posted on June 9, 2000 09:16:12 AM new
The internationally distributed newspaper, USA Today has published an article in their weekend edition about the banner advertising issue and user reaction.
posted on June 9, 2000 11:03:53 AM new
So..toyranch..are you the toy seller quoted in this ad? Did you and/or OAUA contact USA Today and give them this tip? Is this part of the plan by OAUA to force ebay to kowtow to OAUA's demands.
Sounds like OAUA is a union...political activist group pushing it's own agenda that would ultimately affect the other ebay community members without concern about how the rest of us feel.
Let's see...Magazine guy said last night that OAUA has about 1600 members...ebay has 12 million users (from what this article states). So OAUA's membership represents a little more than 1/10 of 1% of ebay users, yet OAUA thinks it has the right to plan an all out effort to affect the livelihoods of the other 99.9% of ebay users?
When ebay gives in to OAUA's demands and stops the banner ads and turns to increased fees to cover the loss revenue those ads generate, will OAUA be charitable and help the poor sellers who are driven out of business by the added costs of selling on ebay?
Has OAUA seriously looked at the possible consequences of their position?
A bit harsh. While I'm not defending anybody, it's pretty common knowledge within the eBay community that there is some strong feelings about the banner ads. Shoot, even AuctionWatch has an article in their Daily News section.
Me, I don't worry about them. I've got JunkBuster running and I don't seen either eBay's ads or AuctionWatch's ads
posted on June 9, 2000 11:43:38 AM new
I may be mistaken, but I can't find the thread right now to get the quote, but didn't someone say that eBay's financial statement indicates that seller revenue is a very small portion of their income now?
The USA Today article states that the seller revenue is the bulk of eBay's revenue.
Yes, I am the toy seller quoted in the article. I did not contact the reporter, nor did OAUA. The reporter was reading threads right here on AuctionWatch and contacted me for more information. This was not something OAUA did as an organization.
A union represents EMPLOYEES of a company in negotiations with that company. OAUA is a non-profit organization. There are no salaried positions, it is all volunteer. There are currently no membership fees.
ebaY's user sellers are not employees, we are all independent businesses, some of us very casual businesses and some of us very committed fulltime sellers. Employees have laws that have been created to protect them from abusive employers and that set a standard for wages, working conditions, and more. ebaY has influence similar to an employer on it's user sellers, but there are no guarantees, and no protections.
OAUA has existed for almost a year now. This is the first time OAUA has opposed ebaY... There have been other issues that have been very important to some members and were oppositional to ebaY, but not important to a majority of members. The OAUA Board takes it's mandate from member input. If the board feels an issue is important, but members do not support involvement in the issue, it is not addressed.
There are many significant differences between OAUA and a union, but there are some similarities and if you wish to consider OAUA that way, it is your right.
As far as ebaY users who are not members, OAUA is concerned about all online auction issues, but is responsive to it's membership and represents membership.
Amy~ AuctionWatch, USA Today, and many users feel this is a significant issue. I am personally receiving around 500 emails each day on this issue, and many of them are not from OAUA members. If OAUA did not exist, the article would STILL have come out and I would STILL be posting to this board about it.
These opinions are my own, and not those of OAUA or it's board.
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true, or becomes true. -John Lily
I really like the *idea* of the OAUA, but I am very displeased when in another thread I was informed that the ISSUE is not the rate of click-throughs --- which all studies prove to be infintesimal, but rather that this move showed that eBay was taking a new direction, in favor of corporate retail.
The disingenuousness of that reply to me tossed me into severe insomnia, and as the birds started to chirp this morning, I realized that evidentally all the people who consider themselves seriously in business AND all the posters who took part in long long long messagethreads with me, from a year to YEARS ago, suddenly have either no memory and/or no firsthand knowledge of all the discussions we have had about the person-2-person online auction model as opposed to b2c or b2b.
posted on June 9, 2000 01:00:18 PM new
I just turn the darn Java off. I learned to do this a couple of years ago, sometimes while tracking down stuff on the Web one stumbles into...er...adult sites that use invisible keywords built into their pages so search engines will list them (i.e., 47 zillion keywords printed in black on a black background)!
You get into one of these with Java turned on, and often you won't just get banner ads for these porn merchants, you'll get separate pop up windows! Close one down, two more pop up!!! EGAD!
One day I was searching for data on a WW II German plane and I got something like 'Billy Bob's House O' Weird Fetishes...'
By the time I thought of hitting control+alt+delete there were about a dozen windows open, with more just trying to spawn!
