HP Forum Archive 16

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

I know ebay shipping is getting ridiculous, but really! Message #1 Posted by Gene on 22 May 2006, 4:35 p.m. Ebay HP41 with $300 shipping! I know that some auctions have been put out there with high shipping, but this one seems extreme. Don't you think? :-) Gene

It's "Fee Avoidance" Message #2 Posted by Mike on 22 May 2006, 4:59 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gene It's a violation of ebay auction rules and will likely be cancelled. It's a violation for 2 reasons. 1) Fee avoidance and 2) Excessive shipping & handling. ebay gives an example of a CD and $25 shipping and handling as excessive. I'm sure they will consider this excessive. I think I'll bid, just for the hell of it and watch him try to collect the excessive shipping. Nah! I wouldn't do that. :-) Edited: 22 May 2006, 5:00 p.m.

Re: It's "Fee Avoidance" Message #3 Posted by Gene on 22 May 2006, 5:08 p.m., in response to message #2 by Mike Agreed. It was just one of the highest i'd ever seen.

These kind of sellers are like chew toys Message #4 Posted by Mike on 22 May 2006, 5:20 p.m., in response to message #3 by Gene I suspect his shipping is lowered in the end, if the price rises. No way anyone would ever pay $300 shipping, unless they got it for less than a buck. That's why I thought it might be fun to run the bid up to $100 or so and then he'd have a hell of an argument trying to collect $200 or $300 in shipping, from someone who thought they just got a pretty good deal. :-) Edited: 22 May 2006, 5:23 p.m.

Re: It's "Fee Avoidance" Message #5 Posted by Juergen (CH) on 23 May 2006, 2:54 a.m., in response to message #2 by Mike I've notified eBay a few days ago about the excessive shipping & handling fees of this item. I wonder why they didn't stopped this auction...

Re: I know ebay shipping is getting ridiculous, but really! Message #6 Posted by Han on 23 May 2006, 3:01 a.m., in response to message #1 by Gene Let me guess what the return policy is... hmm... probably: "I will refund you the value of the auction less shipping fees." This is obviously trying to sucker viewers into bidding on the $0.01 item as the shipping fees are not shown if you only look at the search list or the top of the complete listing.

Re: I know ebay shipping is getting ridiculous, but really! Message #7 Posted by jbssm on 23 May 2006, 8:01 a.m., in response to message #6 by Han Well, to me I don't see any problem in someone putting a somewhat higher S&H than it actually pays, as long as it is clearly described and it's within certain limits, like for instance $15 instead of the real $10. In fact I approve it because I think eBay is taking a way to big fee for their services and I also think that buyers are getting to lazy (although eBay encourages it) and always pay by PayPal that carries fees to the seller, although most of the times they could do it by bank transfer for free for everyone (for 2 parts inside EUA or 2 parts inside Euro Zone for instance). So as eBay policies doesn't let the sellers charge PayPal fees to the buyers ... well, they should just add that something to the shipping fees. But I must agree this looks ridiculous, what it would be nice was to bid on it for a low price ... and then appear at the guy front door to pick the calculator up personally :p

"Somewhat higher" ? Message #8 Posted by Mike on 23 May 2006, 10:05 a.m., in response to message #7 by jbssm Quote: Well, to me I don't see any problem in someone putting a somewhat higher S&H than it actually pays, as long as it is clearly described and it's within certain limits, like for instance $15 instead of the real $10. eBay clearly says excessive shipping is expressly staged as violation of their terms. You may object to ebay's fees but violating their terms is a worse offense, in my opinion. ebay provides a great service and I'm surprised they only charge 3%. I think it might be worth bidding 3 or 4 cents to have a legitimate complaint with ebay. Still considering that option. However, his auctions have already been reported. Edited: 23 May 2006, 10:09 a.m.

Re: "Somewhat higher" ? Message #9 Posted by Michael Eckstein on 23 May 2006, 10:46 a.m., in response to message #8 by Mike Quote: I'm surprised they only charge 3%. Do you suppose that the profit of eBay is low, so they should rise the charges?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Message #10 Posted by Mike on 23 May 2006, 11:16 a.m., in response to message #9 by Michael Eckstein Quote: Do you suppose that the profit of eBay is low, so they should rise the charges? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. What people charge and can get away with is driven by "supply and demand" NOT how much perceived profit they make. The cut that Palm distributors used to charge was 10-15%. Now they are taking 50%-60% of the gross. Why? Because they still offer a service that a software seller can't get by themself. Next time you want to sell something, imagine how hard it would be, without venues like ebay. They have opened up a global market that wouldn't exist otherwise. When I want to sell something now, I have literally millions to try and contact, and hundreds or so that are actually interested, from all across the world. Prior to ebay, I had maybe 2 or 3, from local newspaper ads. Nope! They provide a valuable service. The only thing that will keep prices down, is competition in that "supply and demand" driven model. Right now, there is very little competion in the online selling (i.e. high demand and little supply). So, I'm surprised that it's only 3%. If they made it 8% very few would stop using them. Now, I'm not advocating they raise prices... I'm just surprised they haven't. Edited: 23 May 2006, 11:21 a.m.

