MG said:
quote:
I just get cross eyed with all the quotes.
This post should help to exercise your eye muscles.MG said:
quote:
It could be a legal issue if it were pursued.
They probably consulted with someone before hand to see if this was legal. It might even have been a paralegal or an intern.
MG said:
quote:
There is no way to make all bidders "even".
That’s something we can definitely agree on. I would also extend it to other areas, such as sellers and gift shop owners – especially the ones that sold beanie babies. It would even apply to competitive online auction companies.
MG said:
quote:
so basically they should just shut up about how or when the bid is placed.
Well, you could say they should have a say because it’s somewhat their bat and ball. Kind of like the signs I see in retails stores that tell people how or when to shop: “No shirt; No shoes; No service.” They don’t mention pants, but they probably assume that in that respect all buyers have been made “even”.
While I’m on the subject of T.O.S. signs on businesses (this one was on the door of a building for something in the medical industry, and no, I’m not having myself admitted or committed); I saw this one yesterday, “No solicitation; No cell phones;
No handguns” (I’m not making this up). I definitely didn’t have any problem with the first two, but the last one caused me to pause. “Did they know something I didn’t?” “Should I in fact get a handgun *before* going into the building?” This wasn’t like High Noon or something, in that I don’t see a lot of people (or *any* people other than cops and what good would they be in the building if they *didn’t* have their handgun?) around town wearing handguns. This isn’t Iraq, after all. The employees knew not why the “No handguns” policy. Might be a good thing if shirts, and pants, were prohibited – easier to spot a handgun.
MG said:
quote:
They would make us buy the ones we didn't want to get the ones we did.
They can’t “make” you do anything. The last I check, the U. S. was still a quasi-free-market society.
MG said:
quote:
The started telling us what we could buy,how many of each and how much we HAD to buy to get any at all.
“Telling” and “HAD”? See response to previous quote.
MG said:
quote:
, alot of shop owners told them were they could put their beanies! (maybe that's where all the brown dogs came from!
Were you one of those shop owners or did you end up with some brown dogs, or did you already do an “I said…”?
MG said:
quote:
took a good 25% of my sales by the time I added up all the fees. That's too much.
“Took”? - Again, a voluntary transaction on your part. “That’s too much” - If too much, one can always opt to stop the relationship. I would if I felt I was paying too much for something. And, the real issue isn’t the “percentage paid to ebay”. The issue is the “percentage increase to the seller”. More accurately, how much more profit does the seller make using ebay compared to any other marketing venue. A simple way to lower the cost of selling is to use less expense selling space – such as a yard sell. But, it would be a bit difficult to get 10 to 20 million people in your yard, especially considering how many Irises would get stomped.
M said:
quote:
Ebay needs a good competitor to make them back off the "too big for thier britches - greedies".
Maybe yes – maybe no. When enough people think of them as “to big for their britches – greedies”, they will go elsewhere (there’s always an “elsewhere”, or “alternatives”). There has been other companies that have tried online auctions, and haven’t been successful, at least I think that’s the case, but I wouldn’t know because I never found one with the selection that ebay had. Ebay can’t abuse their buyers or sellers because that will encourage the buyers and sellers to stop using ebay. It will also discourage new buyers and sellers. Also, having multiple auction sites would tend to cut down on the efficiency and profit for everyone. Would the current number of buyers take the time to search multiple sites? If not, then the buyers would become fragmented between multiple services, causing unfavorable results to the sellers. Would sellers list their items on multiple sites? Same fragmentation – with similar results. Just look at the work/cost it would cause AS. They would have to double, or triple, or quadruple, their R & D to snipe multiple sites, which would probably mean an increase in fees. Of course, we would have more people on the forum talking about how AS didn’t place a snipe because one of the auction sites made some improvement.
End of eyes’ exercises.
