You can read "Ask the CEO: Does eBay Want to Eliminate Small Sellers?" here. Reply to this message to discuss it.
Thank you for taking the time to answer users questions, eBay take note !!
Regarding the thread title, bulk deals are always more cost effective for a supplier so I believe yes is the answer. Looks like even silver power sellers are going to get a rough deal if the diamond set arrive in force.
I gathered information from Terapeak.com earlier this year. Based on that information, Buy's sell-through rate was only 2.39%
Also, based on the absolute minimum listing fee of 10 cents, Buy would have paid approximately $25 MILLION in minimum 10 cent listing fees ALONE! I also did some rough calculating, based on those numbers and show that Buy would have paid approximately $165,000 over that same 90 day period. Hardly enough to justify the more than $25 MILLION waiver in listing fees.
Buy sold less than $4 Million during that 90 day period.
Buy listed approximately 40% of all the items listed in the Books category, during that same 90 day period.
Accidently, I discovered that Buy had pages of auctions closed early, "Because this item is no longer available", ALL of which were dutch style auctions, of 5-15 copies of books.
I created a video demonstrating these questions about Buy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKkUCMLZG6E
Now we're being told no less than TEN new Buy's are being offered these deals?
I wanted to comment about you believing ebay was doing the right thing with their policy.
True, no where else can I think of (before ebay) can a seller rate their buyer. That is why ebay worked-- despite all its many flaws. As a buyer, I rely on honest accurate feedback. In creating the largest ebay boycott website, back in Feb., I mentioned repeatedly that we (the leaders of the boycott efforts) agreed that the feedback system was breaking, and needed fixing. However, the route ebay took was wrong. they went from one extreme to the other. Rather than gathering information and ideas from the community as a whole, they at best went to their precious top 200 powersellers and got their reaction. I would never take only the opinion of the top 200 and then make a decision based on that. Nor would I be so arrogant as to refuse to admit I made a mistake. It seems to me John Donahoe has made an ass of himself, and rather than coming back humbly like many CEO's have had to in the past, and apologize, he has taken the approach of spending millions to woo us back. And THAT is why ebay is hurting now-- because they have pissed off a large segment of buyers and sellers, and have exchanged paying customers for large non-paying customers, to manipulate their listings, perhaps to fool investors into thinking all is well at ebay-fairy-tale-land. But, at $14.87 a share, it would seem investors are not buying it. For which I am grateful.
I have used Auctiva for a couple years now. Altho I am primarily a buyer, I find Auctivas services equal to what Andale offered back in 98-99, when they were still good. I have to reiterate the question posed previously, and one I asked previously, and that is Why not consider alternate sites? I'm not buying the reason you gave. Sorry, but, it makes no sense. But, what does make sense, is that ebay has an exclusive contract. If not, then it makes no sense to not branch out to other sites, and get name recognition. Seller's are dying here. Many are not familiar with how to work-around things to get Auctiva on other sites. But I would think it would be in Auctiva's best interest; esp. if ebay is going to be jack-assed about allowing third party sites such as Auctiva on their site. If they reject Auctiva, I'd think that would be the end to Auctiva; unless alternatives are in place. I can contact Chris Fain at Onlineauction, and maybe some others to see if they are willing to work with Auctiva. But, ultimately, that is you to decide whether you want Auctiva to thrive post ebay.
|Powered by Social Strata|