Re: "Somewhat higher" ? Message #11 Posted by jbssm on 23 May 2006, 11:40 a.m., in response to message #8 by Mike Well, that is not the all story. eBay takes about 3%, plus the about 3.5% PayPal takes makes a total of 6.5% Anyway it's not violating the eBay terms in charging 15$ instead of the 10$ you pay for postage cause the terms are very clear, the buyer pays for Shipping AND Handling and sincerely, if the buyer doesn't want to be a little more nice with the seller and take is time to make a bank transfer, why should the seller charge nothing for handling? It's just my personal opinion though :)

Re: "Somewhat higher" ? Message #12 Posted by Mike on 23 May 2006, 11:59 a.m., in response to message #11 by jbssm Quote: eBay takes about 3%, plus the about 3.5% PayPal takes makes a total of 6.5% Your math is bogus... yes those two numbers add up to 6.5% and yes it's out of what you make. But #1, you don't have to use PayPal. That would be your "choice" if you do use it. You could just accept Money Orders and save that 3.5%, right? That fee is for payment method and really has ZIP to do with the ebay part. My comment was that I was surprised that they didn't charger more for ebay services. Every business has a right to make a profit on all aspects of their business. PayPal and ebay are, in fact, two different companies, offering two different services, even though they are owned by one group. Ford sells cars. Do you not think they make a small profit on the seats and another small profit on the tires and another profit on the engine. All parts of a business should be making money for a company. I see nothing wrong with that. The one other choice everyone has and that is to NOT use their service, if they think the prices are out-of-line. Edited: 23 May 2006, 12:03 p.m.

Re: "Somewhat higher" ? Message #13 Posted by jbssm on 23 May 2006, 1:46 p.m., in response to message #12 by Mike About not using PayPal, cmon let's be honest here, everybody knows an auction gets less bids if you don't offer PayPal to your buyers. I ALSO accept money orders when I make an auction, the problem is that everyone uses PayPal to pay when it's available, having no regard to bank transfer. So, the bottom line is, the BUYER should pay for the PayPal fees, not the seller, PayPal is a service that the buyer wants, not the seller, and if the buyer doesn't want the trouble of going to is bank or of making a payment trough is bank internet page at least in the cases the bank transfer is free, it should be the buyer paying it. And PayPal and eBay are the same, just use eBay a little and you see how far they go to make the buyers and sellers use PayPal. In fact, just recently, if you do remember, eBay forbid in it's policies several payment methods that competed with PayPal. Although you could say that Western Union was not a safe service ... well, nor is PayPal and we hear lot's of bad stories about it. And just for you to know, I don't use eBay a lot, but I buy more than I sell, I'm just stating what I think it's fair. Edited: 23 May 2006, 1:47 p.m.

Re: "Somewhat higher" ? Message #14 Posted by Frank Wales on 23 May 2006, 2:22 p.m., in response to message #13 by jbssm Quote: So, the bottom line is, the BUYER should pay for the PayPal fees, not the seller, PayPal is a service that the buyer wants, not the seller, and if the buyer doesn't want the trouble of going to is bank or of making a payment trough is bank internet page at least in the cases the bank transfer is free, it should be the buyer paying it. This is just the same choice that vendors make when they decide to accept credit cards, since the vendor pays the credit card companies' payment processing fees. The assumption is that, by accepting credit cards, more customers are available, and such a wider customer base supports higher prices or greater turnover. In turn, this benefits the vendor, and makes the processing fees an acceptable cost of doing business. Indeed, the following statement indicates that PayPal likewise puts money in sellers pockets: Quote: About not using PayPal, cmon let's be honest here, everybody knows an auction gets less bids if you don't offer PayPal to your buyers. If accepting PayPal attracts buyers in a venue like eBay, then that will drive prices up, which is a benefit to the seller. In other words, PayPal is making the seller more money for the same transaction. So I don't see why the buyer should be paying, since they're already paying more because of increased competition for the items, which is a direct result of PayPal being involved. Surely the party that benefits more from PayPal ought to be the one paying their fees, and that's clearly the seller.

Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #15 Posted by Mike on 23 May 2006, 3:38 p.m., in response to message #13 by jbssm Quote: About not using PayPal, cmon let's be honest here, everybody knows an auction gets less bids if you don't offer PayPal to your buyers. You make the same mistake a lot of sellers make. The number of bids is irrelevant. It is important that you have at least 2 people that want the same thing. Everyone else is just window dressing. The only thing that is important is does it sell at the price you want. I could care less how many people bid. And all of those sales would have still gone through, had I not used PayPal. And, I have sold a lot on ebay. Most of my stuff sells with only a single bid. I cannot invision someone passing up something they want, simply because it didn't have PayPal. In the 6 years I have been doing ebay, I have found that PayPal is convenient to me but irrelevant to whether or not my stuff sells. I recently had a good example of this. I told someone how to sell a calculator. I gave them specific instructions how to place the auction. They didn't listen. Instead, they listed it starting at $1 and got tons of bids. It sold for about $70 bucks. Lots of bids but very low price. I sold a nearly identical one for 3 times as much. Mine wasn't over-priced... their mint one was a bargain at $70. The number of bids is irrelevant. Why does this work this way? Because not everyone is online when auctions end. Most people don't place their highest bid. So, lots of bids are placed during the week, with low bids and the winning bidder comes in on auction end day and picks up the bargain. But, if you have the correct price set as "buy-it-now" for instance and a higher starting bid, you get fewer bidders. Anyone during the week can buy it at your price, if they want it. No need to wait a week to see if their low bid wins (and it rarely does). Frank, Quote: PayPal is making the seller more money for the same transaction. Not true. Quote: So I don't see why the buyer should be paying, since they're already paying more because of increased competition for the items, which is a direct result of PayPal being involved. The buyer doesn't pay. The seller pays the fees. But this whole PaPal red-herring is irrelevant to this thread. PayPal is another business and they have just as much right to charge for their service as does eBay. It makes no difference if they are owned by the same group. Edited: 23 May 2006, 3:58 p.m.

ebay and paypal fees Message #16 Posted by Gene on 23 May 2006, 3:59 p.m., in response to message #15 by Mike And, ebay policies specifically deny sellers the right to add cost to their auctions to handle paypal fees. In fact, if you state "If you pay by paypal, please add 3% to your total" or something like it, Ebay will in most cases cancel the auction.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #17 Posted by jbssm on 23 May 2006, 4:18 p.m., in response to message #15 by Mike Very well, I see your points and I must accept that I agree with some of them, perhaps the solution is really to stop using PayPal since (at least for me) I think it's just a commodity that can be easily replaced.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #18 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 24 May 2006, 5:56 a.m., in response to message #17 by jbssm Quote: perhaps the solution is really to stop using PayPal since (at least for me) I think it's just a commodity that can be easily replaced. For international buyers, PayPal or similar services are a godsent. I once bought a calculator from Australia and I had to do a regualar bank transfer: 1) There was now way to transfer the money online. 1) It took about a week to transfer the money. 2) Fees are prohibitive (about $30, IIRC.) With PayPal, the transfer is instantaneous and the fees are reasonable. Within Europe things are much easier, at least in the Euro zone, because EU regulations forbid any extra fees for bank transfers and I can do them online now. I refrain from overseas actions if PayPal isn't an option. Marcus

