Monday, May 19th, 2008
Knowing Where You Stand
In an AB Post today regarding changes in eBay Marketplace policies, John McDonald, Sr. Director of US Trust & Safety said the top-line reasoning behind these changes is to “create more choice and selection for buyers and make it easier for them to find what they’re looking for. Second, these policy changes add flexibility, convenience and cost-savings for our sellers.”
And there is some great news here. For instance, the Choice Policy (good name for a policy that actually limited choice), is being eliminated so that sellers can now list items in different sizes, color, etc. in a single listing. This helps buyers with a more convenient shopping experience and provides sellers with relief on insertion fees.
But what I want to focus on here at Ink is the expansion of the Seller Dashboard and Best Match rankings because they are intertwined and very relevant to the issue of transparency. I would go so far as to say that a lack of transparency in the recent past has both pulled us away from our roots and hindered our relationship with the community. However, I’ve been encouraged, since joining the company in January, that the concept of transparency is being so widely embraced. It’s definitely something everyone is trying to get better at doing (how else would we have got this blog up and running with comments to begin with?).
The Dashboard is a significant step forward in making eBay a more transparent company with which to do business. And in the interests of transparency, it seems that we are disclosing some issues with Best Match ranking that were perhaps not made abundantly clear:
Since launch, we’ve been monitoring and making adjustments. Some of our adjustments will result in a larger number of sellers with below average performance scores being lowered in Best Match search results. If either of the following conditions apply to you, the visibility of your listings may be reduced:
- Your shipping cost DSR is 4.5 and below
- Your buyer satisfaction rate (shown on the dashboard) appears as “needs improvement,” “poor” or “unacceptable.”
The good? Sellers with 4.7 and above (on all DSRs) should start to see an additional boost in their search standing in Best Match (yes, the announcement is another outbound communication from eBay hammering home the message that sellers are being rewarded for providing the best possible buying experience at the expense of those sellers that are simply “good” rather than “great”).
What I’m interested in hearing about from you though, when the Seller Dashboard is unveiled later this week, is whether or not it is providing you with the information and transparency you need in order to make your business decisions? Is it really letting you know where you stand in the marketplace?
Here are links to some key docs associated with the news today:
Policy Changes FAQ
Seller Non-Performance Policy
Circumventing Fees
Chance Policy
Links Policy
Tips for Improving DSRs
Cheers,
RBH
Tagged: buyers, dsr, ebay, ecommerce, feedback, john+mcdonald, policy+changes, seller+dashboard, sellers, transparency
ChrisOn 05.21.2008 at 1:56 am Said:
30 day SNP is going to put off all new sellers as well as small volume sellers, unless they can launch straight in with high numbers of transactions every month from day one. How many new businesses can start like that? Anyone who has to start slowly is just not going to tolerate the constant gun at the head every month?
The example given by Mark Classic of 1 neg and 1 neut on 40 positives gives a percentage of just over 96%, counting the neut as .666 and using the new equation for feedback. If this is not how it is worked out can we have some precise guidelines? Or has the 5% threshold has been reduced.
TonyOn 05.21.2008 at 4:12 am Said:
Chris, in the UK we’re guessing but in the case of a person who had 1 neut and 1 neg in 30 days (and they aren’t getting 1 a month) the neut was after an item not received dispute, the buyer even left a comment saying he didn’t believe she was dishonest. We think the fact that she lost an item not received dispute may also carry weight in the performance rating.
Having said that, you should see the overall feedback of some of these suspended sellers, they’re suspending decent sellers.
ChrisOn 05.21.2008 at 5:23 am Said:
Tony, I am in the UK and I’ve seen some of the details you refer to. They just don’t make any kind of logical sense. That’s why I think it’s time eBay told us the exact details of the SNP calculation. People should not have to guess what contributed to their suspension. It is ridiculous for eBay to say they cannot reveal it because some people may find ways to fiddle it. It’s like the Inland Revenue, or the US equivalent, saying we’re not revealing how your business tax is worked out this year in case you fiddle it.
