John Donahoe talks to eBay Ink

Formerly Known As MarikaBooksOn April 18, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said:

JD said:
“we instituted detailed seller ratings last year, which caused a lot of controversy in the community. But we know they’re working – both buyers and sellers are telling us that”

Oh, c’mon! I follow many industry discussion boards and I do not see sellers saying DSRs are working. They are saying exactly the opposite. The only sellers claiming to be thrilled with DSRs are the ones paid by Ebay to do so. The majority of the REAL sellers who speak out are sick over it.

Pfffttt.

implogOn April 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm Said:

So is Mr. Donahue saying that when listening to seller feedback, “incentives not aligned enough” (someone please translate) was more pressing than one sided feedback, the miscommunicated DSR policy and atrocious customer service among many other things? Did sellers really say that they wanted an increase in Final Value Fees?

…………………………. O M G !

Concerned ebayOn April 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm Said:

At the end of the day its not what is good for the marketplace its whats good for ebay’s pocketbooks. Ebay runs at a gross margin in the high 70%’s, yet their stock price is down.

Are you worried JD?

JD if you were doing whats GOOD for the buyer experience, you’d change paypal’s funding mix to accurately warn buyers of the risks with ‘Instant Payments’.

Shipping and handling is down 1% due to the DSR’s and we all know that ebay takes a bigger cut of the FVF’s if there is free shipping. Thats not good for the buyer or seller its good for EBAY and EBAY only.

What a bunch of hog wash JD. Shame on you.

MelOn April 18, 2008 at 6:22 pm Said:

Hmmm, I don’t recall giving any feedback. I wasn’t asked! And sellers are eBays customers, not buyers?!

SandiOn April 18, 2008 at 6:36 pm Said:

Did he keep a straight face while saying all that to you?

DaveyOn April 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm Said:

There have been so many things in the policy changes that have pointed out to me a complete lack of seller feedback, that Mr. Donohoe’s communicated intentions are not believeable to me, and I think by the average seller out there either. At least he realizes that customer service needs work (like a complete overhaul and demolition of the boilerplate response bot and exercise of judgement and some power on the part of reps). Many of the buyer and seller experience shortcomings have been related to poor customer service and inaction on fraud that would have been easy to swat had someone listened and done it.

Still other things like difference of DSR definitions given to buyers versus sellers is tearfully pathetic and not thought out–you can’t tell me that this was not done on purpose. Then there are other strokes of genius–the Shipping Time DSR, which should have been automatic from the time of payment clearance and electronic notification of acceptance by the shipper. Instead, we’re left with a very subjective rating that really doesn’t describe how fast I as a seller bring my items to a shipper, and hits me for things I can’t control as a seller.

So many of eBay’s supposed goals here had very workable solutions that would have been fairer to sellers, if only a cross-section of sellers had been brought in on the process.

As noted by others, the announcement of listing fee lowering, while other fees were “adjusted” in fine print, was so spin-laden and disingenuous that it was laughable. I didn’t “ask” for my overall fees to go up 50 percent, but somebody “listened” anyway. In the end, this maneuver gave a token reduction to sellers who didn’t know how to price for sell-through while penalizing those of us who did, which until the “adjustment,” I thought was a good, valued, and encouraged skill. Thus the insinuation that sellers of cheap Chinese garbage posted en-masse are the future of the site. Which, of course, with the folly of “Best Match,” makes legitimate sellers’ goods almost impossible to find now.

How is the site and Paypal any “safer” to sellers than it was before? What actions are being take to make it so? Paypal is notoriously unsafe for sellers, with many ways to be parted from your money and merchandise, especially internationally, and with the customer service that eBay has become infamous for.

I’d like to see some evidence that Mr. Donohoe is really listening to sellers. That we get any sort of rudimentary buyer fraud protection to replace what two-way feedback gave us. That we ALL get international confirmed address SPP so that mid-range sellers have some incentive to expand. Heck, even seeing a “glitch” that was finally in sellers’ favor would be something to behold. I haven’t seen anything come my way for years now–there is no give and take with eBay, just take.

If Mr. Donohoe is listening and wanting to improve seller experience, I’d like to see some evidence of it rather than just mere words. Sellers want to improve buyer experience too, but why are so many opposed to the changes as they stand, then? The innate intelligence of the marketplace is being ignored in favor of diktat–”Sellers prefer this structure.” How would that phrase be said in Chinese?

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn April 18, 2008 at 9:29 pm Said:

Quote: “This means giving buyers great value and selection and giving sellers a great opportunity to sell at unparalleled volumes and to bring eBay into today’s world and tomorrow’s. So that buyers say “eBay is the best place to find value and selection and I will continue to come back” and so that sellers are able to sell and make a living which in turn fuels eBay’s success.”

- No offense, but I do not have this view of eBay or its recent changes as a buyer or seller. If that is his intention - he is failing miserably.

Quote: “We’ve done a lot of research on buyers and we know what turns them off. ”

- I don’t remember ever being asked for my input as a buyer on eBay.

Quote: “A big issue is excessive shipping charges.”

- This comes from the fact that most buyers on eBay are looking for a bargain. They have absolutely no idea how much it costs in time and material to ship items. The problem is the eBay buyer mentality. No wonder I do not experience this “customer dissatisfaction” regarding shipping on my other selling venues.

Quote: “A second is that the item is not as described.”

- Or is it that the item was described correctly, but the buyer simply failed to read the item description in the listing?

Quote: “A fourth example, which is particularly infuriating, is when a buyer receives retaliatory negative feedback.”

- The problem is what eBay is defining as “retaliatory”. They believe that who ever leaves a negative last must only be doing so out of retaliation and not because it is justly deserved.

What if a buyer used feedback to punish a seller for not marking an item as gift on a custom form? What if a buyer leaves a negative for a seller because they bought a blue sweater, the sweater was clearly described as blue, but somehow the buyer “thought” it would be pink? What if a buyer performs a charge back weeks after receiving the item and never sends it back to the seller?

The main issue I have with the data and information that Donahoe is using is that these individual incidents have not been researched to see who exactly was at fault. Does he really think a scammer is going to admit that is what they are doing? Does he really think a buyer is going to admit that they were the party which was wrong? Basing decisions on blind opinions without researching their creditability is irresponsible and fool hearty.

Quote: “Sellers came to us and said a number of things, including that incentives aren’t aligned enough … that they were absorbing too much of the risk with insertion fees … that they wanted to list at higher volumes and create listings more easily.”

- Funny how sellers did not ask for an overall fee increase, yet that is what they got. Also interesting is that sellers did not ask that they lose their ability to rate a transaction accurately, yet that is the exact effect of removing the ability to leave negative feedback for buyers. I also recall that seller’s have asked eBay for more protection against fraudulent buyers, yet these added protections have only been made available to Power Sellers.

They say to be careful when making a deal with the Devil. He will grant your request, but twist it into something you never intended it to be - harmful and devastating. If this is how eBay responds to what sellers request, perhaps it is best that sellers make no requests at all.

Quote: “But I also recognize that there are 80 million different opinions out there and it’s tough not to be paralyzed by that many different beliefs on where we should go as a company.”

- and that is exactly why eBay can never expect to be regarded as a “partner” is anyone’s business. It clearly lacks the ability, understanding, and initiative to do so.

Quote: “For example, we announced changes to pricing across the board at the eCommerce Forum, but heard from some sellers that the structure didn’t suit certain categories very well. So, we went back and changed pricing for media, such as books, CDs and DVDs.”

First, this only goes to prove that eBay does not research the effects of its policy changes before placing them into effect. Second, the main voice that petitioned eBay about this matter was the Power Seller United Group. With the threat of so many sellers leaving for Amazon, considering that is a prime venue for media, eBay was forced to make the change. That decision was based solely from eBay’s pocketbook and not on what was best for the community.

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn April 18, 2008 at 9:39 pm Said:

@ Richard

I know that you are fairly new to eBay and since you are their employee, I’m sure that you feel the desire to believe the PR that Donahoe is trying to present here. I do not expect that you will have a very critical view of his statements and that after talking to him, you probably feel that he is sincere.

The thing I have learned overtime is that public presenters and motivators can be very convincing. Often making us believe something is possible, though all common sense in us tells us it is a lie.

Once again you are going to need to determine what the motivation is behind those you interview and those users who respond to these statements. Please keep in mind that Donahoe is a company man. He was hired into eBay. He does not own a business on eBay and he does not use it the way those of us posting here do. Given that, who is more believable - the ones using the system for their livelihood and extra income, or the one hired to defend corporate decisions?

Patricia 1On April 18, 2008 at 10:24 pm Said:

“Listen and have passion. Our goal is not to be a finely tuned, smooth, perfect machine. The minute our community stops talking is the minute I worry. Because their opinions, constructive criticism or praise, stem from passion. People are basically good – that is our belief. And we will not shut our ears to what people have to say – we will embrace it.”

I’m so amazed all I can say is…..huh????

MechelleOn April 18, 2008 at 10:27 pm Said:

First question to the blogger- why was it necessary to hold off on presenting this until after the quarterly reports? I don’t see anything that would affect the reports in this “interview”.

Yeah- I wasn’t asked for my interpretation of the problems and how I think they could be fixed- I don’t know anyone who was.

Buyer Complaints
Shipping costs:
Has Donahoe taken the time to educate himself on the cost of shipping? Have any of the eBay executives? Maybe if they were personally aware of the cost of shipping they wouldn’t encourage my customers to distrust the actual postage cost fee I charge.

One of the new “aggressive” changes involve little threatening messages, when I am listing, concerning the cost of the shipping fee- which is what it will cost to ship- hello. It’s pretty bad when I am trying to do my job the company I am purchasing services from sends me threats of suspension for excessive shipping fees. Really, come on blogger - what is that? is that the quality of customer service I should be modeling for my customers? Oddly it feels like retaliatory feedback- You know - say what I want you to say or your suspended.

Item not as described:
Would those be the counterfeit items that I have reported numerous times to eBay T&S only to watch the auction be won by some trusting “eBay” buyer. As a matter of fact I have 5 of those auctions that sold the other day sitting in my watch list because I had reported everyone of them 3 days prior to the end of the auction.. Yep now I look at them and know how they will feel when they open their package - the same as I did when I was sold counterfeit Mac Cosmetics on three separate occasions- it doesn’t feel good and it sickens me how often I report these and I have never seen any pulled never!

If your concerned about item as described complaints maybe you should pay attention to the reports of the listings that clearly are not selling as described products?

Items against eBay Policies for good reason- used cosmetics- report those but they are still sold.

Excessive shipping- I report that - 20 shipping for what would cost 5 dollars as someone who deals with the shipping costs and knows what they are I can easily pick out instances of excessive shipping charges- yet those continue on as well.

What exactly is it that eBay does to enforce their rules? Ask/expect us to police the marketplace, but ignore the reports of violations. If your not hunting them down, because we have to why can’t you follow through and enforce the damn rules? If your not doing either maybe you can cut some fees for us by firing the T&S dept- they are utterly worthless.

Retaliatory Feedback:
It is infuriating to you that people who sale on eBay use retaliatory feedback- really, because from my position I see a system that developed and fostered the behavior in the first place. Funny to promote and then become infuriated by the activity.

If you don’t want retaliatory feedback then why:
Is there feedback withdraw?
Preferences in selling manager to auto feedback after we receive positive feedback?
EBay recommendations of waiting until feedback has been received by our customers before we leave ours?

Clearly all of these communicate to those selling on eBay that our feedback should be held until we receive positive feedback- why? Why is this being communicated? You fed the mentality developed the methodology and now you have the audacity to strut out and tell us and the public how much we infuriate you- WOW!!!

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU INFURIATE ME! It really P***es me off that you (eBay) are the drivers of the policies/rules - you set them for us- then you ignore the rule breakers, set the system up for these deviant behaviors, and communicate to your customers Explicitly that you want them to act deviously. Then you tell the world with a blanketed statement that your customers are trash- Why because they played the hand you dealt?

You’re like the parent that hands their child a cigarette and a lighter and then gets pissed when they light it. You set the stage and the actors put on the play- so get over yourself and your infuriated sentiment, because you have no right to be infuriated at anyone other than eBay Inc’s policy makers- you should make a public statement demonstrating your disgust for them and fire them.

You care a lot about the community??? You again referred to us as noise the other day in an interview- what message do you imagine this sends to us? Sure as H*** does feel like “caring” to me. It is arrogant and a costly over estimation of your power. Sure my 9,000 in fees last year , this person 2,000, this one’s 600, that one’s 50 taken alone look like nothing, but you know as well as I do pennies add up. The only people who aren’t furious with your “aggressive “ actions are the ones you claim you want out of the eBay marketplace. All the “noise“ are the people you should be begging to stay because they are the ones who have been holding eBay up- and not with fees- with reputation. The more of us who leave the trashier eBay’s marketplace will be and you will have nothing.

That’s what you seem to not understand- all this “noise” is a result of those of us who work our a**es off to maintain our reputation so that we can succeed and eBay should be thanking us for building its reputation by extension. So keep up your arrogant can’t touch this attitude and you’ll find yourself in deafening silence.

Kevin_TOn April 19, 2008 at 12:06 am Said:

QUOTE: “On the sellers’ side we heard a lot of feedback, too. Sellers came to us and said a number of things, including that incentives aren’t aligned enough … that they were absorbing too much of the risk with insertion fees … that they wanted to list at higher volumes and create listings more easily.”

=======
Leaving aside the condescending spin about “reducing up front fees” in the last of the ANNUAL fee adjustments. Does Ebay really think it is good policy to reward those who list unsaleable goods or have a particularly low clearance rate (the only way to get any advantage out of the so-called fee reductions), while punishing those who offer saleable goods with substantial fee increases?

Kevin (who lives in Australia, so doesn’t get dashboards or discounts, just over-regulation to damage a substantial part of the home market)

permacrisisOn April 19, 2008 at 5:33 am Said:

Your power company decides that one day, the new standard is 60 volts at the wall outlet. They do this because there were some incidents where a couple of people got electrocuted. In every other county, the power company uses GFI protective devices. But this power company, we’ll call them BayPower, does things a little differently.

They don’t check with anyone, they don’t give anybody a heads up. They just go ahead and cut voltage by half during the night. You get up one morning. Your lights are a bit dimmer, things sort of work but everything is sluggish and slow. Coffee takes 20 minutes to perk, clocks run slow, and you nearly lose your job.

Two days later, your electric bill arrives. Printed across the top it says, “You Spoke and We Listened!” The bill has increased by 67 percent, but it now comes with a business reply envelope so you don’t have to put a stamp on it to mail it in, so it’s hailed as a fee decrease.

Furious, you snatch up the phone and call the regulatory agency. But the Feds do nothing because when they drive by, the lights though dimly lit, are on and anyway the subtle changes are too complicated to explain to a politician.

Ebay: just buy your Top 200 out already, and get on with selling new items yourselves, which is all you really ever wanted to do anyway.

TheBrewsNewsOn April 19, 2008 at 7:08 am Said:

Donahue loves the eBay marketplace — What does Mr. Donahue’s feedback score look like? What is the actual number and what is the percentage? Has Mr. Donahue had any negative eBay expreriences? If not, why do you think Mr. Donahue has had only positive eBay experiences when other buyers report so much unsatisfactory experience? Is it because Mr. Donahue is only a “casual” eBay buyer or is it because Mr. Donahue uses the current feedback system to carefully choose the “right” seller?

Listing process cut down by a third - Please elaborate. My current experience is that I cannot bulk relist because I get an error that the item specifics have changed, even when they have not. And when I list new items, the item specifics automatically “pre-fill” with item specifics irrelevant to my item. My listing time has INCREASED by a third.

Detailed Seller Ratings are working - Yes, they are “working” for me. On all 3 eBay seller IDs I list on, I would qualify for the 15% if not for the Shipping DSR (my DSRs for the other 3 areas range from 4.8 to 5.0 with the 4.8 being shipping time which I would expect since I sell internationally).

So, in response to the DSR implementation, I have actually RAISED the shipping rates I charge to offset the discount I am not receiving from eBay.

eBay publishes the median DSR ratings (4.8 for all except shipping and handling which is 4.6) so my question is - why require 4.8 on ALL four DSR ratings when eBay admits that overall a “good” seller is one who has 4.6 or greater on the shipping and handling. If eBay rewarded me with a 15% discount for 4.8 for the first three DSRs and 4.6 for the last DSR then I could and would lower my shipping rates but instead I now raised rates so that I can consider the DSRs to be “working” for me.

TWOn April 19, 2008 at 9:19 am Said:

Here is one sentence of Mr. Donahoe’s statement I feel the need to comment on.

“This means giving buyers great value and selection and giving sellers a great opportunity to sell at unparalleled volumes and to bring eBay into today’s world and tomorrow’s.”

I and many small sellers do not want to operate at a high volume. We have no desire to conduct business as a mega seller. We like the volume we operate at now.

I feel we are left out of any “communication”.

Another statement I would like to comment on …

“Sellers came to us and said a number of things, including that incentives aren’t aligned enough … that they were absorbing too much of the risk with insertion fees … that they wanted to list at higher volumes and create listings more easily. They also told us they wanted to get a gauge of where they stand in terms of performance.”

Nobody has ever asked me for my opinion. My STR is over 90%. The fee adjustments are killing me. The fact I get free gallery is of no consequence when I get my FVF bill and my cost of doing business goes up 15% to 25%. I am punished for my own success.

And yet another reference to “volumes”. I do not care to just fling items against the wall and see what sticks. If it won’t sell, I am not going to waste my time and money listing it.

I also do not need a gauge to tell how I am doing. I know how I am doing by the communication with my customers and my profit margins.

What will you do for the small seller who makes a living (or used to) on eBay? We are not “casual” sellers but we are not 5 figure feedback mega sellers either. I used to think we were the heart of eBay.

LurchOn April 19, 2008 at 2:13 pm Said:

As a follow-up to the prior post I just made on the Australia entry: so when John states above “We have no plans to sell Skype… and why would we?” it’s possible that he means that the sale might happen any day now? I’ve suddenly become very confused about the meaning of the word “plan.”

Mechelle - great post! I want to add a bit to it as well - and here’s something that eBay has been missing for about 8 years or so now (actually, more than 8).

Disclaimer: the following is very, very generalized. It is nowhere near 100% accurate. To be accurate, it would take me at least 100 pages. Likely more. The earlier period I write about below wasn’t entirely as rosey as it *may* read - I realize this - I’m not playing revisionist here, but I am trying to convey below some generalized history, which in fact, relate directly to (from a historical perspective) some of the points Mechelle makes above.

When I previously stated I’d been around since the 2nd week, I was not joking, making that up or roughly estimating. A guy who I had bought pulps from off of Usenet popped me an email that he had listed a couple of things on a brand new site called AuctionWeb and that I might be interested in at least one of them. I hadn’t heard of it - went and checked it out, and bid on one of his 3 or 4 items he had listed. I thought it was kind of cool, and a natural extension of phone auctions that existed in the collectibles area that people would hold (via various pubs, including Toy Shop - we’d even done some in Toy Shop). Anyway, the next day I found I had received an email from Pierre - if I recall correctly, thanking me for checking out the site. I thought this was very cool. I won the pulp. Got another email from Pierre, again thanking me, and asking what I thought of the site and a few other things I think. I *really* thought this was cool, and started checking it every day - and started turning up some neat stuff (keep in mind, back then I was using lynx as a browser and you could go through *all* newly listed items in less than 15 minutes each day). So anyway… time passed. In those early days, there would still be an occasional email from Pierre, but obviously that stopped as it began to grow. My wife and I actually tried to keep AuctionWeb a secret early on from other vintage toy dealers, because we’d find great stuff cheap from people who would just find things in their closets, basements, etc.

In any event, here’s a key thing, and I saw it growing day-by-day, week-by-week and was involved in it: people would come for the stuff when they’d hear about it, and they’d also come *back* for the stuff BUT — they also kept coming back because a) it was fun; and b) because of the atmosphere which was fostered at the company level. It was mostly open. It was mostly honest. It was mostly friendly (again, at the company level). There was interaction. When there were problems, staff would work on them. Things were thought out before being implemented. There was honesty behind the answers to questions when things would change. People generally believed in eBay at a philosophical level. And generally, people were happy and so dealt with each other at a more friendly level in interaction. Sure, there were some who didn’t, particularly on the boards, but mostly overall, it was the case. And this is well beyond when there were only a few thousand users. The user base kept getting bigger and bigger. And for the most part, eBay was able to still hold this together.

Then it all started to fall apart, bit by bit. People mattered less to the company, people were no longer listened to, things were being implemented poorly (and when people would speak up prior to those implementations, they were outright ignored), etc. Sure, as that user base expands into the millions, it’s harder to keep up. But rather than trying to figure out how to adjust to retain and foster a similar atmosphere, eBay seemed to just bail. They’d give lip service that they still held the same ideals and listened to people, and really factored in people’s needs, but no one really saw that in reality - and no one really bought it. And things began to get more antagonistic. And people stopped caring about eBay so much and caring solely about only making money or getting stuff. Again, generally speaking. And from this, more problems were bred. And more antagonism. And less and less fun.

The thing is, eBay led the way in letting things fall apart and enabled the continuance of this deterioration. And actually started to respond with a bit of hostility (making it yet worse). And flat out ignored people who were trying to warn them. Ignored. And over the intervening years, there has been no plan to try to recapture this. Granted, it would be tough going now, due to a combination of the user base continuing to grow AND the fact that eBay has allowed (and enabled) things to just get worse and worse and worse. Although it seems like it should be a primary initiative. It would cost some money. Yep. It would take a lot of time. Yep. It would involve confronting some sacred cows. Yep. It would require policy shifts. It would require cleaning up the site. It would require analysis of each thing from multiple perspectives (”what is the fallout from what we’re going to do? Are we actually targeting the correct people? Have we covered EVERY base?”). It would require smart, thoughtful and human oversight. It would involve some honesty, less games and a certain amount of crow eating. And even more. But I think recapturing *some* of it is not necessarily completely impossible.

When John states: “ensure that we bring the very best of what eBay has represented over the years. This means giving buyers great value and selection and giving sellers a great opportunity to sell at unparalleled volumes and to bring eBay into today’s world and tomorrow’s. So that buyers say ‘eBay is the best place to find value and selection and I will continue to come back’ and so that sellers are able to sell and make a living which in turn fuels eBay’s success,” it tells me that he either doesn’t fully get what eBay HAD represented over the first chunk of its life (4-5 years) or maybe that an attempt to recapture any of that just seems too overwhelming now since the foundation has been pulverized over time, but really - wouldn’t you prefer that buyers say “eBay is the best place to be.” Not just for value and selection, but THE BEST PLACE TO BE. Isn’t that worth the work and investment for the long term?

The problem is that there is so much to dig out from under now (for eBay) that this job would be tough. If anyone had listened over the years, it wouldn’t be quite as tough, but no one did. But wouldn’t it be preferable to simply be “the best place to be?”

There’s so much more to this, but I’m stopping. It’s already far too rambling, and I’ve had too little sleep. Anyone can feel free to tear this apart, too :) I know it’s flawed - but my main defense lies in the need for being brief (and I’m sure some would say I failed at brevity :) ).

implogOn April 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm Said:

I’m not sure Mr. Donahue is on the same page as our dear Uncle Griff and the eBay bot that responds to buyer/seller complaints about retaliatory negative feedback.

Their responses to retaliatory neg complaints are copied below.

~~~~~~

From “Uncle” Griff & “Aunt” Flossies Vault, (www.unclegriff.com)

“Uncle” Griffs’ pearls

of wisdom:

“First, feedback was not intended to be a beauty contest. eBay provides the Feedback Forum as a completely open and fully disclosed site for users to leave comments regarding their experience with other users.

Many users ask, “I was the party in the right when I left this person a negative and this person then left me an undeserved negative response. You must prevent this!” (Uncle paraphrases. Usually the language is much more colorful.) We understand a user’s concern but, in the interest of fairness, we simply cannot “bar” a high bidder or seller from leaving a “retaliatory” negative comment in response to one left for them, whether or not it was deserved.

Consider this: What if the high bidder had left you a negative comment first? As high bidder, this person would have the right to do so. In a dispute between two people, fairness demands that both parties be given the opportunity to state their case. The jury (other eBay users) must judge for themselves who was the aggrieved party and who was the offender.

A majority of good comments will overshadow the few obvious response negative feedbacks. However, if good, honest users do not leave negative feedback out of fear of receiving a negative in return, then by their inaction, they are essentially letting the bad guys win.

Savvy eBay users understand that honest users will acquire a few “battle scars” when leaving an accurate and deserved feedback comment for a transaction gone bad.

Regards, Uncle Griff”

*****

Copied below is the eBay bot canned response to any buyer or seller writing Trust and Safety about retaliatory negative feedback. This response is current as of today.

~~~~~

Thank you for writing to eBay. Please allow me the opportunity to assist
you further with your concern in regard to the negative feedback left by
member “yyyyyyyyyyyyy”.

xxxxxxxxxx, I can certainly understand your concern regarding the feedback comment you have received. It is very regrettable when members leave unfair or inaccurate feedback rather than working with their transaction partner to resolve any issues.

I reviewed the feedback in question, however, the Feedback comment you reference cannot be removed because it doesn’t meet eBay’s requirements for Feedback removal. eBay doesn’t edit or remove any comments except for those outlined in the Feedback Abuse, Withdrawal and Removal Policy.
This is the case even if you believe those remarks to be inaccurate or harmful to your name, character, or reputation.
Violating other eBay policies is not, by itself, grounds for Feedback removal, except as specified in the feedback Abuse, Withdrawal and Removal Policy.
We provide our Feedback Forum and community discussion boards as places where members can feel free to express their opinions without fear of censorship. An important tradeoff of this freedom is members are held solely responsible for the comments they post.
To review eBay’s complete Feedback Abuse and Removal Policy, go to:
http://pages.ebay.ca/help/policies/feedback-abuse-withdrawal.html
I regret that we’re unable to meet your request for Feedback removal. Feedback is continually a topic of discussion at eBay and probably always will be. Receiving unfair or retaliatory feedback is the biggest concern when feedback is discussed and wanting to maintain a blemish-free feedback history is an understandable goal.

In fairness, we cannot prevent a member from leaving a retaliatory negative comment, whether or not it was deserved. Please remember that most members will look at a bidder’s or seller’s complete history when deciding if they want to conduct business with him or her. xxxxxxxx, a member who is conscientious, helpful and honest like you will always have many more positive comments that will overshadow a few obvious retaliation feedback comments.

Most eBay members understand that honest members will acquire a few “battle scars” in the fight to expose the less then honest members of the community.

Other members do refer to a member’s full feedback history when determining whether or not to enter into an eBay transaction with them.

I understand that this may not be the resolution you were hoping for, and can certainly empathize with your position. However I want to assure
you that I have done everything with respect to this case while following eBay’s guidelines. As an eBay user myself, I know that it can
be extremely frustrating when a transaction doesn’t go exactly as one hoped.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX, I appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter.

MsFish213On April 19, 2008 at 3:32 pm Said:

After all the posts, and all the questions that remain unanswered here, do you not see the writing on the wall yet? It doesn’t matter what sellers want or think. The plan was made and they are sticking to it. Its their playing field. The best you can hope for is that there will be some slight modification on some of the changes. But don’t bet the house on that. If you don’t want to play by their rules, you need to take your ball and go home. None of the changes made and none of the changes coming in the future, will be reversed. Period. End of story. As someone once said, either adapt or die here. It is really YOUR choice now. The rules have been laid out for you.

oakteakOn April 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm Said:

Re: Skype that they are not going to sell– this was on Google news today.

http://news.smh.com.au/ebay-weighs-selling-skype/20080419-277k.html

There are more spins going on than a whirling dervish does,– in all of the aspects of changes.