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #19 Posted by Frank Wales on 23 May 2006, 7:55 p.m., in response to message #15 by Mike Quote: The number of bids is irrelevant. It is important that you have at least 2 people that want the same thing. Everyone else is just window dressing. The number of bidders is what matters, and offering PayPal as a payment option attracts at least some that wouldn't otherwise bid, while putting off no-one as long as you also accept other payment methods to satisfy the recalcitrant. Quote: Quote: PayPal is making the seller more money for the same transaction. Not true. I know from experience that not offering PayPal as an option costs bidders, especially when you sell internationally. Fewer bidders means less money; how you go about choosing start and BuyItNow pricing is orthogonal to that. Quote: The buyer doesn't pay. The seller pays the fees. What I was getting at is that the buyer pays anyway, since all fees associated with a transaction ultimately come out of the buyer's pocket, even though they're billed to the seller. Economically, if the bump in the typical selling price didn't more than cover PayPal's fees, they'd be a lot less popular. That bump comes from the convenience they offer to both parties, by greasing the transactional skids for individual sales. Anything that makes buying easier attracts buyers, and PayPal makes buying easier; this, in turn, lets you boost prices or increase volume of sales, but you still have to get your pricing policy right, as you correctly point out, in order to benefit from those greasier skids. Note that I have no vested interest in PayPal, but I do recognise that their presence can have an upward effect on pricing, which is already costing the buyer money. Dinging the buyers instead of the sellers for the privilege of paying more would therefore be a mistake, one that PayPal hasn't yet made.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #20 Posted by GE on 24 May 2006, 6:10 a.m., in response to message #19 by Frank Wales Hello, I think good points are stated here. I just wanted to stress that the ONE factor that limits the selling price is the fast that some people ship only to the US. First, let me say that they are very well entitled to do so, no problem. Second, some time ago I used to send an email offering to bid if the seller would like an overseas bid. Some sellers responded, and I had several good buys that way. But most of the time, there is a reason for this (bad previous experience, unwillingness to fill papers...), so it's a lost cause. Now I just pass those auctions and at times it hurts to see the final bargain prices. Actually, HPs (and other brands) were (much) more expensive in Europe than in the US, so the perceived financial value is higher. A weaker dollar helps Europeans give more money. Also a lot of stuff was sold only in the US (or almost), so is hard to find here. So all in all I respect the seller's decisions, but let me say that Paypal and worldwide shipping are mandatory keywords for me nowadays.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #21 Posted by Dia C. Tran on 5 June 2006, 2:41 p.m., in response to message #15 by Mike I HAD to pass many items I want because the seller only accepted PayPal.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #22 Posted by Ron Ross on 5 June 2006, 3:15 p.m., in response to message #21 by Dia C. Tran So have I. But the seller does have the right to determine his payment. I have heard others complain that they only pay by PayPal, so a seller that is flexable gets the most for his items. I won't bother to use PayPal, but it is convienent (my wife actually has an account, but she just might SHOOT ME if I were to use it for calculators!). She knows I have my weird obsessions, but she tolerates the calculator obsession anyway, but alas won't contribute to my madness. In retrospect, it probably keeps a bit more cash in my pocket for other trivial items: food, bills, etc.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #23 Posted by The Bull Cabinet on 5 June 2006, 4:42 p.m., in response to message #21 by Dia C. Tran We just had an auction cancelled because we offer a cash payment option; along with PayPal, personal check, money order and cashier's check. Cash is no longer acceptable on eBay. Oh, well.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #24 Posted by jbssm on 5 June 2006, 8:12 p.m., in response to message #23 by The Bull Cabinet Seems to me that eBay is pushing and pushing until finally it will make almost impossible not to make the transaction using PayPal. That adds even more 4% to the fee eBay already takes. I wonder if Google implements a payment system similar to PayPal, what excuse eBay will find to block it as well.

The latest rumor is that Message #25 Posted by Randy on 5 June 2006, 9:44 p.m., in response to message #24 by jbssm When Microsoft buys eBay, you'll be able to pay with your Passport account :) What you say you don't have one? Why not? Bill says it will be good for everybody :)

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #26 Posted by David Smith on 5 June 2006, 11:21 p.m., in response to message #21 by Dia C. Tran A Paypal only auction generally closes at half the price of an auction that allows all payment methods. To get the big bucks on Ebay, you need two people that really want the item. Every payment option that you disallow cuts your chances of that happening dramatically. Let the Paypal only weasels reap their meager rewards. I pretty much avoid auctions that won't take my check. I will NEVER, EVER use Paypal.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #27 Posted by bill platt on 6 June 2006, 10:20 p.m., in response to message #26 by David Smith Is Paypal really that bad? I'veu sed it about 50 times and nothing untoward has ever haqppened...and when I read paypalsucks.com, I didn't really coma away fdeeling too worried. Edited: 6 June 2006, 10:21 p.m.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #28 Posted by Han on 6 June 2006, 11:47 p.m., in response to message #27 by bill platt To me, using Paypal is no different from driving a car. If you know the inherent dangers of driving a car, and you use the car carefully, it can get you from point A to point B very quickly. However, wreckless use of the car can bring harm not only to others, but possibly yourself. The same goes for Paypal. Before I created a Paypal account, I read paypalsucks.com and did quite a bit of research about Paypal. To reduce the possibility of "bad things" I never keep a balance in Paypal, and I never link it to any bank account. I have a single credit card which I use solely for Paypal payments. To be honest, I have never had any bad experiences using Paypal for eBay purchases. I will admit, however, that eBay and Paypal together do take a huge chunk of the sales after all the fees are deducted. So from a seller's viewpoint, Paypal is a thorn. If you don't offer it, you lose out on potential sales. And if you DO offer it, well you could easily get screwed as Paypal's policies do not seem to favor the seller.

Re: Well let's REALLY be honest! Message #29 Posted by Frank Wales on 7 June 2006, 6:22 a.m., in response to message #28 by Han Quote: However, wreckless use of the car can bring harm not only to others, but possibly yourself. Actually, I strongly favour wreckless use of cars. It's reckless use of them I don't like. :-)

OK! It sold for $81 - Wonder if the winner will pay $300 shipping? Message #30 Posted by Mike on 24 May 2006, 12:25 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gene The winner got the 41CX with manuals and case for $81.00. I have inquired if the seller is still trying to collect the $300+ in shipping or is discounting it to get his $300 for the package. The $81 auction with $300 shipping

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall