posted on September 14, 2000 01:18:24 PM
I have bought from alot of you over the past year, and I want to keep this entirely friendly! So please, if something seems offensive to you, understand that I didn't intend to insult anyone - OK?
Last month I spent over $2000 on auctions online, and I had only one tiny problem - caused because an excellent seller got overwhelmed by demand for his things. I really think the world of most of the people I've bought from, they've been fantastic!
BUT... I worry when i read some of the posts by regulars here saying that the Paypal increase means nothing, and no one should complain about it.
Alot of these same people say that it is just another cost be passed on to the customers. I know I won't go for it. I don't mind bidding up the price on something that someone else and I both want. That is what an auction is for.
If you add the possible costs of a Paypal transaction to each opening bid, or to your handling fees, in order to cover the costs of paying for people who just have to use Paypal, you are expecting me to subsidize my
competition. That isn't right. I already avoid auctions that accept credit cards for that same reason. Unless your item is truly unique, and I have no hope of finding it elsewhere, I won't bid.
Doing the math on this, I figure I would have been asked to come up with an extra $73
minimum last month on the auctions I won, if sellers were intent on covering the Paypal costs for those auctions. Since I already pay for premium bank services, and get my MO's free of charge, that $73 is not going to come from me.
I know some of you plan to simply work it into your starting bids, but that is a loser, too. If your starting bid is higher than the next sellers, you will need stellar feedback to convince me to bid on your auction.
posted on September 14, 2000 01:37:12 PM
You're not getting any replies because you forgot to include the magic word into the thread's title.
PayPal
------------------------------------------------------------ I'm breathing so I guess I'm still alive Even the signs seemed to tell me otherwise http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/preacher4u/
posted on September 14, 2000 01:49:12 PM
I am a seller and I do not mark my items up to even cover the cost of packaging. I use my resources and aquire packing peanuts, bubble wrap, and boxes free of charge from business who are going to throw them away. There have been times that I have had to eat some shipping costs by figuring the weight an ounce or two off. Sometimes it just happens that way.
I am not happy about the increase at PayPal. I do not want to add this increase into the starting bid of my auction.
Therefore, I probably just won't use the service anymore. It's a shame as I really did like it too.
posted on September 14, 2000 01:55:28 PM
coleman150. I agree with you. I have never added anything to my auctions to cover costs and will not for paypal. So, like you, I probably will not use it much longer and I did like it. I took the logo off my auctions that had no bids. I will honor paypal on those that have bids and still have the logo.
I personally don't think paypal made a big dent on the number of bids because most of the people that paid through paypal sent small amounts ($20 and ). I believe it was used as a way to get the money to me faster so they could get their item faster.
[ edited by llama_lady on Sep 14, 2000 01:56 PM ]
posted on September 14, 2000 02:05:22 PM
whereistheprophet
I agree that one absolutely should not raise the price for those who do not benefit. The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether we have this charge or not until the bidder makes a payment. It is part of our cost of doing business and it may show up in our starting bids if you ever notice it.
However, it is unlikely to make any impact at all on close prices. I had two auctions close today. The fee for both totaled .19. Hardly a big deal.
If you mailed in your payment, it would cost you .33 plus a possible money order fee or a check charge. It's actually more expensive for both vendor and bidder if you use a check or money order because of the processing involved.
posted on September 14, 2000 02:24:39 PM
Up to now I havent charge a handling fee. I have poked through dumpsters to get free packing materials. I get my boxes, and tape through priority mail. I sell primarily glass, and pottery, which entails alot of time and care to pack correctly. Several times after spending considerable time packing stuff, Ive wondered why I didnt charge. Now with paypal charging, and the cost of gasoline to do the buying , and dumpster diving, Im going to charge a small handling fee. Probably .50 per item. I hate it, but I really dont have a choice anymore.
posted on September 14, 2000 02:35:11 PM
whereistheprophet
I understand your point completely.