Formerly Known As MarikaBooksOn April 19, 2008 at 7:52 pm Said:

When JD says they listen to sellers he is talking about the upper tier PESAns. Nobody else counts including the cheerleaders now. They recently shafted one of their own Hall of Famers who is also a Voice of the Communtity when they dropped digital downloads. I would imagine they see that as friendly fire.

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn April 19, 2008 at 10:02 pm Said:

@ Richard

I know there probably wasn’t the opportunity before this interview, but perhaps in the future when you have a scheduled interview with an eBay representative you can ask posters for a list of questions we would like to have asked?

As regular users of eBay, I’m sure we have some important ones which pertain to our every day experiences with eBay. For instance, several posters asked the question of why PayPal is only making all buyers addresses confirmed for Power Sellers, instead of for all sellers, to Sarah Livnat Manager of Seller Protections at PayPal in the AU PayPal thread, but received no answer.

I think this is a very important question, which needs to be addressed, as if affects the majority of sellers on eBay.

Priceless_SteinwayOn April 19, 2008 at 10:26 pm Said:

Quote: “A fourth example [of bad buyer experience], which is particularly infuriating, is when a buyer receives retaliatory negative feedback.”

True enough the system was broken. However denying sellers the ability to leave negative feedback creates an environment ripe for extortion. It would make more sense to tie the ability to leave negatives to the results of the ebay/Paypal dispute resolution process. A loser in a dispute should NOT be able to neg the winner.

The result of the policy change is that many sellers simply may quit leaving feedback altogether.

BrendaOn April 20, 2008 at 8:10 am Said:

An interview with you done in March is not the same as direct contact with the posters here.

Mr. Lieberman at least was here posting directly to other posters.

I know if nothing more effective towards building morale and loyalty than a willingness to roll up your sleeves and go into the trenches with the troops.

Sellers at any level of volume have shown an entrepreneurial spirit and are less apt to buy into corporate talk as opposed to an employee. It’s a matter of mind set. Self directed vs. directed.

Again, instead of removing aspects of feedback, why weren’t the language and etiquette parameters examined first? Does Ebay think that the shifts won’t be noticed. Isn’t the type of change similar to when a food company reduces the standard portioning by a tiny increment as opposed to a price increase? And when the portion has been accepted the price increase will follow.

The sellers of Ebay may not be in the Fortune 500, but are funtioning at CEO level non the less, regardless of volume. They have earned the show of respect that has been lacking.

geoffOn April 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm Said:

Interesting article but so far from the truth that you wonder what kind of world they live in and if they ever listen to anything past the analysts views on their stock price.
A portent for the future for all EBayrs is happening here in Australia where EBay is trying to mandate the use of Paypal for ALL transactions. No cash, cheques, bank deposits, separate CC transactions if you happen to have a merchant a/c….ALL transactions except for COD will be forced through Paypal. This is for ’safety’ reasons!! I would estimate that 50% of my transctions are settled through direct deposit to my bank account and I believe this is true for most Australian EBayers. Money transactions don’t get any safer than through the banks and EBay is trying to conduct what we consider 3rd line forcing…and it’s illegal here. You guys in the US should wise up to this now…we are only a tadpole in the EBay pool and thus a good place for ‘experimentation’. Your turn next prehaps?? beware!!

LurchOn April 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm Said:

Crunchy - Richard is not acting as an ombudsman, so not sure that will happen. Good idea, though!

AnnOn April 21, 2008 at 10:20 am Said:

@Richard

I think Crunchy has the right idea. Ask US what we want to ask Mr. Donahoe. Then let’s get some real answers, not canned PR.

Also, I’d like to see those numbers you refer to run again, with those that have sucessfully bought and/or sold at least 10 items. I assure you the results would be much different. The skewed way it is now shows all “throw-away” ids, people who bought something once years ago and never came back, etc. If you change the criteria to 10 items, you’d get a much better and more accurate sampling of where your true demographics for your real users, both buyers and/or sellers lie.

MistyOn April 21, 2008 at 11:58 am Said:

Quote “Regarding sellers and buyers as eBay customers, I saw a chart recently that broke down users who had successfully bought or sold at least 1 item.
US users - sold only - 2%
US users - bought only - 78%
US users - bought and sold - 20%

The global figures weren’t that much different and the grand totals showed that something like 74% of all eBay users had only bought on the site.”

Richard how many of these buyers are actually sellers with a separate buying account? I don’t feel these figures are truly accurate considering eBay does not verify it’s buyers.

RichardCOn April 21, 2008 at 12:24 pm Said:

Richard, You mention in-person opportunities for eBayers other than “Voices”. eBay live has an admission fee, and the eCommerce forum is by invitation only. As far as eBay employees at the booths for eBay live- it is more like the Stepford wives than anything else.

Just want to set the record straight

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn April 21, 2008 at 12:40 pm Said:

@ Richard

“I believe there are a number of in-person opportunities for buyers and sellers to provide feedback such as eBay Live! and the eCommerce Forum.”

Users should not have to pay additional money for the privilege of speaking with an eBay representative regarding policy changes. I’m able to email Amazon with the changes I would like to see, and it takes very little time to get a non-canned response from a representative that they will look into it, and within a few months I have seen the changes I requested in effect.

“There are Seller Dev programs that engage sellers directly about best practices and feedback.”

When eBay said that they were going to provide sellers with one-on-one guidance over the phone on how to improve their selling experience and grow their business, they were shot down by the representative saying, “I’m not here to discuss policy changes - I’m here to discuss growing your business”. How can a representative help a seller grow their business without discussing the impact the recent changes are having on the growth of the seller’s business?

“I think it’s agreed that we can’t get input from each of the 80 million+ users (that John references in his conversation with me) but we can certainly get representative samples.”

A representative sample must be researched and validated before counting the results. For instance, if eBay polled buyers and asked if they ever received an undeserved negative, eBay should research a sampling of those who said “yes” and those who said “no” and investigate if those allegations are true. If eBay sees that some buyers said “yes”, but after research discovered the buyer actually received the neg for a good reason (coercing seller to mark custom’s form as gift, non- paying bidder, etc.) then eBay would need to either research all of the rest or throw out the poll as invalid. Of course, that is only if eBay wanted to make sure that the data they were basing devastating decisions for sellers on were accurate or not.

@ Implog

“This is the case even if you believe those remarks to be inaccurate or harmful to your name, character, or reputation.” & “In fairness, we cannot prevent a member from leaving a retaliatory negative comment, whether or not it was deserved.”

Funny isn’t it how eBay believes that sellers should be okay with receiving retaliatory negs, but it doesn’t expect the same of buyers….

@ Lurch

“Crunchy - Richard is not acting as an ombudsman, so not sure that will happen. Good idea, though!”

From the original announcement eBay first made regarding the creation of the eBay ink blog, it was my understanding that Richard was meant to serve as an independent third party, who would look at the reality of what eBay is based on information and issue brought up in this blog. He has already attempted to do so with regards to a few issues, so I’m hoping that he will continue to do so, perhaps more aggressively.

DagnyOn April 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm Said:

@Richard

I’m curious about those statistics. Are they calculated on the number of members or member ID’s. I have three ID’s, but I am only one user. I have sold on two of the ID’s and not the other.
Many members have multiple ID’s for selling, buying and posting.

If they are basing those numbers on user ID’s, then those statistics are inaccurate.

So is it users or user ID’s?

GriffOn April 21, 2008 at 2:03 pm Said:

Richard has been politely pestering me to contribute to this forum for a while now (Hi Richard!) and I have been extremely busy with other projects here at eBay. However, this seems like a pretty good time to chime in with some clarifications and some thoughts.

implog:
The piece you referred to above was written by me and posted in August of 1999, back when the current feedback system as it is, worked. The current system does not work today.

Priceless_Steinway:
“…It would make more sense to tie the ability to leave negatives to the results of the ebay/PayPal dispute resolution process. A loser in a dispute should NOT be able to neg the winner….”

As we have announced (and as we have repeated since the announcement), if a non-paying buyer in a UPI dispute does not respond do the dispute (and by “respond” we mean a substantive, verifiable response), that buyer will be blocked from leaving a negative. If the buyer has already left a negative, it will be removed. If a buyer is suspended from eBay (for whatever reason but for the sake of this discussion, for attempting to use feedback to extort a seller), all of the feedback left by that buyer will be removed from the site.

There is a fear among some sellers – expressed here for example - that once the feedback changes are in place next month, vast legions of “bad buyers,” who have been waiting patiently in the wings, will suddenly descend on the marketplace, leaving hasty and undeserved negatives willy nilly.

That is not going to happen. Here’s why. There are tens of thousands (or more) sellers on eBay right now who have been employing feedback as though the changes have been in effect for years. They always leave positive feedback immediately upon receipt of payment which effectively “blocks” them from leaving a negative for a buyer. These sellers tend to have fewer disputes and higher rates of positive feedback and DSRs compared to those sellers who either subtly or overtly hang the sword of negative feedback retaliation over their customers.

