posted on November 7, 2000 04:44:21 PM new
Interesting. VM didn't we talk about this on the REAL Yahoo board the other day? Who's copying whom? Which came first, chicken or egg?
Who comes out with a brand new shiny idea, yet Yahoo or amazon hit on it first? Real smooth that "buy price". Whoever thought it up ought should just mosey on over to the real thread's origination and see what we had to say. Seems to me a bit tacky to come over here and do the same, maybe it's just me?
But I doubt it.
posted on November 7, 2000 04:54:26 PM new
I pulled the thread up over there millicent_roberts.
I don't think ebay is trying to crush Yahoo, they are just trying to stop them, but of course
posted on November 7, 2000 04:57:17 PM new
What is that we need? A measly 500,000 auctions and the listing count is neck and neck.
VeryModern is VeryVindicated.
I remember when I was treated like the village idiot around here.
posted on November 7, 2000 06:02:06 PM new
amy - I don't know the answer to that, but when I started on Yahoo 11 mos ago I was selling $150 a week if I were lucky and now I sell $100 a day and it's climbing. In fact, these last weeks it has been approaching $200 a day and I expect that to continue into Christmas.
I have outlined how it works regarding the percentages sold on Yahoo so many times I am cross-eyed. It is truly irrelevant because no dollar gets sucked from my purse in the event something doesn't sell.
edit for mistake
[ edited by VeryModern on Nov 7, 2000 06:02 PM ]
posted on November 7, 2000 06:24:30 PM new
VM...to my way of thinking money IS being sucked out of my pocket if my merchandise has to sit for 30-60 days before it is sold...even if there are no listing fees.
My merchandise represents money..the money I have invested in it. That money can't work for me if the merchandise sits "on the shelf" waiting for a buyer. In order for that money to "work" the items have to sell quickly so I can take it and reinvest it in more merchandise that can make more money. So every item that "sits on the shelf" for a month or two is taking potential profits from my pocket. Profits=money.
So the important statistic about Yahoo is not how many listings, nor how cheap it is to list, but...how long does it take to turn the merchandise. On ebay I can turn 75% of my merchandise in 14-20 days. Are you able to put up 100 items and see 75 of them sold in 14-20 days? Can you do that consistantly week after week, month after month? On ebay I can.
posted on November 7, 2000 06:34:39 PM new
Neat article. But for me the make or break issue is: will my stuff sell? Marketplace wasn't working this weekend, but since it came up yesterday I've sold 3 or 4 items, all for more than I was trying to get on half.com [and I include Amazon's extra 99 cents in that equation]. If this keeps up, I will be a very happy camper indeed!
There is definitely going to be an issue of condition and delivery, if people are used to getting pristine copies of books in 2 days. Sure, the Marketplace sellers will SHIP within 2 days, but we all know how long book-rate can take! I think my buyers were 3 from the west coast and 1 from NY city. Who knows when their items will arrive? Will they complain?
posted on November 7, 2000 07:02:03 PM new
amy - I know you like ebay and I understand why. Yahoo provides an alternative, that is all I have ever claimed.
Regarding your statistics- actually I am sure that I could match them if I were not bogged down with merchandise I bought on the front end of the learning curve that at least for the moment I am still determined to unload. The cut off on that is fast approaching, probably first of the year I will go the "box lot" route - unburden myself and really kick into high gear and see what I can do. My last baby is still a baby and so auction selling is still somewhat low priority. As he grows, so does my business.
The other thing worth noting about with your model is that just a quick turnover is not enough. You have to make a nice profit.
We have already determined I have no math skills but suppose you sell yours in 3 days, pay commission - - I sell mine in 10 but for twice the profit - no commission. Who wins?
posted on November 7, 2000 07:05:51 PM new
oh.
and for the record.
The only thing I have that sits on Yahoo for 30 days is stuff I bought 3 or 4 years ago.
Current purchases (bought with my hard earned learning curved brains) rarely stay available more than a week.
posted on November 7, 2000 08:28:45 PM new
Ah, but VM, we can't assume you sell yours for twice the profit, now can we?
My questions were not being asked to question IF you made money as I assume you do...although I wonder how you come to the conclusion you make a bigger profit than I do. I'm assuming we both are making a profit.
My statement was that I felt having items sit waiting for a buyer was also taking money from my pocket..even if there were no fees. In my opinion a quick turnover is more important than no fees.
I have no idea what you sell. I haven't looked at your auctions. I do believe I have heard you say you do the "buy it now" strategy. I also know that most of the people who have said they sell items on yahoo claim to use that strategy. And I'm sure for some types of merchandise that will work well..for others it won't. It won't work for my type of merchandise.
I also know I have heard many who have listed on yahoo claim you have to be willing to wait for the item to sell...it may have to be relisted several times before it sells. In my opinion that equates to lost money..more money than what is saved by having to pay no fees.
posted on November 7, 2000 08:50:25 PM new
Oh amy - I meant that as a general question, not to claim that I sell for more profit that you do, I have no idea. (and also no idea what you sell)
I do know that I routinely sell what I do for more profit that the same sold on ebay at least 90% of the time though. I set my prices using ebay solds, so closely monitor.
I do use the 1 bid wins strategy, as a matter of fact I am the person who started it, after reading a long post by Yahoo seller xxoo???.
He outlined his success with the buy price some months ago - I liked what I read and so I took it to the next degree. It has worked out very well for me, and now a lot of others, but I have no gripe with someone who prefers ebay. I am only saying that Yahoo is a viable alternative, and one that I prefer. That, and it is nice to be vindicated.
posted on November 8, 2000 07:12:43 AM new
Again, I ask, why has this been mentioned here instead of the Yahoo or even Amazon boards? Who is the Motley Fool anyway? Makes me wonder.
With all the trash I have read over here during the past few days, I'll gladly go somewhere I feel safe, secure and SANE. Let's bash all other sites. Let's not and say we did. How immature this has become. Matching penny for penny and taking swings that are uncalled for.
I go where the bidders are. I don't waste time talking to a blank screen. Sometimes that's the best thing. Although that would fall on deaf ears around here.
posted on November 8, 2000 11:39:02 AM new
I sell on Ebay and more recently on Yahoo. Although Ebay may have more traffic, there are aspects of Yahoo that are better than Ebay. The first being fees. You can be eaten alive by the fees on Ebay. The second is that they will automatically relist your item for you up to two times (saves time, time, time). The third is that they will automatically extend an auction and lastly, I can see how many people have put my auction on their watch list, etc. I like these features. I think I am a more informed seller because of them.
Since I just started listing on Yahoo, I guess only time will tell. I do know this, I haven't had any problems viewing my auctions due to downtime.
posted on November 8, 2000 12:30:50 PM new
Getting back to what this thread is about, I wonder how does this affect the authors of books who see their book being sold second hand right under their noses. Heck, books are so expensive now I would gladly buy a used one for 50% off.
Does this affect their commissions or how ever they get paid? Do they get on the NY Times Best Sellers by having people buy them used? I doubt it.
posted on November 10, 2000 07:23:02 PM new
Apparently Amazon made overtures to merge with eBay, Inc., and since nothing came of it, not yet anyway, and because it's obvious that such a merger offers NOTHING to eBay, Inc. -- and much less to individual sellers who comprise eBay, now Amazon's back to trying to compete with BUY-Half.com and eBay.
posted on November 11, 2000 08:12:17 AM new
well, from what I've been seeing it's competing very well. I've sold 4 used books on Amazon marketplace in less than three days, and bought 2 used books there. I'll give you my thoughts on why I think this is a good thing for Amazon and for sellers.
First, I have a strong suspicion many people who shop on Amazon never look at Half.com, ebay or any other strictly-used (for the sake of the argument, let's agree that most books on ebay and Half are used) venue. In fact i know some people who never shop at any venue whatsoever online except Amazon. So for a large number of visitors, Amazon isn't competing with other venues, it's competing with itself. And this isn't a bad thing either---for Amazon or for sellers. One reason is that some people (a sizeable percentage judging from my years as a seller of used merchandise) will never buy used anythings under any circumstances. They just don't like used. So Amazon sells them a new book and makes a profit (hopefully!) Then there are the people who will buy used. Amazon sells them one of my books and makes a profit there too (from what I've read, a higher profit than on their own new books!) Assuming the delivery goes well, everything's groovy. Sometimes the delivery will not go well of course but I would bet that most of the time it will be just fine.
I think Amazon has a better search than Half.com. Half is terrible for searching anything other than title or ISBN. When you search you get not-in-stock's all mixed up with in-stock's---this is to promote their new pay ahead of time thing. There are virtually no reviews. There are huge numbers of pictures missing. And worst, there is no communication possible between seller and buyer after the sale---no emails are given. I have had problem after problem because of this. By contrast, Amazon provides the emails of the buyer and seller in their 'Sold" notice. I email each buyer and remind them of the 1-4 week delivery time for book rate mail. So far, everyone's been fine with that.
Amazon may not be successful in toto due to many factors, but Marketplace is wonderful. It's possible for a company which does many things wrong to do something right, you know.