SandiOn 05.21.2008 at 5:23 am Said:
LurchOn 05.20.2008 at 8:51 pm Said:
“It’s a bloodbath.”
C’mon, now. It’s not a bloodbath.
Get a grip Lurch, it was merely a saying, bloodbath can have several definitions - and I wasn’t using 1.
1. a ruthless slaughter of a great number of people; massacre.
2. Informal. a period of disastrous loss or reversal: A few mutual funds performed well in the general bloodbath of the stock market.
3. a widespread dismissal or purge, as of employees.
Geez.
implogOn 05.21.2008 at 6:03 am Said:
I first saw the “bloodbath” metaphor used in a Financial Times (U.K.) article in March.
“It’s going to be a bloodbath,” says Cheryl Johnsen, a platinum-level seller on eBay. Last month war was declared in the online auction community and how this battle plays out may have broad implications in terms of opening up the concentrated world of electronic auctioneering.”
As CEO Donahoe said in his eBay INK article.
“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.”
This passion is shown in some of the more graphic statements about the effects of the “enhancements”.
I think the original FT article is archived but has been copied and posted at the link below.
AmberOn 05.21.2008 at 8:05 am Said:
When calculating the seller’s non-performance percentage you’re forgetting something…
If 1 buyer leaves a neutral or negative
And a 1 or 2 on any DSR
And files an Item Not Received or SNAD dispute
That buyer counts as 3 unique buyers.
Mystery solved. For more information, please see the announcements in January. It’s there.
That’s why small sellers don’t have a chance here anymore.
JJHOn 05.21.2008 at 8:15 am Said:
Where’s the Seller Dashboard? It sure is good to “Know where you stand”, eh?
Is it just me, or should the tool have been ready and online before the changes went into effect?
Everything this company does so far in 2008 is backwards.
Patricia1On 05.21.2008 at 8:44 am Said:
Lurch - I agree with you on many points of your post - I just don’t like ham-fisted methods - especially after years of neglect of a problem (while still raking in the dough) and then pounding everyone good, bad, or indifferent! It doesn’t wash as the actions of a solid reputable business. They’ve done such things in the past…do you remember the same radical actions taken on the discussion boards and chatrooms? That was many years ago but so harsh that it even made the evening news. Reporters calling it “nazi-like methods”. (Their words and not mine) I remember one news announcer saying they tried to reach “Claire” (a top pink at the time)for comment but could not. Same here - they’ve come down like a bull in a china shop and their popularity with sellers and the good buyers who know about it has gone way way down. Overnight there was a purging (only other word I can think of to replace bloodbath - but doesn’t show the harsh injustice of it) of many sellers who will probably have their listings reduced, buried or suspended….BUT in the wake of it many GOOD sellers were punished too and the records they worked darn hard to maintain were damaged. That’s what I meant by bloodbath! A seller’s record IS his reputation and ebay has damaged many of them needlessly through a foolish policy! I posted the work of just one of those buyers here somewhere showing 6 negatives handed out to 6 different sellers on May 19th - one entry even saying she waited 90 days in order to do it!!! I just know ebay does NOT realize the depth of the harm they’ve just done. They’ll watch their figures and their revenue but they have shown little experience or knowledge of human nature and how to interface with their customers. Sorry…that’s just how I see it! To put it in words anyone can understand….when my pet pees on the floor I do not bludgeon her to death and toss her out. I reprimand by raising my voice just a little and she knows she’s been bad.
ChrisOn 05.21.2008 at 8:58 am Said:
Amber the mystery is only deepening. As a newcomer I was not aware I had to read the US noticeboard as well as the UK one. I assume you are referring to the message from Jim Ambach on Jan 29th. That was not posted in UK.