Although I expected that there would be many sellers who would view this absolutely crucial change as threat to their own reputations and businesses (it is human nature to fear change), I was surprised by the reasons and logic many have attributed to us for making the changes, many of which posit a theory that somehow, commerce is a sort of combat, the buyers VS the sellers or the sellers VS eBay. Put aside for a moment what you might have heard outside of eBay or from others or what you might believe regarding the reason for the changes and consider this:

We manage a marketplace, eBay. We, like you, want to, indeed are required to be as successful as possible. Your success (sellers) is absolutely crucial to the success of the marketplace. As stewards of this marketplace, our job is to help you build your success by providing – among many things but most importantly, as many eager, good buyers as we possible. If our own incontrovertible data shows us that good, paying buyers have been turning away from your marketplace and if the primary reasons given by those good paying buyers (those who have stopped shopping on eBay) is they left because they received a negative feedback for leaving one for a seller, then it is our job, our ethical duty to you and to the success of this marketplace to do what only we, as stewards, can do:

Change the system.

If anyone has any questions, or wants any advice, tips, suggestions, etc on how to adapt, survive and thrive during this admittedly tumultuous year of change, feel free to email me directly and I will offer whatever assistance I can. I answer my own email, day and night, 24/7 (don’t let anyone think for even one moment that eBay isn’t my entire life…)

Patricia 1On April 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm Said:

“There is a fear among some sellers – expressed here for example - that once the feedback changes are in place next month, vast legions of “bad buyers,” who have been waiting patiently in the wings, will suddenly descend on the marketplace, leaving hasty and undeserved negatives willy nilly.”

With all due respect, Griff - you obviously do not read the Ebay Feedback discussion board. I have been selling for 10 years…in all that time I’ve left only two negatives (both NPB’s back when there was no other recourse), yet, I will fight to keep that right. I do NOT leave feedback first and for one very good reason. If there is a problem I want the opportunity to make it right - I do NOT want any surprises - I want the buyer to come to ME and to say there is a problem. In all truth, the transaction is NOT complete until BOTH buyer and seller are satisfied! When you take away my right to leave feedback you allow buyers to simply leave a negative instead of bothering to come to me and say they are not satisfied! In every case where a buyer has done that and requested a refund he got one with no questions asked. This is how a good seller maintains a reputable business and keeps his buyers HAPPY! This new policy is such a major major problem and you folks just cannot see it. to you, its just another experimentation in trying to get buyers to buy more - to us - it is our livelihood you’re playing with! Like I’ve been saying all along, this won’t rid the site of one bad seller - but a lot of good, honest sellers are going to get slapped around and have the reputations they worked darned hard for damaged AND they will leave. This is the biggest reason why sellers are scoping other sites and supporting other sites because they KNOW what’s coming. Okay…its not our turf, we either play by the rules or leave…but I have a feeling ebay is already beginning to realize it is the latter and not the former that is happening! The very idea ebay has enlarged buyers blocked bidder lists dumps the whole concept of bad buyers on us and ebay stands ready to penalize us for having had bad buyers in the first place. I am so furious I can spit nails!

Patricia 1On April 21, 2008 at 2:30 pm Said:

“That is not going to happen. Here’s why. There are tens of thousands (or more) sellers on eBay right now who have been employing feedback as though the changes have been in effect for years. They always leave positive feedback immediately upon receipt of payment which effectively “blocks” them from leaving a negative for a buyer. These sellers tend to have fewer disputes and higher rates of positive feedback and DSRs compared to those sellers who either subtly or overtly hang the sword of negative feedback retaliation over their customers. ”

Just to blow that myth out of the water, I have several thousand feedback at 100 percent, DSR’s 5.0, 5.0, 5.0 and 4.9! More than double my customers come back and buy again and again. I’m sorry, but you people and your new policies are SO wrong I cannot believe it!

DagnyOn April 21, 2008 at 3:35 pm Said:

@Griff

[I]As we have announced (and as we have repeated since the announcement), if a non-paying buyer in a UPI dispute does not respond do the dispute (and by “respond” we mean a substantive, verifiable response), that buyer will be blocked from leaving a negative. If the buyer has already left a negative, it will be removed. If a buyer is suspended from eBay (for whatever reason but for the sake of this discussion, for attempting to use feedback to extort a seller), all of the feedback left by that buyer will be removed from the site.[/I]

Really Griff? A response with substance? Well that is real news. As the policy stands now a NPB can respond with a single –period- and the feedback will not be neutralized.

So eBay is going to review responses for substance ? What will constitute a response of substance? What excuse for not paying will be acceptable and verifiable?

Well, I look forward to reading that revised policy, but I hope when sellers lift the proverbial bun on the policy they will not be left wondering – “Where’s the beef?”

implogOn April 21, 2008 at 3:47 pm Said:

For an exercise in how eBay protects sellers, let’s look at buyer PICOLABETTY.

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=1000664197&start=0

Reported to eBay Trust & Safety on March 28, 2008 and to eBay spokesman acting as a non-spokesman Usher Lieberman in this blog on April 4, 2008.

PICOLABETTY was having an “excellent buyer experience” while scamming multiple sellers and leaving multiple undeserved negs.

Buyer was NARU on April 15, 2008, 18 days after report to Trust and Safety and 11 days after link to thread about the buyer was posted on this blog.

Way to go eBay. We feel safer.

Then there is buyer JIM_TIEN. He’s having an “excellent buying experience” too.

Look at his feedback.

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=jim_tien&ftab=AllFeedback

Defrauding eBay sellers for nearly 1 month and still active.

Below copied from Auction Bytes blog comments on post titled “eBay Helps Sellers Block Bad Buyers”

“eBay Helps Sellers Block Bad Buyers
by: rainbowseeker
Sun Apr 20 2008 10:31:15

EBay also said they will be working to swiftly kick off bad buyers. I had a recent experience with that so called swiftness.

A couple weeks ago I sold an expensive set of sterling flatware to a buyer with the ID jim_tien. If you do a search for this ID you will see it is still active. The address for it was given as in the Russian Federation. At the time I sold the sterling he had one positive recent feedback and no negatives. Late the evening of the purchase he wrote asking if I would ship the next day if he paid me immediately. Well I would have to be stupid to answer yes to that request…which I did not. By the next evening his one positive feedback had a note on it that he had retracted the payment once the item was shipped….and I was also contacted by another seller that he had tried to pay them with a stolen Pay Pal account.

I of course called powersellers to be told there was nothing they could do so I wrote security and trust. My email was acknowledged as received but to date I have not received a reply.

Meanwhile the buyer has now acquired 5 negatives and I am sure several dispute counsel strikes…mine included….yet he is still listed as active. He has obviously moved to another ID. Let this be a glaring example of eBay’s SWIFT action against bad buyers. Who…remember….we will no longer be able to leave NEGATIVE feedback for.

My take….is an old one….don’t believe anything eBay promises us.”

~~~~~

And as one commenter to the same post wrote;

“The ONLY way another seller would know that this buyer is a thief and using what seems to be a stolen credit card number is the negative feedback left by sellers.

ARE YOU LISTENING EBAY? NEGATIVE FEEBACK LEFT BY SELLERS IS THE ONLY WAY ANYONE WOULD KNOW THIS BUYER IS A THIEF!!

Sorry for shouting but ebay’s hearing problem while ”listening” to the community is working my last nerve”

~~~~~

Much safer eBay, so much safer……………

KarlOn April 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm Said:

“There is a fear among some sellers – expressed here for example - that once the feedback changes are in place next month, vast legions of “bad buyers,” who have been waiting patiently in the wings, will suddenly descend on the marketplace, leaving hasty and undeserved negatives willy nilly.”

It remains to be seen what the outcome will be,ebay through their policies can and often do change or set trends,and not always for the better.

The feedback change coupled with the other changes and the way they are being implemented have a strong potential of creating a very high maintenance service with high maintenance buyers.

Because sellers who left feedback first under the old system faired OK doesn’t guarantee it will remain the same….after all ebay thought the MFW was a good idea.

My guess would be after May the top negative feedbacks given will be,in no particular order “Seller Doesn’t Leave Feedback” “Overcharged on Shipping” and “Slow Shipping”.

Since feedback for buyers will become meaningless it should be done away with completely.That would solve one of the upcoming problems anyway.A far more efficient system would be to use just the DSR setup and add a comment function for both buyers and sellers.Of course it would need to be tweaked some,but it would remove the stigma and focus on the red dots.The scarlet letter effect would be eliminated.

I hope eBay has a plan B and C waiting in the wings they can implement on a moments notice.

So far,judging by the effects of the changes that’s already been rolled out they’ll need em.

SandiOn April 21, 2008 at 3:50 pm Said:

“As we have announced (and as we have repeated since the announcement), if a non-paying buyer in a UPI dispute does not respond do the dispute (and by “respond” we mean a substantive, verifiable response), ”

Are you stating ebay is going to actually have real life human interface? How will that happen with recent layoffs? Ebay can not even enforce it’s own plicies, e.g. I reported 40 auctons in the last week that have clear, obvious policy violations and not one was pulled by ebay.

And then there is the comment - as long as a buyer does not mention shipping, non as described, etc. Come on, an unpaid item 99% of the time means the buyer never paid. All that statement did was open the door for buyers to make one staement and the seller gets the shaft - AGAIN.

Why is ebay “assuming” they are not an equal opportunity venue? Are they not aware that for every bad seller there is a bad buyer? Come on, a 5th grader could figure that out.

As a seller, I lost 179.00 when a buyer did a fraulent reversal, ebay and paypal did nothing to protect me, I still live with the negative that buyer RETALITIATED with. She was finally kicked off ebay 104 days after she registered, so I and the other 5 sellers she negged have lived with her negative for over a year - and now we are to believe ebay is actually going to do what they say?