Robertson Stephens questions Amazon's diversification strategy October 4, 2000: 3:34 p.m. ET
"NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Amazon.com's strategy of having the "Earth's Biggest Selection," with merchandise across 14 different categories, could prevent the Web retailer from achieving sustainable long-term profitability, a prominent analyst said Wednesday."
posted on November 11, 2000 06:19:12 PM new
Nice try radh, but take it somewhere else. Like the Amazon board. Your lame attempt to bring ebay into the thread is pathetic.
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on November 11, 2000 06:41:20 PM new
twinsoft: you've missed your calling! geesH, you sound like you belong on Wall Street with all those expert pundits who are drooling at a proposed merger between eBay & amazon!
I'm absolutely certain that many people on Wall Street find this a superb idea, one where their amzn shares might hasve some value -- and I'm certain that NONE of them want the sellers or buyers of the eBay user population to be aware of any proposed amazon merger with eBay.
So what if the peasants' livlihoods might be affected, hey?
posted on November 11, 2000 07:07:28 PM newThe conclusion was that Amazon (AMZN: Research, Estimates) lost an average of $2.91 per order
It seems pretty clear to me what Amazon is up to here...
Yes, they are cannablizing their own sales.
But that's a good thing, because if someone orders from Amazon's stock, Amazon loses money. But when an independent seller sells the same items, Amazon actually makes money. Even if they only make 10 cents net profit on each sale, that's a difference of $3.01 in comparison to selling Amazon's own product.
Dot com logic. Gotta love it.
[ edited by amalgamated2000 on Nov 11, 2000 07:09 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2000 07:37:37 PM new
Amazon is, has been, and wishes to remain the first place most people would go to look for a book on the net. This is more central than their customer service identity. Their offering has long included listing and obtaining out of print titles, including those which cannot be found on half. This new function should allow them to profit from additional markets including not only half.com but also abe, bookfinder, etc.
Given choice between say for a current bestseller of
$25 new from familiar business (amazon),
$20 new from from discounter,
$15 used from reader
there are plenty of customers for each choice.
When you look at say last year's bestseller at say
$20 new from amazon
$5 new from remainder dealer
$2 used
there are more customers for the latter 2 options than the first, middle is probably strongest market.
Go for something old, htf, but desired and choices might currently be
- place order with amazon for unknown fulfillment at unknown price.
- go to bookfinder, etal.
- ebaY etc.
amazon does some business there but isn't a strong competitor.
While the Fool is correct in saying that this initiative blurs amazon's current identity, I think it appears to greatly strengthen and broaden their position as a general source for books.
As well as
- providing a win-win partnership with small and private sellers (shockingly there might even be some profit there, what an outrageous new concept for amazon! )
- needed adjustment to strong competitive threats (but without going to the extreme of offering books for pennies plus shipping).
posted on November 11, 2000 08:57:06 PM new
I read the MotleyFool article. Whatever....
Personally I'm glad Amazon deversified and let me and others who sell use books in to sell at their site. I have 200 plus books listed and I am doing quite well.
I also list books at Half.com. Half has become disgusting and not very profitable, at least for me. I can't compete with sellers who are willing to sell like-new books for .10 or less.
Of course it will be just a matter of time and Amazon will be saturated also. For now, I'll just enjoy what I have.
Anais
Live,Laugh,Love
posted on November 12, 2000 07:06:35 AM new
Since Amazon changed September 1999, I couldn't sell the Hope Diamond for 5 cents, so I don't see how this move will make much difference.
From Amazon's inception till September of 1999 we sold like crazy there - since then - absolutely nothing! We test it out about every 3 or 4 months, but NOTHING - don't believe this will change the lack of buyers on Amazon.
If eBay needs to watch any other auction's intrusion on their portion of the market their only challenge currently is Yahoo.
posted on November 12, 2000 07:48:15 AM new
When I buy out of print books, I use amazon.
When I buy tapes, cd's, etc. I use amazon.
When I wish to buy something at retail I use them as a store.
What I don't do is sit here trying to find ways to make amazon look badly. They offer a great service to many. There were mistakes they made but it is THEIR business and so they chose to do what they did.
They were not the place for online auctions excluding booksellers. But for most anything else, I use their service. WHich is more than I could ever say about half.com, so again, I ask who is the Motley Fool here, or should I just say who is the Fool here? Go on over and pilfer at the amazon and yahoo boards. Take a swing and set up dozens more threads nobody cares about. I guess if I had that much time on my hands, I'd be doing something important, or helping others find their way. Not talking to myself. What a waste of time, energy and for what? Haven't figure that out completely but am working on it!
Thanks to the moderater for telling me how to use the "ignore" feature.
[ edited by millicent_roberts on Nov 12, 2000 07:50 AM ]
)