posted on July 2, 2004 11:30:00 AM new
Check out what I found while doing an ebay survey. Here is a copy and paste of that page.
PayPal is considering offering a bundled payments service where you pay one fee to eBay and PayPal for all of your selling on eBay. The fee for this service would be slightly higher than the current eBay and PayPal fees. However, with this service, eBay and PayPal would handle the payment, subtract out their fees, and either send you a check or deposit the net amount in your bank account. You, as the seller, would only need to list your item and ship it when eBay notifies you that payment has been made.
May the lord help us if they actually start doing this.
[ edited by stonecold613 on Jul 4, 2004 06:00 PM ]
posted on July 2, 2004 12:41:27 PM new
I will make a hasty retreat if they start doing this. No way will I allow them to handle my money for me. Trust them to do this? Not on your life.
posted on July 2, 2004 01:07:08 PM new
Guys - the announcement say OFFERING, not switching to. In otherwords, you can OPT for this method which for people sella couple items every now and then might be preferrable but you are not forced to.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 2, 2004 01:52:11 PM new
Hi...That practice on amazon has hurt them.
If selling any volume, it hurts the seller. Plus seller have had to raise rates to keep up with amazon. At one time amazon was a better auction site. Now it is confusing...
posted on July 2, 2004 03:18:07 PM new
And Paypal will make the decision on all refunds I bet, not the seller. Then they will take it back from the seller's bank account. This plan will propably give Paypal back the access to your bank account that they were denied.
Yet one more way to take your money, new fees, chargebacks, more.
posted on July 2, 2004 03:54:16 PM new
So the infrequesnt sellers that decide to use the service have a check sent and don't utilize the direct deposit.
BTW - if you have a verified and confirmed PayPal account - they are access to your bank account unless of course you closed the account after you confirmed it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 2, 2004 04:36:34 PM new
Sounds like half.com - The question is why would I pay more for this?
Friends don't let Friends say stupid things like Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
That was once true. Someone else posted a link in another thread to the data that they got their little wrists slapped in court and can't do that under the Paypal agreement now.
I can't vouch that the data is true and reading the user agreement again is just too painful!
Ebayvet, pay them only if you are stupid or lazy and buy into their hoopla. I'm sure there are inexperienced sellers who will.
posted on July 2, 2004 06:22:54 PM new
I HOPE YOU DONT MIND MY WEIGHTY OPINION[HA!]
i hope stone's use of "offer" is correct; and hope/think fenix's view of it is correct...
------------------
ebay's revenue structure is based on fees and commissions...this is the place they can expand...the new no interest plan, and the paypal credit plan load a max of 3.75% more fees...and the timing is perfect..with fed raising rates for first time in many quarters..
-------------
while this is a poor comparison, the banking industry has turned the c/card function into a trillion dollar industry...little wachovia is about to announce a second quarter of one billion dollar profit...and probably will attribute it to additional fees...so, it shouldnt come as a surprise that ebay will continue to exploit the possibilities of additional fees and services...
--------------------
as with stone's survey info, ebay will load this new fee, that will become incrementally higher, than the two fees if uncoupled...
-------------------
IMHO we will continue to see more and more chipping away at our profit...
posted on July 2, 2004 08:49:29 PM new
Well here's an idea - if you despise paypal to this extent - why cry that the sky is falling every single time they add a new option, convinved that you will be forced at gunpoint to opt in and give over your life and first born child to the evils of PayPal. If you hate, despise and distrust them so much, then why not go down to your local bank or do a quick goggle search for a good company and find yourselves a merchan account and not ever have to deal with them again?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Guys - the announcement say OFFERING, not switching to. In otherwords, you can OPT for this method which for people sella couple items every now and then might be preferrable but you are not forced to.
I highly doubt that it will be optional. As I kept going further on in the survey, they also hinted at making PayPal manditory for all sellers.
I just found the link to the survey. I hope it wasn't a one time thing.
posted on July 2, 2004 09:49:11 PM new
I just tried it again and it was a one time link. Hopefully more here will get the invite. I came in an e-mail titled "eBay Survey - Your feedback is important"
It did come from ebay after checking its routing. The from e-mail address is [email protected]
I answered all questions that pertained to this idea a great big against. It's my money, I will pay you later. Not the other way around.
posted on July 2, 2004 10:20:09 PM new
Stone - you will of course forgive me if, given your amazing track record for incorrectly stating ebay rules and regulations, I don't consider your interpretation to be quite accurate. Especially when one considers that making a single payment method in which the company has a financial interest in a mandatory requirement in the usage of their site would be illegal.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 2, 2004 10:26:47 PM new
Except fenix that over time and time again, my postings are proven correct in the end. It is clear you didn't read it correctly either. You are stating that the only payment method is PayPal. That is not what it is stating. It is stating that all sellers must accept PayPal. That doesn't mean that all buyers must use it. Yet anyway.
And you want to talk about bad track records. Enough said.
posted on July 2, 2004 10:27:00 PM new
Fenix...Can you quote the section of the California Business and Professions Code, or any other California law that would make this scenario illegal?
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on July 2, 2004 10:35:59 PM new
Sparx - the basic scenario is not - the newest part of the Stonecold conspiracy theory which entails ebay to somehow require all sellers to utilize PayPal which they own and take an additional finacial cut in would be racketeering. They can offer, they can entice, but they cannot require.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 2, 2004 10:56:55 PM new
They can require it the same as any department store can require payment in cash or via their own credit cards. Virtually every service station in the state implements this policy, but a few expand the payment methods they accept. Just try using your Texaco card at an Enron station and see what happens. If the owner doesn't like your attitude, he can refuse to accept a personal check or even cash, and demand a credit card issued by his company for payment before he turns on the pump. Any businessperson in this state is free to specify the method of payment they will accept. Paypal is not governed by any laws, other than common law. Come to think of it, there are no laws specifically governing online auction sites. And since Ebay has won virtually every civil suit filed against them, except for the patent infringement suit, I would think their legal staff has a pretty good idea of how far they can push the envelope.
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on July 2, 2004 11:02:48 PM new
Sparx - take a breath and then go back and actually read what I have said. A depertment store taking cash or a gas station refusing to take a competitors card has nothing to do with a company requiring that as a part of their service that you use a third party service which they also have a monetary stake in. Nothing. In fact, if it was legal, don't you think one of the hundreds of companies that do offer their own credit cards would indeed require you to have theirs in order to utilize their services?
Also - please over the next few weeks, take a few minutes and pay special attention to Stones interpretations of PayPal and Ebay regulations and then see if you are still so inclined to take his leap and a jump assumptions as gospel.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 2, 2004 11:05 PM ]
posted on July 2, 2004 11:22:42 PM new
As a matter of fact Fenix, this has been a standard practice of oil companies for over 30 years. There is a vast network of fueling stations that cater primarily to trucking companies and farmers that have no humans in attendance. They operate 24/7 and the only way to access the pumps is to have one of their credit cards. There is also a network of "Keylock" stations that will not accept cash, credit cards or checks. You have to have an account to access their services. Once you open an account, you will receive a key or a card to access their pumps. Virtually every wholesale company will require you to have an account before they will sell to you. Any business in this state is free to specify the payment method they will accept, even if it's a third party they have a financial interest in. Stone is not whistling in the breeze on this one. If Ebay wants to do it, there is not presently a law on the books to prevent it. I agree 100% there should be, and I hope Stone is wrong, but as it is now, if they want to do it, they can.
A $75.00 solid state device will always blow first to protect a 25 cent fuse ~ Murphy's Law
posted on July 2, 2004 11:33:38 PM new
If Amazon can "filter" payments, no matter if they are credit, debit or account transfers, through their own infrastructure, Ebay can use paypal as their infrastructure.
It's very easy and straightforward and since they are even broaching the topic, prolly vetted through their cadre of suits. Not so sure I am in love with it, because I think I will still get screwed on the credit card fees. Sorry chipmunks, I am a little chicken here in the ol' henhouse.
posted on July 2, 2004 11:44:21 PM new
::Virtually every wholesale company will require you to have an account before they will sell to you.::
I have accounts with a number of my wholesalers and not a single one of them involve a transaction fee and percent of sale surcharge. Which one of yours do so that I know to stay away from them.
:: Any business in this state is free to specify the payment method they will accept, even if it's a third party they have a financial interest in.::
Yes, but there is a difference between what they accept and what they require you to use. Macy's offers a credit card but you are not required to hold or even apply for it in order to shop there.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 4, 2004 11:06:57 AM new
I really think that you all are looking at the worst case scenario. I do not believe for one minute that eBay is going to require all sellers to get paid through PayPal. I beleive it would put a severe crimp in their total business. Lets face it, the real $$ are in the sales commissions thst eBay charges.