As abuyer, I have enough common sense to use the tools provided me. I actually read the description, I actually check the seller’s feedback, I determine if shipping is acceptable - then I determine if I want to do business with the seller.

Fairy tales, that is all it is. ebay has lost the trust of it’s users, sellers did not do that, buyers did not do that - ebay managed that task all by itself - now publically blames sellers. Shame on them.

It is not sellers who caused distrust, ebay has a long time track record of failing ALL its users. They certainly have a long way to go before they can even hint that they are somehow able to determine what is good customer service.

It is obvious whoever is coming up with these hair brain ideas is clueless to retail trends - the highest performing retailer as a buyer satisfaction rating of 80% - everyone else is below that. Now that ebay has given buyers free reign, did they not understand that those same buyers would be rating their sellers? When ebay sellers avg a 70-80% feedback score, how will ebay then convince buyers the virtual makretplace is safer than it was today?

I have DSRs in the top 10%, heck I actually have 5.0 on shipping and handling - but I will not sell or buy on ebay as long as management takes no responsibility for ITS OWN mistakes, as long as management disrepects every single user.

As a buyer I totally resent that my 100% feedback has been devalued. As a buyer, my feedback will be the same as every scam buyer. I worked hard for that 100%, I followed the rules, I treated my sellers as I wanted to be treated (FYI I have never used the DSRs as a buyer, I found the entire system cumbersome and useless). The policy also tells me as a buyer that I am petty and childish. It tells me I am apparently unable to do simple math and must not have reading comprehension skills - why else would shipping charges bother me? I take responsibility for my own actions - what a concept I know - ebay should try it sometime.

PLEASE let’s not forget ebay created part of the retailitory negative issue when they implemented the seller performance restrictions - their OWN customer reps were telling sellers impacted to do WHATEVER it took to get buyers to withdraw negative feedbacks.

What Einstein came up with elimating mutual withdrawal down the road???? Go to the feedback board of the AC and see just how many clueless buyers say they left a neg by mistake, how do they change it.

ebay has not been honest with their users in a long time. They can not expect users to lay down and say “yes sir” when ebay makes policies that will ultimately destroy the marketplace.

implogOn April 21, 2008 at 3:57 pm Said:

@ Griff

Below is copied a question I posed to Richard in the blog’s infancy. Maybe you can provide an answer as Ms. Norrington seems to be part of the Town Hall.