Yucko.
For myself, I see both sides of the argument re: banner ads, but I tend to side with those who are agin' 'em. I recognize that eBay wants to enhance revenue without raising fees, but you don't do it by potentially redirecting buyers away from the people who made you what you are!
Related to Junkbuster and uses the same format for it's configuration files. Never got it running satisfactorily on my Linux box, but runs just fine on Win32 - Free
posted on June 9, 2000 01:09:24 PM new
Toy..why not say up front that you were the seller quoted?
As to union..yes, the definition is as you stated...but the actions of a union, the tactics etc, can be used by anyone. A union is what OAUA is acting like IMO.
And I know full well what OAUA is, you don't have to explain it to me. I know how it is supposed to work.
If OAUA were only representing it's members then it and/or it's representatives (such as the COO and President) would not be here drumming up support for their member's position. But obviously at least the BOD of OAUA feel it is their destiny to to be the saviors of ALL ebay users, regardless of how the remaining 99.9% feel about it.
It is kind of ironic that the COO of OAUA posts on this board complaining about ebay lying to the OAUA representatives when the COO along with other OAUA BOD members assured ebay last fall, when OAUA met with ebay to set up the OAUA laison program, that OAUA was not a union and would not be acting like one. Yet here OAUA is, on public boards, being activists trying to drum up support for the position of less than 2000 people so OAUA can force ebay to not only stop ALL retail banner ads but is also demanding that ebay reveal to the members what ebay's business plans are.
Even if OAUA does not qualify as a union as you defined it...OAUA is obviously not operating as they assured ebay they would be. Sounds to me like OAUA practices deception too.
Of course this is my opinion and I doubt if you will agree with it. I guess I'm one of those AW users you sneered about a few days ago on MR Wr***t's board the other day.
Just my opinion, but I think that if eBay wants to put banner ads on site which are competing directly with us regular 'mom and pop' sellers, eBay should stop charging listing fees and only collect final value fees.
That way, if those ads don't affect us small time sellers, eBay doesn't lose anything.
BUT, if the banner ads do result in fewer sales, eBay will take a hit almost as hard as the rest of us.
Seems to be the only fair way to do it.
posted on June 9, 2000 01:20:24 PM new
Radh..I agree with you, the basic premise of OAUA was great...form a group that would promote honest, ethical behavior in the online auction setting, would hold it's members to a high standard of ehtical behavior, would work as a self help group to learn how to be better sellers, would help each other with problems encountered in the online auction setting, would be a clearing ground for the gathering of information of laws and government regulations that could affect the online auction industry, to be a conduit to the various auction sites for the MEMBERS concerns about those sites...these were (and still are) wonderful goals.
But unfortunately I too have been left speechless (at least temporarily). I was left speechless by the actions of the OAUA I have seen recently. I don't think they are living up to their own mission.
(Disclosure: I am an OAUA member, I am not on the board.)
I know that the issue of posts by members and/or board members has been discussed at OAUA. Except for DCJ's post of the OAUA Official Response, all posts made are by individuals, who hold different opinions, and are not official OAUA posts, nor do they necessarily represent OAUA's stance on the issues.
I have personally considered your posts about the clickthrough rates and how banners prove ineffective. Here is MY opinion about why this is different from other banners and why average clickthrough rates don't apply to this situation.
Normal advertising contracts for banners consist of a fee per clickthrough. Some of them also have a fee per page view. This is usually not much. I don't know what AuctionWatch gets, but they need lots of page views to pay, and I imagine that their clickthrough rates are similar to the average. When the X.com banners were up here, I'll bet they had a much higher clickthrough rate. Just a guess...
Right now, I look up there^ and I see a banner for Brand Outlet, who sells some used video and stereo equipment or something. Guess what? I don't care about that stuff. I didn't come here looking for used audio/video equipment, I came here looking for auction discussion.
I go to sites all over the web and I see banners. There are banners for Online Bingo at HTML sites and banners for counters at Animated Gif sites and so on and so forth.
You don't go to eToys and see banners for ToysRus. You don't go to Amazon and see banners for Barnes and Noble...
If you do a search on Yahoo!, your search result will likely be served up with a banner related to your search (depending on what it is). That is TARGETING. Targeted banners have much higher clickthrough rates.