But it still doesn’t really solve the mystery, because it is does not give the individual weighting to each component. Regardless of the rights or wrongs in the matter, anyone who is suspended should have the right to know exactly how that calculation is done. Is that information available anywhere?
TheBrewsNewsOn 05.21.2008 at 9:05 am Said:
@JJH
I am “guessing” that eBay had to finish recalculating feedback scores BEFORE they turned on the switch for the new Seller Dashboard. Otherwise, your Dashboard metrics would go up and down like a ping-pong ball as the feedback scoring changes.
It’s just frustrating that we must all “guess” at what eBay is doing. Even when their actions are understandable (finishing the feedback scoring before turning on the Dashboard), there is absolutely no communication from eBay explaining the changes (who among us knew that neutrals would be counted as negatives?)
If we failed to communicate with OUR eBay customers the way eBay fails to communicate with us, we would go straight past restriction to suspension.
Patricia1On 05.21.2008 at 9:20 am Said:
Counting neutrals as negatives retroactively was really about as low as one could go. Neutral means just that….!!!
AmberOn 05.21.2008 at 9:25 am Said:
“Is that information available anywhere?”
Supposedly, that’s what the dashboard will tell us. And yes, I know these sellers are being suspended with no explanation. They did this to sellers on .com for months last year with no explanations, no announcements and no recourse. You’d think they would have learned a lesson on how they handled it last time.
It is an expansion of enforcement on an already existing policy and that’s the excuse you’ll hear if they ever bother to respond.
There is no weighting of the components.
A 1 or 2 DSR rating is = to a negative.
A Neutral is = to a negative
An INR or SNAD is = to a negative
Each counts as a dissatisfied customer.
(The following is based on how things are handled on.com so they may no hold true for uk)
If you have >5% dissatisfaction and are a low volume seller, you’ll get booted for 30 days.
If you have a >10% dissatisfaction rating, you are permanently suspended until you bring your average up. How that will work without Mutual Withdrawal and without the ability to sell more remains a mystery.
If you are a high volume seller with >5% dissatisfaction, you’ll have a restriction placed on your account as to the volume you can sell.
Again, low volume sellers are treated more harshly than their high volume counterparts.
LurchOn 05.21.2008 at 9:26 am Said:
See Cam’s post - he’s nailed it very succinctly. His list of “vs” is overall very accurate. The reasons for the changes eBay is implementing now (in an overnight fashion) have been building for years. Rather than dealing with them as they should have been, now you get the mess we’re in now, not just with the new policies, but also the problems within the community.
Let’s be clear here: I do NOT agree with the way they have decided to “fix” things; I do NOT agree with the way in which these fixes have been implemented; and I do NOT agree with the way they have been communicated (and the way that the issues at the root of this have been communicated). I also do NOT agree with the direction the marketplace is going overall (eg, with buy). Being hysterical will only help them discount you and potentially others. At the same time, I’m not so certain reasoned thinking will get anywhere either — it most certainly has not in the past.
AmberOn 05.21.2008 at 9:32 am Said:
So…taking a person with 40 UNIQUE feedbacks in 30 days (something that without the dashboard, you won’t see on the feedback page)
A single buyer leaves a 1 or 2 rating on the shipping DSR
Leaves a Neutral
and
Files a SNAD dispute
That buyer now counts as 3 unique buyers. So you have 37/40 = 92.5% or a 7.5% buyer dissatisfaction rating.
It’s set up in a way to make people fail–especially the lower volume sellers.
AmberOn 05.21.2008 at 9:37 am Said:
@ Richard,
“I don’t see how neutrals are being “counted as negatives” rather they’re NOT being counted as positives.”
We were told in the buyer dissatisfaction rating that neutrals represent “some level of buyer dissatisfaction” and that was the reasoning behind including them in the calculations for suspensions.
The second they did that, Neutrals ceased being truly Neutral.
We close the comments for posts after 30 days. If you would still like to comment on this post, please use our contact form.
370 Responses on this post. Click to add yours.