In return, auction buyers will need to be flexible when a seller says she/he will not accept PayPal anymore. It may be part of the seller's effort to keep costs low -- for the seller and the buyer.
posted on September 14, 2000 04:32:18 PM
I completely agree that bidders need to be flexible about making payments, and 99.5% of you sellers do a good job of letting people know what sorts of payment will work.
preacher4u - you are right! But if I put Paypal in the title, this thread would have possibly been locked for reasons I'm still uncertain of.
posted on September 14, 2000 06:35:31 PM
I wouldnt worry about anyone passing on the paypal cost to the buyer smart buyer read this right when paypal charges them they are not chargeing a falt fee that can be passed on paypal will be chargeing a percent of each transaction this mean the more they charge buyer either in higher starting bids or higher handleing fee the more paypal takes there is no way to beat a percentage or add it in to costs at all.
for every $1 more the buyer pays or is charge the buyer will pay .02 cents more to paypal.
they are like ebay and the tax man very wise no way to pass off the percentages.the pass it off in high starting prices or incressed handleing sounds like a good argument at frist but the key is percentage of each sale its not like paying asking .35 per transaction, which could be passed off.
just like taxes in some areas are paid acording to a percentage of its value would haveing the house apraised for more make the taxes lower
posted on September 14, 2000 07:56:52 PM
whereistheprophet said
"Since I already pay for premium bank services, and get my MO's free of charge, that $73 is not going to come from me."
Well, it's not coming from me either.
I'm not exactly getting rich as a seller and I can't afford any more slices of the pie being taken. That .25 cents and 1.9% will add up folks. And pretty soon it's not going to be 1.9% it'll be 2.5% then 3% and so on. Might as well plan on that.
The only alternative for me is to not do business with Paypal.
Don't blame it on the sellers. It ain't our fault.
posted on September 14, 2000 08:02:59 PM
I for one would rather pay an extra 1.00 to have clean packing supplies then to receive some of the filthy recycled garbage that parsimonious eco-sellers have wrapped my items in.
Fresh clean packaging is NOT an unwanted service to me!
And if you want to charge me .25 to use PayPal, well, that's still less than the price of a stamp.
posted on September 14, 2000 08:07:12 PM
loosecannon -
I don't blame sellers for this. It is clear they are being victimized. I just want to make clear - I don't use the service, so I don't want to pay for it.
posted on September 14, 2000 08:17:33 PM
wherestheprophet
I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty of sellers who'll give you a fair shake. Plenty need and want your business and that of others and are smart enough to know that they won't get yours and others' business by overcharging. No need to worry about that I think.
posted on September 14, 2000 08:26:57 PM
This isn't really a matter that can be debated. Whereistheprohet is pointing out a way that buyers might feel. True, us sellers need to recoup our costs, but not at the cost of losing customers. That is something that sellers should consider.
edit: changed 'profit' to 'prophet'
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 14, 2000 08:27 PM ]
I really don't want to debate it. In reading some of the posts here yesterday, I felt some of the sellers were in denial, or worse, just felt it was something else to pass on to their customers as a group.
I guess I've been buying to long to swallow that sort of thinking. Ultimately, things that adversely affect you as a seller start affecting the rest of us too.
Higher Seller costs = Higher Bidder costs
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either fooling himself, or trying to fool the rest of us.
posted on September 15, 2000 04:18:17 AM
Not only is not somehow passing on charges fallacious for reasons I mentioned earlier (not knowing who will use this or that service) but all bidders ultimately pay for:
Final Value Fees
Insertion Fees (including items that don't sell...in reality that's roughly 2 fees for each item that does)
Every single business has to build their costs into the price charged. You pay for this every day when you go into a store. You would never use this as a reason not to go grocery shopping...why would you do this on eBay?
eBay prices are often far lower than elsewhere. Maybe that's the problem. We are so used to getting things cheaply that we think that real world economic realities don't apply.
posted on September 15, 2000 07:46:02 AM
I dont know about Paypal specifically but many states consider it illegal to add any charges for use of a CC and paypal might fall into that category. What I have always done is either add a handing fee which is NOT charged if paid by anything other than a credit card or give free shipping if paid by other than a credit card. In short, only my customers who insisted on using a CC were charged for it. Now depending on the price of the item, I might do the same for paypal.
posted on September 15, 2000 10:21:28 AM
Whereistheprophet,
I agree ALL sellers should not charge any excess fees at all.