So if I go to ebaY and I'm looking for a Mama's Family Video Library and a banner for Suncoast comes up with an offer for $10 off and free shipping, I will be much more likely to click the banner, go to Suncoast's site, and see if they have it and how much it is going to cost. Then I'll consider that I can either order it now and get it shipped free and have it in 3 days or so, OR I can go back to ebaY, place a bid, wait a week for the auction to end, trade email with the seller, IF I WIN, and then, even if I pay with PayPal or something, it will take a lot longer to get it usually. But I might be outbid. And then I have to start over.
As the USA Today reporter told me on the phone: "This is very strange indeed. It's like Macy's putting advertising for Bloomingdale's in their stores."
And that's why, instead of the page view rates that really don't pay much, ebaY is suggesting that ad rates run $4 million to $5 million a year (according to the marketing person who spoke with KarenY)
posted on June 9, 2000 01:38:52 PM new
I have to assume, Amy, that I'm the OAUA President who is here drumming up support -- though in fact, I most often sit quietly and post socially if at all. I'm glad your speechlessness didn't last too terribly long as I do in fact always enjoy hearing your point of view -- even when we disagree.
The OAUA as a whole is advocating direct communication between eBay's users and the eBay management team. Additionally, we're in contact with eBay so that we might (through our liaison program) express the concerns that our membership have brought to light. Like Bobby, I receive quite a bit of email on this topic daily -- though I've done little to encourage email specifically to me being most silent on the boards as I am. Where I'm not understanding what you've said is here: how does the OAUA best go about representing the concerns of its members (as they've been shared with the OAUA BOD as a whole) without "be(ing) the saviors of ALL ebay users, regardless of how the remaining 99.9% feel about it."
I take my role as an OAUA Board member quite seriously; during a typical week I'll spend more than 50 hours on OAUA business -- including responding to member issues, thoughts, and concerns. I feel it is my responsibility in this role to promote the views of our users to the folks who can make a difference -- and in the case of this issue -- that's the management at eBay.
(You can see from the somewhat randomly placed thoughts here why it is that I seldom speak on serious issues; my apologies for any lack of clarity.)
posted on June 9, 2000 01:39:05 PM new
My favorite part in the article was when the eBay spokesman said, "Most of the feedback we're getting recognizes that the great majority of this revenue goes into making eBay a better trading environment"
I don't think I'd want to buy a used car from that spokesman.
posted on June 9, 2000 01:43:51 PM new
Toy...by the way...unless the bylaws have changed, OAUA is not defined as a non-profit organization. It is defined as a professional organization. If OAUA has filed with the IRS for tax exempt in the category they intended to last fall, then they did not file as a charitable (non-profit) organization but rather under the regulations for professional organizations. They are able to make a profit (which would be taxable) and there were many ideas tossed around about how to make money for the organization.
As for no salaries...right now there may not be any paid members, but again, the bylaws permit OAUA to pay people for services and those paid CAN be the Board members, general members etc.
This organization was not set up as a charitable organization and the bylaws were delibertly written to allow the organization to be profit makeing if so desired.
posted on June 9, 2000 01:46:20 PM newAmy~ I think you have me confused with someone else. I have made no remarks about AW posters on another board.
As to the rest, like I said, we seem to differ on opinion and I have only been actively involved with OAUA for a fairly short time, do I don't feel qualified to address your issues with what the board is supposed to do.
I will ask you a question however...
How are users supposed to have a voice with ebaY? Users have been sending email to ebaY and getting back canned responses for 2 years now (before that we got real responses). There is no line of communication. There are Voices meetings with select users, the rest of us have no idea what is going on in those meetings.....
My Opinion...
So without an organization to communicate user opinions and work with ebaY to address those issues, how can users ever hope to address the issues that come up all the time and impact our businesses.
And I'm confused...
Do you feel that the banners will benefit your auctions and your online business? Or that they are a non-issue? Or do you just have issue with OAUA?
For the record, again, if there were no OAUA, I would be making the same posts, I would be doing the same things. It would not make any difference whatsoever to my personal participation in this issue.
So maybe you have an issue with me? Or with anyone who has an opinion they express in an outspoken manner? After all, if OAUA is a group of less than 2000 users and they are called into question about this, then I acting on my own on an issue I consider vital to maintain a vibrant person-to-person trading marketplace on ebaY, I must really upset you! I'm not a group. I'm one person with a family addressing an issue that I think is important for my financial future with ebaY.
posted on June 9, 2000 02:29:51 PM new
such squabbling going on in here!
I think both 'sides' have made some pretty good points.
One theme that I keep hearing from disgruntled eBayers is being "FAIR". On another thread, somebody noted (and I have to agree) eBay doesn't OWE anyone anything.