Thanks in advance.

~~~~~

implog
On 04.02.2008 at 4:42 pm Said:

Please re-round the circle squared by eBay President Lorrie Norrington on the eBay Announcement Board on March 20, 2008 titled “Update For Sellers”.

Norrington seems to be attempting to address the concerns of sellers who fear a neg from a non-paying bidder. Norrington attempts to mitigate the new “neg sellers only” policy by writing:

“What we have determined is that if the buyer does not specifically call out poor seller performance, item condition or transaction problems during the UPI process, eBay will remove the seller’s negative or neutral feedback — retroactively.”

This makes no sense. Sellers do not send items won in auctions before receiving payment. How can a buyer who leaves a neg be justified by claiming a problem with “item condition” for an item never sent, received nor seen? Again, sellers DO NOT send items without first receiving payment.

While Norrington’s “solution” may be boss pleasing “disruptive innovation”, it flat out makes no sense in the real world of selling on eBay.

Thank you for your help.

TheBrewsNewsOn April 21, 2008 at 4:11 pm Said:

Griff says:

“it is our job, our ethical duty to you and to the success of this marketplace to do what only we, as stewards, can do:
Change the system.”

***********************

So by Griff’s reasoning I am “assuming” then eBay also plans on CHANGING THE SYSTEM in the following ways to ensure the success of the marketplace:

1. Offering free shipping on all items sold directly in the eBay Powerseller store or at least change the shipping costs to be in line with what eBay has suggested the “optimum” shipping costs should be. Example:

In the Power Seller merchandise section, Griff’s Book OFFICIAL EBAY BIBLE, the shipping and handling is $8.43. Try charging $8.43 for S/H on eBay for a book and a popup message appears WARNING you that your shipping charges are out of line. Can you imagine what kind of DSR rating a buyer would give the PowerSeller merchandise section for the shipping and handling charge. Hmm….. Okay, just so that it doesn’t seem that I am picking on Griff, how about the S/H for a one ounce pin? $4.87. Again, is this “acceptable” for eBay sellers to charge? I think not. But it is okay for eBay to charge those shipping charges. Do as I say, not as I do.

2. Offering free telephone support for EVERY seller.

Didn’t eBay recommend that sellers provide telephone support in order to improve their communication ratings and their customer service? Hey, what a great idea. But I didn’t see where eBay suggested that sellers only provide telephone support for eBay buyers who purchase more than $1,000 a month. How about providing telephone support for ALL eBay sellers (telephone support just like “The River” does… and since eBay is obviously trying so hard to emulate the policies on The River why not also emulate the ones that would require eBay to actually change THEIR own system)?

3. Confirming new eBay users and linking all eBay bidder IDs so when a seller blocks a buyer, they can block ALL of the buyer’s current and future IDs.

eBay is acting as a caring steward in removing the bottom 5% of sellers who are providing the most buyer dissatisfaction. What about removing the bottom 1% of buyers who are causing 90% of the problems for sellers? Rather than turning anyone away, eBay wants every buyer… even the ones who don’t pay or who scam sellers. But, of course, eBay has nothing to gain by restricting the bottom 1% of buyers …. except relieved sellers who could better care for the 99% of great eBay buyers. Yep, I agree with you Griff…. eBay needs to change the system.

*******************

I love 99.9% of my customers and I have a very high rate of return of repeat customers. But I still have that 1 in 1,000 new buyer who is obviously out to take advantage of the system. Those buyers are not necessarily unique to eBay (I also manage several ecommerce websites and have had my share of problem mail-order buyers) but the problem buyers find it easier to gravitate to eBay because the eBay and Paypal system supports the problem buyer. The problem buyer would be kicked to the curb on “The River” and I would refuse a future website order from a problem buyer. However, I cannot block a problem buyer on eBay because it is too easy for the buyer to simply start over with a new ID.

Regarding the “surveys” that eBay is basing their decisions on….. I have experienced the eBay surveys as both a buyer and seller and if I were ever to submit the type of biased eBay survey in my Masters Level or Doctoral Level college courses I would have been laughed out of the classroom. Of course you can get any type of answers you want from a survey if you ask the questions in a biased manner. It is not the big red donut (negative feedback) that causes a “good” eBay buyer to leave the eBay community… it is oh so much more.

******************
After reading Griff’s discussion of eBay ethics and his mention of data and surveys, I created a survey of my own.

In today’s edition of eBay Family Feud ……. 1,000 eBay sellers were surveyed.
Sellers were asked what is the first word or thought that comes to mind when you think of the term
“eBay ethics” ………………………number one answer “Oxymoron”

GailOn April 21, 2008 at 5:02 pm Said:

Griff ~ Regarding your 4th paragraph, “for the sake of this discussion, for attempting to use feedback to extort a seller”…….this is Lorrie Norrington’s 3/17/08 statement: “When we identify a pattern of abuse, or the evidence is clear from your report, we will remove the negative or neutral feedback — retroactively. But, we can’t identify those patterns without your help and reporting. This is a call to action for every seller.”

This doesn’t sound to me like eBay will remove a buyer’s undeserved negative feedback to a seller. It sounds more like ‘email us and we’ll send you a canned response as usual’. What constitutes a “pattern”? How many sellers have to complain about a buyer before one feedback can be removed? Who at eBay will be watching for this ‘pattern’, and how will they know when they see one if there are no set rules? If there are set rules, for heaven’s sake, publish them!

And, while eBay is waiting for this ‘pattern’ to appear, PayPal is 1) withholding payment from the seller, and then 2) refunding the buyer’s payment because a bogus complaint has been filed.

Regarding Norrington’s last two sentences above, what does she think we’ve been doing for years now? It’s about time for eBay to do some of its own heavy lifting. eBay has servers and programmers up to its adam’s apple. If toolhaus could extract negatives left by an certain ID, eBay can certainly do it, also. Analyze something that really has to do with users’ experience!

Speaking of which, why didn’t eBay just get rid of the sellers who routinely used retaliatory feedback, instead of (in essence) removing the feedback tool from all sellers? Could it be that eBay realized it was their biggest sellers who were causing these retaliatory problems?

AmberOn April 21, 2008 at 8:09 pm Said:

@Griff,
I’m sorry Griff, but I cannot believe that buyers left the site due to negative feedback.

They left the site because they didn’t get what they paid for, were overcharged for shipping, discovered ebay has NO customer support (come on–you know it’s pathetic,) and…finally….couldn’t find what they were looking for because search is such a mess.

Best Match is a disaster–especially for small sellers. My sales are the worst they’ve ever been. EVER! I offer terrific customer service and have a 30-50% repeat buyer base. BUT, since I’m not a Powerseller, I don’t qualify for the FVF discounts, I don’t get “special” listing fee sales, and I don’t get phone support.

I don’t now and never will agree with your opinion regarding feedback. Buyers have always had a responsibility that extended beyond payment. The increase in “retaliatory” negatives was in direct proportion to the number of buyers who “jumped the gun” and left feedback first instead of contacting the seller to address a problem. Mandating a Contact Seller form prior to leaving negative feedback would go a long way to fixing the issue. Feedback is not a communication tool but, sadly, it is increasingly being used as such.

I, like others, have ZERO faith that ebay has the personnel to police the NPB Negatives. I have yet to have them respond in the time frame promised or even address the actual issue I reported. Not once in 5 years.

@Richard,
I too think those numbers are inaccurate. I have a buying id and a selling id. Many users have 3 ids: 1 for buying, 1 for selling, 1 for posting. Regardless, though, buyers don’t pay the fees. Sellers do. Ebay gets insertion fees even if there are no buyers. Ergo, sellers are eBay’s customers. Buyers are important, yes, but talking to people I know who buy elsewhere, feedback isn’t even a blip on the radar as to the reasons they left. Price, lousy search, and horrible customer service(from ebay and the sellers) were much more important.

Patricia 1On April 21, 2008 at 8:35 pm Said:

I think we can all see by now that ebay is not going to take the blame for anything. Far easier to dump it on the sellers and who cares if some of the better ones leave…we’re a dime a dozen….or so THEY think!

JJHOn April 21, 2008 at 8:53 pm Said:

Griff said:

“There is a fear among some sellers – expressed here for example - that once the feedback changes are in place next month, vast legions of “bad buyers,” who have been waiting patiently in the wings, will suddenly descend on the marketplace, leaving hasty and undeserved negatives willy nilly.

That is not going to happen.”

OK Griff, let me just ask one simple question…

What if it does happen? What will eBay do about it?

I don’t think you’re “plan” to remove all that feedback is capable of that load.

So play devils advocate with me here a minute Griff, as ebaY’s “first” customer service representative.

What WILL you [ebaY] do if it DOES happen?

I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer, and I sincerely do not say that to be rude.

Your’s Truly,

JJH

DaveyOn April 21, 2008 at 9:06 pm Said:

@Griff

I had a few thoughts, as a 2200+ feedback “lily white” seller as you call us, and I think a “B” seller or whatever you call a seller who leaves feedback after they get feedback, as that signals to me that a deal is completely wrapped up (I’ve only left 3 negs, well-deserved, for buyers, so I’m not a retaliator). My FB is the result of really hard work, pure and simple. I represent a good cross-section of users leaving for other sites as I build business there, as I do not feel welcome here at all.

Your quote:

“As we have announced (and as we have repeated since the announcement), if a non-paying buyer in a UPI dispute does not respond do the dispute (and by “respond” we mean a substantive, verifiable response), ”

This can be repeated ad-infinitum with the same vacuous effect. It might be believable IF eBay had a track record for anything other than brain-dead customer service and T&S. I can only assume that if you haven’t seen the ugly underbelly of the respons-o-matic randomized boilerplate bot, you wouldn’t understand. The eBay/Paypal complex regularily ignores verifying facts when it is playing with sellers’ money, how much less will it do with things having to do with sellers’ reputations? FOr example, Bill Cobb said quite some time ago that the canned support responses would disappear. Have they? (No!) What makes your assurance above any more reliable?

Will this verification be automatic and wind out all sorts of bad judgements like some of the current systems which can be gamed? Or will it involve faxing in reams of documentation, usually twice as the first copy is overlooked or lost?

When eBay in effect answers sellers’ concerns with a “Trust us, we’ll take care of that,” it does nothing to assuage fears as we’ve all run across eBay’s “sincere” customer service commitment at one time or another, or repeatedly. This is customer service that make cellular and cable companies look real good.

While I’m on the customer service topic, how about the principle of leading by example? eBay’s push to get sellers to improve their customer support smacks of hypocrisy at its highest. Why doesn’t eBay get its own house in order first?

“Your success (sellers) is absolutely crucial to the success of the marketplace.”

Great, we want that too. How about taking input on goals from a good cross-section of sellers to see if those goals can be met with policies that are friendlier to the community rather than kneejerk responses and telling us what we prefer? Getting the DSR system straightened out and tied to a single, natural language definition of success and failure (to both buyers and sellers)would be an easy first goal.

Having dealt with data all my life, I know even “incontrovertable” data can mean whatever you massage it to be. As another person mentioned, the way most eBay surveys I’ve gotten are biased, good data would be almost impossible to distill.

You guys need to return one more time to the ideating room and ask why eBay worked so well several years ago. Any more “disruptions” and you may be the stewards of an empty room (unless you count the Chinese sellers remaining). You’re right that people resist change in general. Most of us, though, appreciate change more if it goes in our favor, at least partway. We’ve been here long enough to know how the marketplace really works. When you remove the only anti-fraud tool a seller has (reliable two-way feedback), raise our fees (mine went up 50 percent!) when the press release says otherwise, don’t address long-standing bugs and other system issues, and bury our goods in Best Match, one wonders…

SandiOn April 21, 2008 at 10:10 pm Said:

@Davey:

“This is customer service that make cellular and cable companies look real good.”

A few years ago we had a problem with the IRS, it turned out to be simply 2 numbers having been tranposed, but I still remember the first agent I spoke to saying, “Just be patient, it will be painful, but just work through the system and it will be all fixed in the end,”

7 months later he was proven right.

That experience with the IRS was easier and less painful than when the buyer did the fradulent reversal. Trying to get anyone from ebay or paypal to listen was impossible. I couldn’t even get them to acknowledge they might have a buyer who needs to be watched. I was to the point, ok forget about me and my money, can you at least protect other sellers from this criminal???

To add insult to injury, she had left me a negative after I left her one - my only negative I might add - I got an email from ebay telling me I was fallen below their 5% buyer whatever they call it or some garbage - this happened last year right when they poorly implemented that policy.

It’s really a sad commentary that the IRS provided better service than ebay - and the IRS was less painful.

My other suggestion to ebay is get one thing right, I mean completely right before implementing any other change! Go to the answer center and you will find daily posts from users who can’t leave feedback, or it is telling them they have already left it when they haven’t. The site has been broken forever.

J. JuradoOn April 22, 2008 at 12:34 am Said:

The problem is very simple!
Why we as sellers want to list 7500+ items?
If the best Match default put our items 123 places down.

An item that will end 9 hours later,
That with a combine price and shipping cost of $18.60
Is in the top first place!
With only 131 FBs!
A member since April 08 2008

We offer the exact same Brand New item,
with a combine price and shipping cost of $11.00
that will end in 2 hours!
it is placed 123 places bellow!
We have over 19589 FBs!
Members since 2001

