Small Sellers: Our Competitive Advantage

Patricia1On 05.15.2008 at 11:09 pm Said:

There’s probably some truth in that Sandi LOL

MechelleOn 05.15.2008 at 11:35 pm Said:

isn’t that just frighteningly hilarious- I read that last night and I bought every word- the pit bull portion of the “interview” just validated its authenticity for me. Oddly, for others this was the give away. Though I’m not sure if what gave it away to them was the idea he would view us that way, or just the part that he shot his dog. Of course this is just my guess, but I’m going with the part that he shot his dog.

Still laughing

SandiOn 05.15.2008 at 11:59 pm Said:

The line that gave it away for me was:

“Again; we can’t go into the trivial aspects of this policy

I believed he would shoot his pit bull:-)

And yes, I believe there is more truth in it than fiction.

permacrisisOn 05.16.2008 at 7:40 am Said:

The pit bull analogy was the dead giveaway- the REAL JD would have SOLD his pit bull, despite knowing it was unsafe.

(Perhaps a chinese pit bull fulla lead paint!)

implogOn 05.16.2008 at 8:52 am Said:

Ran across this on the eBay Announcement Board dated May 5 and titled “A Message from Lorrie Norrington – eBay Live! Update”

President Norrington writes:

“Since taking on the role of President, eBay Marketplace Operations in January of this year, I’ve had an opportunity to meet and talk with thousands of community members in places like New Orleans, Washington DC, San Jose and elsewhere. I am looking forward to meeting many more of you in Chicago at eBay Live! June 19-21, 2008.

To date, 2008 has been an exciting year full of significant changes for eBay and accordingly for many of you, our customers. In the keynote address at eBay Live! this year, myself and John Donahoe, our CEO, will be speaking very directly about the future of eBay.”

Now THAT’s the President Norrington I know.

She is “excited”, takes on “the role” of President as opposed to being the President. Her statement “myself and John Donahoe, our CEO, will be speaking very directly about the future of eBay” is grammatically incorrect.

President Norrington - you would never say “Myself will be speaking” so why “myself and John Donahoe will be speaking”?

I believe President Norrington wrote the Announcement Board post as it displays her quirky communication affectations but still have doubts that she wrote the blog entry at the top of the thread.

Perhaps we’ll find out when she comes back from “listening to sellers” to answer all our posted questions.

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn 05.16.2008 at 9:19 am Said:

“eBay Unveils Future Plans For 100% Buyer Protection
By: Mortie Jazz
Tue May 13 2008 15:33:07

eBay CEO, John Donahoe stated, ““But if we can’t guarantee shoppers that they have a safe place to buy, then
eBay will not be viable in the long term. We have tried in the past to
eliminate the shady sellers, but they repeatedly turn up through loopholes
to take advantage of impressionable buyers.””

I’m all for eBay trying to make the marketplace a safe place to shop, but I simply do not understand how that prevents them from focusing on reducing the risk sellers face from “shady” bidders. Ebay is a big corporation, with a lot of employees, special groups, and management positions, so why can eBay not focus on sellers at the same time they are focusing on buyers? Such a one-sided approach makes absolutely no sense.

If eBay was a small business with limited resources, then I could understand their inability to focus on more than one thing at a time. However, with Richard’s help, we can see that eBay has plenty of resources as their disposal to involve themselves in philanthropic activities, Skype, and PayPal, so limited resources and management can not be a justified defense.

I also love how Donahoe states, “The only logical thing to do is to phase out sellers, as that will guarantee that we have eliminated the potential for fraud perpetrated on our valued buyers.”

This just goes to prove eBay’s flawed and simplistic approach to the problems which plague it’s marketplace. Ebay “phased” me out back in February, when they started creating such an unstable selling enviroment with all of these changes. By the looks of it, this “phase out” would appear to be permanent for my business, unfortunately, because each and every additional change only increased my distrust in the eBay enviroment and management.