It would be NICE if they would consider the backs of the small time sellers they climbed on to get where they are today... but they don't HAVE to.
eBay is a BUSINESS.... and it's a BIG business.... Amy made a good point earlier in this thread when she suggested that without the banner ads, we might see higher fees so that eBay can rake in more revenue.
If OTWA has a number of folks that are willing to stand up and be counted on various "issues", then I think they should. eBay claims over and over to be collecting the views of it's valued community members and if OTWA can assist with the facilitation of ideas between eBay registered members and the PTB runnin' the show - that's a positive thing. If you don't like what OTWA is doing collectively, I believe they have invited opinions from BOTH SIDES of the Banner Ad "debate".
This whole thing with the Banner Ads Vs. Higher Fees (and that's what I believe it all boils down to) is DEPRESSING for Sellers at eBay.
But it's not the only depressing thing for sellers that eBay has rolled out lately... eBay motors, "Watch this Auction", BillPoint double exposure... (what NEXT?)
Summation: If you don't like what's going on in eBay's yard, tough!....find another sandbox! *sigh*
posted on June 9, 2000 02:47:28 PM new
Toy..I have no issue with you personally. My issue with OAUA I have stated.
On the banner issue...I find it a non issue.
But let's get to the meat of this matter.
Ebay is a corporation. As a corporation they WILL look to their own best interest, AS THEY SEE IT! If they decide to change their direction that is their decision. If that decision proves to be fatal to their profitability and/or drives away their customers, they will be the one to accept the consequences.
Ebay currently sells a service. They permit us to use that service, at their will (which is as it should be). There was no contract with their customers (us) that guaranteed they will continue the business model as it was when each of us started using their services. They did not guarantee us we could make a living using their services. They have NO obligation to me or you or anyone else to do nothing that will affect our business negatively.
Ebay is the MOST open corporation I have ever seen. They encourage their customers to give input and they listen to that input. They do surveys, read the ebay boards, read these boards, read email to them. They respond to the members and try to accomodate them. We have transaction only feedback because the users wanted it, they scaled back the reserve fee rules when the customers complained, they required credit cards for hotmail users because the customers complained, they instituted the insurance program in response to customers concerns, the instituted the deadbeat bidder program in response to customer concerns and even modified it when their customers reported problems with it, they instituted a verification program in response to their customers.
All of these things were done because individual users let ebay know how they felt. And those users weren't part of any organized group...they wrote individual emails, got on the ebay boards or came to offline boards like this. And ebay listened and responded. Yes, some were not satisfied with what ebay did in response to these concerns...they felt it was either not enough or not done correctly or didn't really solve the problem...but ebay cannot satisfy ALL of the users all the time.
It doesn't take an organized group for ebay to listen.
But, unfortunately, sometimes the users desires are in conflict with what ebay management feels is best for ebay and then what is best for ebay (as the management sees it) is what will prevail.
We have to recognize that. We have to recognize that even though ebay listens to us, we cannot dictate how ebay operates as a business. we use them as long as their service suits our needs. If it no longer suits our needs we find another that will.
The reality is that ebay OWES US NOTHING and as soon as we realize that the better off we will be.
posted on June 9, 2000 02:50:11 PM new
As an eBay buyer and sometimes seller, I have to go along with eBay on this one. Competition is GOOD for business. I think many of the dealers on eBay have been having a pretty good time of it lately. I've seen many items sold at, or above, the msrp of that item and reserves higher than I can purchase the same item for locally. Could the opposition to the banner advertising be due to the almost certain outcome of educating the buyer? Not very Ma and Pa like. It always amuses me when I hear someone complain about competition moving in "down the street". I wonder if it ever occured to them that "competition" just might lead a buyer into their store?
I have to agree with Dottie when she says, "If you don't like what's going on in eBay's yard, tough!....find another sandbox! "
posted on June 9, 2000 03:06:33 PM new
As I stated (at much grater length) on another banner thread's second page (http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=2&thread=200255&id=200648), I feel there is a qualitative difference between having banner ads at most sites and having banner ads at eBay.
Most sites with banner ads are providing information or webspace for free, in hopes that at least some visitors click on an ad, and more importantly, that at least a few of them buy something from the advertiser.
Each and every ad clickthrough is of benefit to all members of the original site, since it pays for the information they're providing or the webspace they are using.
However, on eBay, each and every ad click is not of benefit to all members of the original site, because "members" include sellers who are not employees of eBay. Indeed, any clickthrough that leads to a purchase or even sufficient enough distraction costs sellers on eBay some degree of money. No seller benefits from clickthroughs, except for a rare and very indirect case (a seller also just happens to be an employee of the company that placed the ad, and that company can afford bigger salaries or bonuses because of the sales through eBay ads).
Clickthrough rates can be very low and still hurt all sellers. It certainly doesn't help any eBay seller get bids, and any ad click that ends in an off-eBay purchase will have a good chance of costing the seller a bid.
Under no circumstances, given the current banner ads, it benefit an eBay seller. Even a click on an untargetted banner gives no benefit, at best, and at worst, an untargetted ad can lead to a potential bidder buying an unrelated item off eBay and then deciding that they spent enough for the week and will forego bidding on eBay auctions for a bit.
Of course, targetted ads are worse, because they resemble what the potential bidder was already searching for, and if they buy off eBay because of the ad, they are even more likely to forgo bidding on the similar eBay items, either because they've gotten something like it, or again, have spent enough money for the week.
Targetted banner ads are in much closer competition to the sellers whose auctions appear elsewhere on the search results pages, and toyranch went further into that in the June09, 1:28:37 note.
Again, while targetted banner ads are definitely the worst problem, even untargetted ads are not helpful to eBay sellers.
eBay is, IMO, qualitatively different when it comes to the results of placing banner ads. Consequences are far more complex, and many are negative. I already got into lists of pros and cons for all parties (buyers, sellers, and eBay itself) in the other thread I cited, so I won't get that exacting here.
Of course, it can be argued that the money from direct marketers will help pay for improvements to eBay that will benefit all sellers, but, to use a somewhat graphic metaphor, that is like making a thirsty man bleed so you can give him back... well, maybe that's too graphic, especially for me.
I find myself agreeing with the people who say eBay is a big business and thus has the right to do business as they wish, but that doesn't make it right for most people, and people have a right to complain. Right, right, right... er, what I mean is that eBay has given people good reasons to complain regarding the ads, in regard to competition and eBay not being a typical business, and DoubleClick tracking them, etc. If eBay wants to take the chance of angering its users and perhaps damaging its profits -- one of the few online companies that has actual profits -- that is there choice, but that doesn't mean its users have to be happy about it, whether or not they jump ship to some other auction site.
Yes, eBay has done some good things, and those should definitely be acknowledged, but that doesn't remove the facts that it has failed to fix some bad things, and has intentionally instituted what most people seem to find is another bad thing or two.
They have the right (unless some legal agency were to find otherwise in the future), but that doesn't mean people will be cheerful when packing up -- or trying to weather the results if they stay.
None of these are absolutes, but they are not nothings either.
Hmmm....
----
What\'s being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
The OAUA incorporated as a non-profit trade association, not a non-profit charity. We're in the process of obtaining a determination from the IRS on that status (this is normal). So we're not a charity. But we are a non-profit association, just like many other trade associations.
OAUA does represent its members. That said, I suspect there are few issues in which 100% of the membership agree. We've been asking our membership for input on this issue, initially on our board, and later in a special newsletter sent to all members. The response by members on our board, email, and on the other auction boards has been overwhelmingly opposed to eBay's actions in this matter. The vast majority of our members who have contacted us support OAUA's actions in this matter.
Amy disagrees, and has withdrawn her membership as a result, as is her right. If a significant portion of the membership agreed with her, OAUA would not have moved on this issue.
posted on June 9, 2000 03:46:37 PM newAmy~ I was not aware that you were an OAUA member and that you terminated your membership over this issue. You questioned me for not stating that I was interviewed in the article I posted, and I really didn't want to toot my own horn in that manner and that is the reason I didn't mention it. You asked, and I responded quickly that I am.
Now I understand a little bit more about what is going on here and I have no desire to further discuss OAUA with you. Your issues are with the BOD and OAUA, I'm not going to be drawn into the middle of that just because I'm a member.
I will be happy to discuss the ebaY issue. We disagree and I don't think we are going to find a place where we reach a common understanding.
Know this though...
I love ebaY very much. If I didn't care a great deal for ebaY, I would not bother with this. ebaY is a corporation, but ebaY is also US. When someone tells their friend they bought this cool thing on ebaY, they say just that 'I bought it on ebaY'. They don't say 'I bought this from Amy' or 'I bought this from Toy Ranch'.
We are ebaY and that part of ebaY, IMO, is being sold by the pound to big business retailers and they are going to change the marketplace completely, just as building Wal-Marts in small towns around the country has closed the doors of small Mom and Pop Stores, bringing Big Business in to compete with users on the same platform will doom many 'Mom and Pop' sellers.
ebaY most certainly has the right to do that. I personally believe they have a moral responsibility to those sellers as they have implied in countless press releases that people should 'close your stores, quit your jobs, sell with us because we will be here for you.' They have no legal obligations here. I believe they have moral obligations.
Furthermore, I believe that the long-term effects of this policy will be ultimately harmful to the marketplace and to their success.
You are free to disagree, and I don't get the impression that we are going to agree. Nothing wrong with that.
posted on June 9, 2000 03:47:13 PM new
Steve..let's get something straight. I DON'T disagree with OAUA representing it's membership, and that is not why my membership was terminated. I have no problem with OAUA presnting to ebay it's MEMBER'S views..and no problem with presenting it as "a majority of our membership feels this way" or to take the majorities view as the only view OAUA presents to ebay.
My problem is when OAUA goes on public boards and uses tactics meant to get others to support OAUA's views...uses sig lines that ask for people to join up...uses URL's pointing people to OAUA so those people will join in a letter writing campaign...or presents on a public board OAUA's response to ebay's banner ads...or a board member admits she is gathering ALL emails to her about the issue so OAUA can stengthen it's position when approaching ebay with this issue.
At that point you went beyond representing your MEMBERS views and started trying to influence others so ebay would be more likely to agree with OAUA's position.
posted on June 9, 2000 03:50:44 PM new
Quoted from the above linked artical on usa.com:
"EBay, which had virtually no advertising on the site until recently, is now accepting ads from retailers eager to access its community of more than 12 million users. EBay's goal: to increase revenue, spokesman Kevin Pursglove says."
~ ~ ~
Attention: Kenvin Purseglove
RE: Banner Ads at eBay
Dear Mr. Purseglove,
I am writing to inform you that the information reported by USA Today quoted above is absolutely eroneous.
Over two years ago, Barnes and Noble actively advertised on eBay's website, wherein the BOOKS Categories there were numerous banner ads from this company.
There were some other banner ads at that time, too, but I assure you that I do not remember the names of the retailers or organizations running them. The only reason I remember the Barnes & Noble banners is that an active member of the eBay Community at that time tried to get a discussion started at the AW eBay Forum.
I do not remember that said discussion getting off the ground, I do not recall ever clicking on any of the banner ads running at that time, including those run by bn.com.
posted on June 9, 2000 04:11:37 PM new
Hmm, I had forgotten about the "close your doors and sell with us" implications of eBay's prior press releases.
That puts an even worse spin on what they are doing now. Yes, they have the right, and maybe it's yet another lesson in who to trust and what to take with a grain of salt, but this could, in my opinion, still really give eBay a bad reputation.
Maybe it will blow over and people will get used to the ads, but this subject seems to be quite a lot hotter than most, generating thread after thread of long notes (even aside from mine ) for weeks now.
Who knows.
P.S. I'd be curious to hear more detailed history about the B&N ads mentioned. I don't recall ever seeing a search page banner ad before last month.
If there were banner ads before, maybe the atmosphere is more hostile because of other reasons, other failures or missteps of eBay since that point, or maybe it was chance that it reached critical mass to generate this explosion of controversy this time around. Just pure speculation.
----
What\'s being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
I will reclarify for you that I started this thread to bring to the attention of AuctionWatch users, and I am one of those, that an article about this issue was published in an internationally distributed newspaper.
Your questions to me revealed that not only am I quoted in the article, but also that my participation at AuctionWatch directly lead to the publication of this article.
What does this have to do with OAUA? You have been fairly effective at derailing this thread into an OAUA discussion, and yet the article here has nothing to do with OAUA.
Now it has been revealed that you have specific issues with OAUA and you are using the thread I started to address those issues. Furthermore, you were somewhat misleading in your agenda when you began posting. If you have issues with OAUA you wish to bring to the attention AuctionWatch users, please start your own thread.
I am proud to be a member of OAUA and I am also proud to be an AuctionWatch user and an ebaY user. This is an AuctionWatch and ebaY thread.
I have no hidden agenda. I am true to my reputation that I am very upfront in my posts and what you see from me is what you get. It is mystifying to me when people are otherwise.
I'm glad your speechlessness didn't last too terribly long as I do in fact always enjoy hearing your point of view -- even when we disagree.