We list on what we believe are strategic times,
We keep in consideration several factors on buyer’s patterns,
I.e. We make sure none of our listing will end at
the time American Idol is showing!

We were doing and average of $12,000.00 at month
Paying eBay and PayPal around $2,760.00 at month
Clearly given eBay and PayPal 23% of our gross Sales
Listing and average of 7500 items a month
And selling around 680 items or 12% of our listings!
Of which 10% are repeat buyers.

Now our sales had plummeted to $6812,44
in the last 30 days! And we just paid eBay alone
2039.00 in listing and selling fees!

With the new best match default listing
We the sellers are now subsiding
All of the 122 listings above us!
Even so we offer the same
Brand New Item for $11.00!

We can’t believe that eBay is using
Their coveted ‘Best Match” search engine,
As their vehicle for a better buyer experience!

What eBay had fail to analyze is that
The Best Buyer Experience is coming to eBay
To find great products at great prices!

Buyers come to eBay to find a bargain,
Buyers come to eBay to experience the eBay
That wants to offers the best deals in the internet!

But now eBay default search systems,
List more expensive items first
with total disregard of ending times or pricing

Long on the hard knocks,
But short on the long green!
Does that give me Venture Capital potential?

These changes are causing a tremendous
Decrease on sales with the direct consequence
Of a decrease on the number of successful listings.

We are been force to list less because
We won have
Revenue to list more!

It doesn’t make sense to list 7500 items
To only sale 300 items a month!
This weekend we sold only 15 items
The lowest in our history on eBay!

Our operating results and profitability
Is been harmed buy eBay decisions.

And ultimately we all will loose,
The sellers, the buyers, the eBay community
And the stockholders.

Renee'On April 22, 2008 at 5:44 am Said:

@Richard regarding you response: @ Mechelle — “why was it necessary to hold off on presenting this until after the quarterly reports? I don’t see anything that would affect the reports in this “interview”.”

I agree that the interview itself could have been posted at anytime before earnings… my reason for holding until after earnings was because I allow comments on all posts to this blog. I was worried that questions would be asked that I - or someone else here at the company - would be compelled to answer that would violate our recognized quiet period going into earnings.

Do you have any comprehension why there is a “quiet period”? It is so some fool doesn’t make a ooops comment and kill the quarterly earnings by getting in the newspaper. Your response to Michelle explains very clearly that you are nothing more than a company “yes” man. Don’t bother to reply, we won’t believe anything you say any more than the other company “yes” men.

@ all of Donahues comments. It is well known you can catch more flys with honey, but not when you make is so sickenly sweet that you give all the flys diabetes.

@ Griff

I use to hang on your every word, feeling you were the best expert out there. That is until you became corporate eBay. I am curious how much eBay stock you own and if you have sold any of it off.

As TheBrewersNews pointed out the audacious shipping charged for your “Bible” in the PowerSeller store. You have no right even representing us sellers at this point. You are just one other “Yes” man in a long line of them.

I am also curious, will you be updating your Bible with a section on how to not get skrewed by eBay’s new policies?

And no one here has even mentioned the blatant hints (statements) about more fee changes coming and how we won’t even recognize eBay by this time next year statements that have been made.

By the way, just in case you are interested, I have 100% positive feedback, high DSR ratings, and have tutored people on selling on eBay as well as being a trading assistant.

Since the great “best match” search implementation, I have not been able to sell a thing because I can not be found. I will no longer sell for others nor will I tutor new sellers in something I do not believe in.

I have sailed down the river never to return.

Have a good day and I hope eBay gets what they deserve, the nick name of “made in china” because that is all that will be left.

Oh and if anyone really thinks Richards blog is unbiased, read the disclaimer when you go to submit your comment.

“Notes: Please note that eBay may, in our sole discretion, reject comments for
any reason we deem appropriate. Links of value to readers are welcome, but
please use them sparingly - wield spam and you’re banished forever.

This is a moderated site and comments will appear if and when they are
approved. We will review the queue several times daily, so please don’t
resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately.”

eeBartOn April 22, 2008 at 6:08 am Said:

Using Richard’s own statistics, there are at least 1.6 MILLION sellers on eBay. What eBay seems to have lost track of is that without sellers, THERE IS NO MARKET ! Of course you need buyers as well, but the product comes FIRST. Prospective buyers don’t enter a store that has nothing in the window. The seller has all of the burden (locate product, figure out how to price & market it, packing & shipping, etc.). All the buyer has to do is bid & pay… just a few mouse-clicks. It is eBay’s misguided focus on the buyer that has created all of this furor.

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn April 22, 2008 at 8:49 am Said:

@ Richard,

The following quote by Misty is very relevant to the numbers you listed regarding seller only, buyer only, or bought and sold: “Richard how many of these buyers are actually sellers with a separate buying account? I don’t feel these figures are truly accurate considering eBay does not verify it’s buyers.”

My business partner and I have three ids with eBay. Our business selling id (which we do not buy on at all), my buying id, and my partner’s buying id. We keep these separate ids for buying only for two specific reasons. First, it is to protect our selling id from receiving feedback which doesn’t pertain specifically to our abilities as a seller. Second, to keep the business records clean for accounting purpose by not intermingling personal items with business. Third, to keep our own personal privacy as to what we choose to buy, if anything, on eBay.

If eBay is believing that these three ids represent three different individuals, then it is obvious that there figures are inflated and inaccurate for the evaluation purpose they are using them for. Actually, our three ids are very conservative. A lot of sellers have separate ids for each category they sell in, so one seller could have numerous selling and buying ids. This is what I mean by eBay needing to research the validity of the numbers they are using before blindly trusting in them to make decisions.

@ TheBrewsNews

I just wanted to say, “Hi!” I have read your threads on eBay’s Seller Central forum board in the past and I think they have always been well written, well thought out, and very relevant. I am very happy to see that you are posting on this blog too.

eBay and Richard need to hear from numerous “voice of reason” sellers like yourself, and the many other sellers that have posted here too.

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn April 22, 2008 at 9:03 am Said:

@ Griff (and Richard, in case Griff doesn’t come back to respond.)

“The piece you referred to above was written by me and posted in August of 1999, back when the current feedback system as it is, worked. The current system does not work today.”

Seems to me that that users experienced, what eBay incorrectly coins as “retaliatory”, back then too. The difference is that eBay’s (your) response back then is exactly what eBay is telling seller’s right now. They (you) realize that seller’s will receive unfair and unwarranted neg feedback, but they just need to deal with it. So, if your response to either party is exactly the same as in the past, then I say that the feedback system remains “not working” in spite, and even more so because, of the changes eBay has made recently in feedback.

“As we have announced (and as we have repeated since the announcement), if a non-paying buyer in a UPI dispute does not respond do the dispute (and by “respond” we mean a substantive, verifiable response), that buyer will be blocked from leaving a negative.”

The problem is that eBay representatives do not “verify” anything to see if it is true or not. Does the eBay representative actually contact both parties to find out the truth when a negative feedback is disputed? Does an eBay representative ask the seller to submit proof (postage receipt, private emails, etc) that the negative feedback is unwarranted? If not, then a buyer can still make harmful and unjust claims in their feedback without any concern of accountability. This is not the type of buyers that eBay should be trying to retain. It is precisely this catering to this type of buyer which has caused my business to sell elsewhere.

“vast legions of “bad buyers,” who have been waiting patiently in the wings, will suddenly descend on the marketplace, leaving hasty and undeserved negatives willy nilly.”

These bad buyers already exist and already do substantial damage to sellers on eBay. All these changes are doing is rolling out a welcome mat for even more. There are entire websites which spell out step-by-step instructions how to scam as seller on eBay by exploiting the loopholes within eBay’s policies and procedures. This recent change is only providing scamming buyers with an easier tool to do so.

When eBay first announced the changes, some sellers started receiving threats of negative feedback if they didn’t do what a buyer unrealistically wanted, because these buyers thought that the feedback changes were already in effect. I suppose the sellers where just imagining these emailed threats? I suppose they imagined the bright, red, unwarranted negs which appeared on their feedback records shortly after?

It isn’t that these changes will create more bad buyers, as they already exist. In fact, Ebay recognizes this by expanding the capacity of the blocked bidder list for sellers. The problem is that eBay already has a reputation as a scammer’s paradise, and now it will simply attract these scammers more, by providing them with these tools to scam easier.

“They always leave positive feedback immediately upon receipt of payment which effectively “blocks” them from leaving a negative for a buyer. These sellers tend to have fewer disputes and higher rates of positive feedback and DSRs compared to those sellers who either subtly or overtly hang the sword of negative feedback retaliation over their customers.”

On the forums I have read countless sellers who had started leaving feedback first, since the changes where announced, only to receive more unjustified negs from buyers, without communication. I have also read from sellers who started out selling leaving feedback first, only to switch to leaving it last, when buyers started leaving neg feedback without even bothering to contact them. Forgive me if I care to believe actual experiences provided by these sellers, rather than eBay’s numbers, which have already proven to be unsubstantiated and unreliable.

“Your success (sellers) is absolutely crucial to the success of the marketplace.”

Wrong. Ebay’s success lies in collecting fees and money from pay-per-click advertising on their website. In order to do this, eBay requires people to bid on items, but that doesn’t mean the person has to actually pay - just bid. eBay still collects its fees when a buyer performs a credit card charge back, without returning the item. eBay still collects its fees whether or not a seller receives an unjust neg. As a result, eBay attracts more traffic to its site, in the form of scamming buyers, which help to inflate the attractiveness of using pay-per-clicks ads on eBay. This traffic helps eBay charge more for such advertising space, and hence more income for eBay.

The successfulness of the sellers has little to do with eBay’s success, unless eBay gives all of the money back to the a seller, which was collected by eBay and PayPal, as a result of a scamming buyer.

“If our own incontrovertible data shows us that good, paying buyers have been turning away from your marketplace and if the primary reasons given by those good paying buyers (those who have stopped shopping on eBay) is they left because they received a negative feedback for leaving one for a seller, then it is our job,”

Those numbers are disputed since no evidence has been provided to show that eBay actually researched the validity of such claims by those buyers. For instance, did eBay actually research the negative feedback to see if it was justified? Perhaps the buyer received the neg for being a non-paying bidder, or for trying to coerce the seller into falsifying a customs form, or for performing a charge back without sending the item back, or buying an item brand new, using it, and then trying to return it to the seller for a full refund? In all of those instances it would be justified for the seller to leave a neg, however I doubt the buyer would feel that a neg was justified.

Unless eBay can provide proof that such accusations of retaliatory feedback were actually researched for validity in those specific circumstances, then it can not just assume such accusations are true.

On the eBay forums posters often provide just “their side” of the story, which is usually the one that makes them look good. However, when those posting in response actually research the claims, they usually find out the original poster was not telling the whole story, and that the original poster was actually in the wrong. Such experiences show me that eBay must research such claims made by these individual buyers, before accepting them as gospel truth.

However, just for the sake of argument…..If eBay says that good buyers have left eBay due to receiving unjust,negative feedback, then what makes them think that good sellers will remain selling on eBay, in spite of receiving unjust negative feedback? To answer that, let me state that my selling id on eBay is 100% with 4.9, 4.9, 4.8, 4.6 DSRs. I have a 100% seller rating on Amazon too. I have never received a neg from a buyer, nor have I ever given one. However, I have stopped selling on eBay because I will not allow my good selling id, which is the same as my business name, to be smeared by the scamming buyers which eBay has now rolled out the welcome mat to.

DaveyOn April 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm Said:

A lot of these comments get back to the fact that many sellers, myself included, believe eBay has no streed cred when it comes to their own marketplace. They analyze it academically (with defective data), but don’t truly participate in it to the level that their own incentives are based on performing within the parameters set out for sellers.

I still believe every eBay employee having involvement with Marketplace policies and T&S should be required to be a profitable Powerseller in order to get their incentive bonus. The rules would be simple–all DSRs at 4.6 and above for 85 percent of their bonus and 4.8 for 100 percent, their items must be be offered internationally, they should offer Paypal as a payment method exclusively, and be required to run their operation personally. I bet a lot of the tripe coming from HQ now would change really quickly if the management team got some skin directly in the game. Those nagging long-term Paypal system bugs would get prioritized and fixed. What better way to know the marketplace? Much better than just buying shoes there.