Is it a good thing for eBay to lose sellers, like me, who are obviously very successful on a site which requires higher standards for sellers than eBay does? eBay did not lose my business by increasing standards for sellers. They lost my business by increasing the opportunity for my business to become subject to buyer fraud, charge back, and scamming.

Donahoe also stated, “Again; we can’t go into the trivial aspects of this policy just yet, but we
do want to stress to buyers out there that by 2009, they will not have to
ever worry again about being ripped off by an unscrupulous seller.”

wouldn’t it be nice if eBay was in a position to guarantee sellers that by 2009 we will not have to ever worry again about being ripped off by an unscrupulous BUYER?

AmberOn 05.16.2008 at 9:22 am Said:

LOL @Implog

Pickin’ on the grammar.

I suspect she phrased that the way she did because if written correctly, she’d appear second in the sentence.

“John Donahoe and I”

Goodness, we couldn’t have that!

It is ironic that the post to a blog is much more formal than her “formal” announcement. It could be that someone pointed out her errors in the last announcement, and she had someone vet this post for her.

AmberOn 05.16.2008 at 9:24 am Said:

Crunchy, I think that post was a parody of a John Donahoe interview.

Kind of an Onion take on his style…

From what I could tell, it’s not a real interview/press release.

Broken eBayOn 05.16.2008 at 9:48 am Said:

Did it ever occur to eBay that by treating it’s smaller sellers like they don’t matter, these sellers will never be buyers on eBay? If I was a smaller seller, I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with eBay anymore, including buying on eBay. The recent changes, like the new PayPal only requirements and 21-day holds, now assume eBay sellers are not to be trusted in the first place; if I were a seller I would mad and alienated. Another good reason not to buy on eBay.

And statement by the CEO “phasing out sellers” doesn’t give much credence to “Small Sellers: Our Competitive Advantage.” He isn’t going to “phase out” larger powersellers, he’s going after smaller sellers. It sounds like he’s ready to wield a very sharp axe against sellers who don’t matter.

JohnOn 05.16.2008 at 9:55 am Said:

I have been a powerseller for years. I built a thriving small business. Now I perceive the changes ebay is making as total disrespect for the sellers on the site and is based on the fact that ebay wants to collect fees on handling charges sellers collect,EBAY NEEDS TO REDUCE FEES TO GAIN BUSINESS, the rest of it is just plain so backwards that it is baffling. Ebay sites retaliatory feedback as a reason for the feedback changes, the buyer more than likely may have deserved a negative. I can tell you in my experience that buyers who leave a negative and receive a negative DID NOT READ THE AUCTION!! 90% of the time, the other 10% are outright thieves. So if they leave a seller a negative because they did not read the auction it is justified that get a negative not reatliatory. If it was just a few sellers objecting to this it would be different, ebay said it did research but that is clearly flawed. Ebay claims it is going to protect the sellers but ebay’s customer service is totally inept and useless,what is going to be done about that?, policies are enforced selectively now. Why should buyers be allowed to register falsely? Shouldn’t that be a concern? It is not now. Why is ebay tying everything in with shipping charges? Ebay is really working hard to get the handling charges sellers charge buyers reduced, we are allowed to collect a handling charge. Ebay charged me a huge handling charge on a ebay coffee mug I bought years ago, so why is it allright for them to do it? I gave paid ebay thousands of doolars in fees per year every year and now Buy.com is coming alog and they get a discount in fees? and I do not? I have to question if that is “leveling the playing field” or just stealing from the poor to give to the rich”. You say you want to keep the small businesses on ebay, your actions show differently. MY OPINION IS THAT THE FEEDBACK SYSTEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN FLAWED SINCE EBAY HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE TRANSACTION. All ebay had to do is have detailed seller ratings only, police the buyers and make sure that they are not leaving false ratings,make them prove it. IF THEY DID NOT READ THE AUCTION THAT IS THE BUYERS PROBLEM NOT THE SELLER. Leaving negative feedback where you can disparage the other user with whatever comment you want is wand was a mistake. In closing none of this bothered ebay at all when they collected millions and millions in fees from junk dealers who were selling non-working, broken, and defective department store returns to unsuspecting buyers for years, this sellers have hundreds of thousands of negatives beteween a few of them, GO FIGURE! EBAY NEW THEY WERE DOING IT AND ALLOWED IT. When you sell your soul for a bonus check it does not come out good in the end.