Grocery stores shouln't put the cost of plastic bags I use for produce on my bill, or the plastic bags I use to haul my groceries to the car. Those should be free and not in the cost of my groceries.
Come to think of it I don't think they should put the cost of their utilities in my groceries. Oh and how dare they put the cost of their hired help on my tab!
For heavens sake grocery stores CHARGE the makers of my groceries for shelf space! Including produce growers! Can't they make enough money from that without charging me more?
Oh wait the maker's of products that pay the shelf space fee have to raise their costs to cover the fee, which forces the grocery store to raise it's prices to me to make up for the higher cost of buying the maker's product, because grocery stores aren't going to lose that shelf space fee money.
I just wished I could have been kissed first.
Everything has a fee included in it's cost. Everything. Products bought at retail stores already have the "shipping and handling and credit card" fee built in, even if the consumer pays cash. Just because retail, grocery, gas, or any other kind of store doesn't say "This item has x amount of $$$ built into the price to cover our costs" doesn't mean they aren't included.
Perhaps we the consumers should protest the fees credit card companies charge to sellers.
Don't credit card companies make enough money from consumers in the interest they charge?
Just a thought.
I do believe all consumers are being charged way too many fees. Just wish I could figure out a way to stop the excess fees.
posted on September 15, 2000 10:33:14 AM
I would be very curious to hear from paypal, or a lawyer, as to whether paypal payments fall under the "no extra charges for credit cards". Hopefully, the answer is no, and the problem is solved (more or less):
"Add 2% for the speed and convenience of paypal payment". Or maybe make it 1% to split the cost (since, after all, paypal is a convenience to sellers as well - immediate payment, no hassle of depositing checks, NSF checks, etc).
As a buyer, I would cheerfully pay that much more to avoid the hassle of writing a check/buying a money order, waiting, etc, unless I was buying an expensive item (but everything I buy, and most things on ebay, aren't expensive).
I just hate to see so many sellers with an immediate reaction to paypal of "i'm outta here". Paypay-like services can be VERY popular with buyers, due to speed and convenience, so dropping a desirable option should be done as a last resort.
posted on September 15, 2000 11:19:37 AM
Ok, one more try:
I have no problem with paying for services that I use: packing materials, postage, even "reasonable" packing charges that might be incurred in responsible packaging -
THESE are all incurred in getting MY purchase safely into my hands.
BUT, I don't use CC's, and I don't use Paypal, so I do NOT want to be charged for those services.
Now, if I were to change my mind, and ask you to accept a Paypal payment, then I would EXPECT to pay for the service, because I used it
However, sometimes practicality pokes its ugly head in. While the best situation is where every single customer pays for exactly the services they use, no more, no less, sometimes that isn't practical and/or the industry norm.
For example: freeways in crowded cities. No way to put up tollgates, so the road is "free"...but really paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not. The benefit of having it is deemed to be worth more than the cost of trying to charge specific individuals, so the road is built, and everyone's taxes go up.
so, the question is, whether the ebay norm will turn out to be to have people pay uniquely for payment methodology, or to have everyone pay an "average" fee, such that those who take advantage of expensive payment options get a benefit, and conversely. Generally, right now, shipping costs are charged uniquely (since they are significant and can vary widely from person to person), but other costs are absorbed and spread to everyone. The "accounting" cost of having to keep track of every single expense of every item can get prohibitive, so you tend to average out a bunch of them. For example, the cost of travel to get an item...if the person ends up buying only one item on a trip, should the person pay for the whole trip? What if that item is available locally (costs less), or only in the next state (costs more). Or if the item is large, should the buyer pay more for the heat and rent that it took to store it? And so on...
It will be interesting to see how paypal fees sort out.
[ edited by captainkirk on Sep 15, 2000 11:31 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 11:43:38 AM
prophet, I will absorb the cost of Paypal. Also want to let you know that I accept checks or money orders too. So if this Paypal issue gets too big, just mail me a check. I've been doing checks & mo's long before the word Paypal even existed. I accept Paypal for your (meaning the buyer) conveniance.
