posted on February 27, 2001 05:28:40 AM new
While the idea sounds great, and I at one time subscribed to such thoughts....
Then I began selling....
You mention other posts, but you did not include the posts from people who were buyers and then became sellers...
Their thoughts changed. A typical size box takes about 15 minutes to package, cost of bubble wrap, quality tape, labels, trip to post office (8 miles one way for me), ...then take into account eBay fees (now about 8% of sell price) and the payment fees - about 3% approx.)
Now, please do a cost analysis on a $20.00 sale, after those deductions, take out the cost of the item.
If you would not charge a handling fee, please let me know, I'll get in line for the bankruptcy proceedings...
posted on February 27, 2001 05:33:59 AM new
thepreist
I think you are missing my point. I am not against handling charges, just the full disclosure of postage and handling costs, as well as method of shipment, so that a buyer may make an informed decision.
I'm not sure why those who charge a handling fee become so defensive - I am not talking about that. I am talking about honesty and full-disclosure.
I too was a buyer, now a seller. And it angers me when I receive something I have paid a fair sum for and then paid an extra $3.00 in handling I was not aware of. I trusted the seller, thinking that this was what it really cost to ship. If they had broken it down - $1.00 shipping/ $3.00 handling, I could have decided if I wanted to go ahead and bid, or perhaps contact the seller to find out what the $3.00 covers.
DISCLOSURE is what I, and the disgruntled buyers who have been posting threads about handling charges, are talking about.
I DO NOT WISH that this thread becomes yet another pro and con discussion. I have started this thread to get ideas from like-minded sellers on the feasability of starting another organization. I invite all those against full disclosure to please feel free to start another thread.
posted on February 27, 2001 05:40:26 AM new
I post a flat fee on my auctions and say what class of post it will be sent. Sometimes the postage is a few cents more than I estimated sometimes less and I pick up a little. There are plenty of customers who are willing to create a great stink over fifteen cents in postage after they have just bought an perfect item for 1/3 of retail. I don't need to make my life anymore complicated by giving them some ammunition to complain. If the flat rate does not sound resonable don't bid...If you are the sort who is so cheap you want to spend a half hour shrilly argueing over a few pennies then I am GLAD if you don't bid.
posted on February 27, 2001 05:45:57 AM new
hi gravid,
posting what form of shipping you are using is, in my opinion, disclosure!
What is angering the bidders is sellers who charge a large fee that appears to be priority and ends up being first class, sometimes poorly packaged in order to garner EVEN MORE PROFIT from the shipping/handling fee. Something needs to be done to combat this and try to keep the buyers at ebay.
Gravid, I would say that the way you are doing it would be in agreement with a code of ethics regarding disclosure of fees, and is exactly how I word my auctions. I do charge a handling fee, as in Canada we do not get free supplies even for our priority equivilant. My handling fees cover my materials, approximately 50 cents to 1.00, depending on the cost of supplies and the size of the item.
If sellers have particular days they ship, I think this should also be spelled out in the auction, and be part of sellers' org. code of ethics as another piece of information that should be supplied.
One thing I would want a new organization to do is be RESPONSIVE to buyers needs and wants, as apposed to being defensive.
posted on February 27, 2001 07:57:09 AM new
Hey RB, I think you should go for it!
A sellers organization could then use the Buyers' union ideas as a source for our seller's code of ethics. It might take a Buyer's union and a few boycotts of certain seller techniques to finally get through to sellers who the important ones are, who puts the bread and butter on their table. (The buyer, of course!)
posted on February 27, 2001 08:04:48 AM new
A sellers orginization? Get real.
I equate this to "Promise Keepers", I don't need to join them to make sure that I'm a good father, husband, and person.
And I certainly don't need to join a "Seller Organization" to make sure that I am ethical in my business dealings.
These are things that you should already know and do!
Everyone wants to form this group and that group. Are there any individuals left in the world? And as an individual shouldn't you already have a code of ethics and morals that you follow without having to join an "organization" to make sure you follow them?
If you want to join an orginization, join Big Brother/Sisters, Kiwanis or some other group that actually does some good in the world.
mrhaneys2001 on ebay and in the future as well.
Coming to a galaxy near you.
posted on February 27, 2001 08:22:33 AM new
Well mrhaney, I obviously disagree with your way of thinking, and believe that only in numbers can we institute change.
Ebay is not seen by buyers as an e-mall with distinctive businesses; when a buyer is scammed by one seller, they often will not return to ebay at all.
In a B & M situation, if one store scams a buyer, in all likelyhood they will return to the mall, just not to that store.
I think an organization would do good. Not the same type of good as big brothers/sisters; every organization has a different function.
Many sellers see eBay as a venue of distinct sellers where one sellers actions do not affect all the rest; this is not true, as buyers see us as a group, the "ebay sellers". If you get the buyers angry, it will affect my sales in the long run, since they will probably no longer shop on ebay, and will tell ALL their friends about how they got ripped off, etc. on ebay, destroying more of the pool of potential buyers.
So many think short-term; I, and others, try to think of the long term effects of unethical sellers.
If an organization is formed, no one would be forced to join, just as the OAUA!
posted on February 27, 2001 08:27:56 AM newEbay is not seen by buyers as an e-mall with distinctive businesses...
Well, this buyer disagrees with that assumption. I have purchased items from sellers that I would never go back to, but that does not stop me from buying from others.
posted on February 27, 2001 08:47:32 AM new
mrpotatohead,
I should not have implied all, so I will say instead "many buyers"
I already know from other threads that you disagree with the whole concept that is behind this idea of this proposed organization, and that the feeling amoung MANY buyers that they are being ripped off by excessive, undisclosed handling fees is a rational, understandable feeling.
This topic is already being discussed on three separate threads, and I did not intend this thread to be one more.
AGAIN, I would like some input from sellers who agree with this concept, on how we may possibly form an organization with a code of ethics around (but not limited to) the issue of up-front disclosure of shipping fees.
PLEASE, if you wish to attack this whole area of thought, there are three threads currently ongoing in which you can do so, or you may start your own - "I think a sellers organization is dumb" thread.
Edited to fix grammatical probs.
[ edited by oxford on Feb 27, 2001 08:51 AM ]
posted on February 27, 2001 10:14:26 AM new
Mrhaney...the purpose of such an organization would not be so each individual seller who joined had a "crutch" that would enable them to be "ethical" (your statement that you didn't need an organization to make sure you were ethical).
The purpose is to force other sellers who are not part of the organization to conduct their business the way the members of the organization think they should (quote from Oxford...bolding mine..."Well mrhaney, I obviously disagree with your way of thinking, and believe that only in numbers can we institute change." )
posted on February 27, 2001 10:30:50 AM new
Oxford:
OAUA does believe in full disclosure-- but as you say, I guess that's open to interpretation.
OAUA's code of ethics requires sellers to disclose all charges to the buyer:
"As a seller I will:
Provide descriptions that are honest, accurate, complete, including full disclosure of all flaws, and include all charges..."
This, as currently interpreted by the OAUA, does not require a breakdown indicating what the purpose of the handling charges are, or even how much is for postage and how much is for handling. Just a statement of total charges, so the buyer can be informed of what his/her costs in the transaction will be.
Even this interpretation is problematic, particularly for international shipments, because the shipping costs vary significantly from country to country. So in these cases, a reasonable full disclosure of all charges might come only after an inquiry from an international buyer, so the seller can calculate shipping (and handling charges, if any).
Like you, I'm an OAUA member. I think the standards established in our code are pretty good, and I follow them. In several thousand transactions, I've never had a complaint about shipping/handling costs-- and I've never had a potential bidder ask me to break out the purpose of the handling charges.
My take on it is that buyers want to know what their total costs will be-- no hidden charges. In my experience, they don't want a breakdown of how a handling charge was arrived at, or what expenses a handling charge covers.
How would you rewrite the code to address your concerns? What would you require of sellers?
posted on February 27, 2001 11:02:10 AM new
I think it is ethical and good business to disclose shipping costs in the descriptions. Breakdowns are Not necessary because buyers only need to know the total cost to them.
posted on February 27, 2001 11:14:42 AM new
Despite my repeated requests for those who object to please start their own thread as arguing pro or con shipping vs handling disclosure was ALREADY being talked to death in other threads, this was not the purpose of this one.
My request has obviously fallen on deaf ears, along with all the very logical arguments FOR the disclosure of AT LEAST THE SHIPPING METHOD USED, that apear in the other 2 threads.
Amy - your posts seemed very paranoid over the thought that others, who may want things better than they currently are, are going to somehow "force" you to do things differently.
Are you "forced" to join the OAUA? NO! Why would this be any different! The purpose of the OAUA is for the betterment of online auction community, and as a way of bidders knowing that members ascribe to a certain code of ethics .... has this organization hurt you in any way? Are you going to continue to beat down any attempts by others to try to make the auction format more customer friendly? Are you against the OAUA?
What are you afraid is going to happen, exactly? I honestly don't understand your way of thinking.
My idea for an organization, would be that the members agree to a certain code of ethics as well, and can be found by some sort of listing that buyers can refer to, or by an icon on their ad.
How could you possibly know the "purpose" of an organization that is presently just a idealic thought in my mind? Forcing sellers to change would most certainly not be the purpose; the purpose would be to give like-minded buyers a chance to buy from sellers who ascribe to the standards that they desire.
The OAUA is no different - if buyers would only like to deal with those who are OAUA members who have agreed to a code of ethics, the sellers can be identified with a logo on their ads.
As seen above, there are obviously some sellers with some sort of an agenda that does not allow for such an organization to form, either because of fear or ?? and will not leave this thread to its stated purpose.
MODERATOR - since the thread is not being used for the purpose it was set up, please lock it. THANKS!
posted on February 27, 2001 11:46:19 AM new
Oxford, I'm with you 100%. In my opinion, OAUA is doing auction buyers a disservice by not endorsing the necessity of stating x.xx for postage and x.xx for handling. there's no need to break it down further than that---that's enough for 99% of all of us who want to know without having to email and ask what type of postage we're getting and how much of the shipping cost is going to handling, and make an informed decision from that point on. I'd be happy to join an organization with the principles you outlined.
posted on February 27, 2001 11:51:12 AM new
Oxford:
OAUA is a member-run organization. If you believe that buyers, sellers, and the industry as a whole will benefit from a change to our code of ethics, let's start that discussion on our board, or at one of our weekly meetings.
If enough members agree with you, we can change it! I've just not seen any support for such a change.
posted on February 27, 2001 12:08:12 PM new
Oxford...I quoted your words..nothing more. I drew my conclusions from what you said...nothing more. I am not paranoid nor am I afraid of anything.
Am I against OAUA? Nope! Decidely not! Am I currently a member? No. BUT...I want to see the OAUA succeed in the goals that were envisioned when it was started...to give the online auction user a voice, to promote self-help among auction users, to give the on line user a connection to other users, to supply information to the online community about the direction of the OAI and about laws that may affect that community.
As Steve said, the OAUA is an organization that is member directed and was set up to be responsive to the member's needs and desires. The code of ethics, which can be changed, was originally drawn the way it currently is to allow for the variety of selling methods and business models that exist in the online community. The founders realized there was great variety and the ethics had to allow for those differences.
As long as the terms and conditions are stated up front, the seller IS being ethical, even if he does not state type of shipping..for some sellers this may not be a practical thing (stating how they will ship)
posted on February 27, 2001 12:09:29 PM new
I think in theory the concept is good for a couple of reasons....I as a seller do not charge priority and then ship 1st class or media on some of my products. I try to give people a choice of shipping methods if I can, but on some items, the convenience of using Priority supplies works better for me, and I state that upfront. Buyer has a choice to bid or not to bid. But on the other hand, if I state the total costs and the person knows by which method I am going to ship, for them to know my exact handling charge and for me to break it down to account for every penny, just is not time productive for me. I would, to be accurate with them have to chart my mileage, exact proportions of bubble wrap used, exact time spent on the prep and closure of one specific item, etc. We have savvy buyers out there, and they are smart enough to know that supplies we do not get from USPS cost money. Our time is worth money, some of us have packers to pay, just because of the volume of business we do. As to PCaltons post? I agree 100%.
posted on February 27, 2001 12:51:45 PM new
>>Despite my repeated requests for those who object to please start their own thread as arguing pro or con shipping vs handling disclosure was ALREADY being talked to death in other threads, this was not the purpose of this one.... My request has obviously fallen on deaf ears, along with all the very logical arguments FOR the disclosure of AT LEAST THE SHIPPING METHOD USED, that apear in the other 2 threads.<<
Oxford, I'm sure you know that you can't EXLUDE anyone from stating their opinion in this thread or any other. You asked for validation, you proposed that buyers feel such and such, and you didn't get the response you wanted. Is that any reason for calling posters "paranoid?"
Frankly, I just don't "buy" your argument that a buyer who feels they were overcharged by a couple of bucks will quit eBay for good. I will grant you this much. The complaints I get are ALWAYS from customers with low feedback ratings. The good customers, those with feedback in the hundreds, never make a fuss. Perhaps those complainers simply won't be happy on eBay no matter what. AFAIC, they can go pay retail at WalMart.
BTW, I don't think building a seller's union based on the assumption that all sellers are crooks will succeed. JMHO.
posted on February 27, 2001 01:27:39 PM new
Twinsoft,
No, I can't stop folks from posting. I can request it nicely, as I did, explaining that the SOLE perpose of the thread was to get ideas together for an organization of like-minded sellers surrounding this subject.
I DON'T CARE if you want to be part of this organization or not. If you don't, why are you posting in my thread that I made very clear was for a specific purpose, if not just to try to make things difficult for me to get a meaningful discussion going as to the direction of such an organization.
I GIVE UP! I've asked the moderator before, and I'll ask again - PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD, AS THE PURPOSE OF MY ORIGINATING IT HAS BEEN INGNORED.
BTW - TWINSOFT - You misquoted me in the other thread and I'd appreciate it if you would correct that error. Thank you.
ALSO - I am not looking for "validation"; I know there are many other sellers that feel as I do and was proposing the idea of an organization to THEM. I was not looking for those who I know are not in agreement with this to suddenly come to this thread and validate it. I just figured there were enough threads discussing it that the purpose of this one could be retained. obviously not.
posted on February 27, 2001 02:07:54 PM new
amy -
"The purpose is to FORCE other sellers who are not part of the organization to conduct their business the way the members of the organization think they should"
Bolding inserted by mrhaneys2001.
So, if the organization doesn't think a seller is not conducting business how they think he should, what happens? Does the organization try to harm this sellers business? Does the Gestapo come and take them away?
Any organization that tries to force it's views on others, especially those who are not members, is treading on ground that shouldn't be tread on. This is America not Nazi Germany. Please tell me this is not what you meant to say.
oxford -
Anytime you post in a public forum, expect to get people who disagree with you.
posted on February 27, 2001 02:14:14 PM new
[b]The problem is the postage cost displayed on the box. That's the culprit.
Use FedEx Ground or UPS and that problem is eliminated.[/b]
Then folks like Oxford could rest a little easier.
Auntie MTown
ed. UBB
[ edited by morgantown on Feb 27, 2001 02:15 PM ]
posted on February 27, 2001 02:15:51 PM new
Mrhaney...maybe force was to "forceful" of a word
I just thought it was interesting that Oxford responded to you by saying that as a group, those who agree with her could "institute change" by banding together.
A group that has similar ideals can band together to promote their ideals "within the group". But when someone promotes such a group to "institute change" that tells me they want to try and somehow make others follow their line of thinking. Realistically, they can't "force" anyone...but the idea is still problematic to me.
posted on February 27, 2001 02:27:59 PM new
Oxford:
I never really understood the point of starting a thread, and then trying to shut it down when it goes in a direction you didn't desire. The moderators will no doubt comply with your request, eventually, but as long as folks are civil, what's the harm in letting a discussion continue, wherever it leads?
Just to be clear, I think it's a good idea for sellers to indicate in their listings what method(s) they use for shipping. Reduces the possibility of misunderstandings, later. I think it's good business. I've done it for the past couple years.
But I won't criticize other sellers who choose not to. And I don't think OAUA, or a like organization, should dictate to seller-members in that detail how to run their business.
posted on February 27, 2001 02:58:53 PM new
Steve,
You don't understand. The group I would be interested in forming would be of LIKE-MINDED sellers who would post our stance publicly and identify ourselves perhaps as OAUA does. The part about dictating to seller-members is not relevant here. I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly.
This thread is indeed not being used in the way I intended. If you want to argue this point, I'm posting on 2 OTHER THREADS - so fire away at me there. (Oh, you are already? then lets keep it there!).
Because I started the thread with a purpose in mind and it has gone in an unrelated another direction gives me the right to close it down. You certainly have a right to continue this discussion in your own threads.
posted on February 27, 2001 03:09:40 PM new
Hello Again,
Out of respect for the originator of this thread, it is quite clear that this thread was meant to be different than the other threads on shipping and handling.
Please stick to her topic or post to the other threads if you wish to veer off in that direction.
posted on February 27, 2001 03:10:16 PM new
Looks like joice has made a decision in contradictory to my request. I thought my original concept was a good one, and still do. But it is not possible to get anything constructive started in a setting so full of paranoia. So Post Away! I'm too tired to continue arguing to no avail, and its time to put the groceries on.
Edited to say, thank you, Joice, for recognizing that the thread's intent is far different than its current direction. I will respect your decision to leave it open, but I will no longer continue to contribute; I don't want it to start going in circles like the other threads.
[ edited by oxford on Feb 27, 2001 03:13 PM ]