JJHOn 05.16.2008 at 11:58 am Said:

Here is something very interesting that I found on the eBay AU site. It was on a page about the feedback changes, under a subtitle “Ensuring Seller Protection”. I have BOLDED the item I find the most interesting. Any comments?

Will sellers still have access to Buyer Requirements to manage their buyers?

Yes. In addition to the current Buyer Requirements, we are enhancing the Unpaid Item buyer requirement and adding new buyer requirements that will enable sellers to block buyers with multiple policy violations from bidding/ or buying their items.

The buyer requirements tool enables sellers to prevent or limit the buyers from bidding or buying their items if certain criteria have not been met. The criteria are:

* Buyer does not have a PayPal account
* Buyer has a recent Unpaid Item strike (new)
* Buyer is registered in a country where seller doesn’t ship to
* Buyer has a recent eBay policy violations (new)
* Buyer who may have bid on several of my items and not paid for them
* Buyer who is not ID Verified (new – but not available on all eBay sites)

Shown the ExitOn 05.18.2008 at 10:40 am Said:

Lorrie needs to go into politics, she is great at doublespeak.

She states, “Let me be clear: eBay has always believed that small and casual sellers — “the little guys” — are eBay’s most important competitive advantage … These sellers created our community, bring a human touch to the marketplace, and continue to make eBay a truly one-of-a-kind shopping experience.”

And?

What I don’t see is what ebay is going to do to reward the small seller. What I do see is a bunch of explanations of why they think what they are doing is a good thing. Meanwhile they give large corporations huge discounts. They give Powersellers exclusive protections.

What are the smaller sellers going to get? Auctions that are buried on the last page of the listings when it ends and higher fees to pay for all the extras give to the Companies and Powersellers.

DaveyOn 05.19.2008 at 9:04 pm Said:

I especially love the doublespeak in light of the 7 day feedback cooling off period only offered to Powersellers because they are “safer” than those of us who supposedly can offer a better buyer experience due to individual attention. Never mind the good DSRs and feedback we smaller sellers may have, nor the fact that a single neutral or negative, earned or not, wounds us much more. Our true track record doesn’t apparently amount to much in eBay’s eyes–just volume. I wish some eBay exec would just come out and speak the truth.

So, are smaller sellers REALLY appreciated as eBay’s “competitive advantage,” or are we so unsafe such that we cannot be protected by a spiff which costs eBay nothing? “Where’s the beef?”

Which is it Ms. Norrington?? I’m frankly confused…

Patricia1On 05.19.2008 at 9:24 pm Said:

Davey - the answers to those questions are only common sense. Ebay doesn’t have to answer them…I prefer not hearing the rhetoric anyway. It is an insult to my intelligence. It would have cost them nothing at all to give small sellers with good records the same break as they’re giving powersellers. The nonsense about powersellers being more trustworthy was an outright insult! One they should have known - or they did know but didn’t care. They expect us to trip and fail and then we will be replaced by larger retail sellers. Its so blatant its almost a laughable! I just told you what they will not One thing is certain - this “untrustworthy small seller” would never ever treat a customer the way ebay is treating us….NEVER! I’m really proud of that fact!

Patricia1On 05.19.2008 at 9:36 pm Said:

My, my, my - looking back on all these posts….I can’t for the life of me find one that is totally on ebay’s side. I listened to the town hall meeting today. Not for one minute did I believe it when they said only a small section of sellers were unhappy with the changes. In fact, I spit tea all over my monitor…thank you very much!