, or at least see a substantial decrease in business, then SURE, GO FOR IT...
Well, I'm sure the folks at AW never even considered that possibility. As far as a decrease in business... they're receiving nothing now.
|
RB
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:43:58 AM new
Somebody oughta try swearing or hurling an insult at someone else ... just to see if there is still anyone home at AW ...
|
Shoshanah
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:44:43 AM new
Mr.P...they ARE receiving....from the Investors...And those people are NOT sentimental...When their protégés mess up, the Investor tightens the purse's strings...or just throws the protégés out the window... So, AW could lose big...And I would hate to see that happen to them.
********
Gosh Shosh!
About Me
[ edited by Shoshanah on Mar 1, 2001 10:45 AM ]
|
Shoshanah
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:49:00 AM new
OK, RB...I'll sacrifice myself...so here goes: GO TO HELL and stay the F*&$ off this board
Was that good? 
Counting down....
3
2
1
********
Gosh Shosh!
About Me
|
gc2
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:50:05 AM new
Who will volunteer for a really nasty insult, just to see if anyone's minding the store?
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:50:41 AM new
shosh-
I wasn't too clear in my last remark. I meant that AW isn't currently receiving any income from its' users- I'm sorry.
So, AW could lose big...
Actually, I'd be surprised if they hadn't taken that into consideration. I'm sure they didn't come up with the fees by pulling numbers out of a hat or throwing darts at the "User Fee" dart board.
|
vargas
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:50:47 AM new
LOL Shoshanah!
We'll see if anybody's listening.
|
Meya
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:51:05 AM new
AW might not being receiving anything right now from us, the members, but they are receiving money for the advertising banners they run. Do you think any of the companies that own those banners would pay a dime to AW if there was no "service" being provided here?
AW has decided that they supply a service that is worth the fee structure that will begin March 14th. If enough current users of AW decide that the service isn't worth the price, AW will cease to be. It might not happen overnight, but they have to generate enough money to pay the bills etc.
We can post here until our fingers bleed, but this is one prime example of the necessity to "vote with our feet" as it were. Only by enough members pulling their pictures and no longer using AW will the message get through.
The more time that goes by without a word from AW, the worse it is going to be. This thread is running to 340+ posts, and how many of those are from anyone at AW? I'm sure Mark et al are reading every one of these comments. They are making a clear decision to not respond. Doesn't anyone wonder why?
You can have 5 cents per image, but you can't have a cut of my sales.
|
cobra
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:51:58 AM new
I GUESS YOU HAVE LOST A LOT OF PEOPLE MARK O. You better get off you butt and stop the 1% FEE This don't make ant since e-bay charges us e-bay don't charge you when you are useing th erights to put your pictures on the auctions. So use your BRAINS Mark and quit losing people on this sight. What the heaven Name were you thinking.
|
Meya
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:54:32 AM new
And remember, those who don't pay to use AW will most likely not be able to play here on the boards either. I suspect we will lose our memberships, and therefore our priviledge of posting.
That is what I will miss. (and no, I won't pay to play here)
You can have 5 cents per image, but you can't have a cut of my sales.
|
Shoshanah
|
posted on March 1, 2001 10:56:14 AM new
Something just now struck me....Hello! Not too bright, this Shosh!
I just now noticed the starting words of this thread:
Dear AW Seller,
AW users are NOT AW SELLERS. They are Ebay, Yhaoo, AUCTION SITES Sellers....
********
Gosh Shosh!
About Me
|
