Letters to the Editor
Your emails to AuctionBytes
For consideration, send your email to ina@auctionbytes.com with "Letters to the Editor Blog" in the subject line! Remember to include your name as you would like it to appear in the blog.
February 07, 2010
Only Partial Credit from November eBay Search Outage
By: Ina Steiner
Sun Feb 7 2010 22:15:00
To the Editor: Back in November when eBay had a glitch, they promised to credit our account. I just checked and they never credited us fully for all affected items so we sent them a followup notice. Perhaps you could remind your customers to check their invoices to ensure they were credited for the site outage. (Saturday, November 21 to Sunday, November 22, due to an eBay technical issue, searches were returning limited or no results.) Dan
To The Editor: Ebay announced their new improved "lower" fee structure which in ebay speak means "We lowered the fees for corporate sellers and redistributed the cost to small sellers". At the same time ebay says they will step up and enhance the DSR system- have safety Measures built in.
OK- so- here we go again- another adjustment to how we do business on ebay- let's use the "fee evaluator"- it says I would benefit from a Premium store, I get an e-mail telling me I would benefit from a Premium Store-it says I qualify for a Premium Store-I look at all my ratings- I look at my listings. I start making adjustments. Fewer individual items- more Lots. Maybe I can make this work. I'll give it a try.
I know all of these fee levels are tied in to My seller performance in one way or another. I know I should qualify for Top Rated Seller at next evaluation. I qualified for 15% discount this time. I had 2 Low ratings rolling off (given to me for shipping charges because I refused to illegally ship items Media Mail that did not qualify for Media Rate).
I increase the quantity of items I list, I run 99 cent auctions ( I know -I can hear the collective sigh from sellers) Sell through is horrible, a few sell higher than expected, a Lot sell at opening or slightly higher. Multiple Item Buyers-I combine shipping - charge for first item additional items went free. Take a small loss on some shipments but hopefully that is balanced out by repeat customers.
Feedback starts rolling in ...All Positives- ALL Glowing Positives. I go check on my Seller Performance, my DSRs are TRASHED. I start running reports like ebay suggests- categories-where did something go wrong? I narrow it down to a single category..WTH?? I KNOW I combined shipping for every customer in that category- I charged for 1 item the rest shipped free. I e-mail the multiple buyers and ask if there was a problem (at ebay Customer Service suggestion) all replied That everything was Fine- Perfect etc. So I keep researching. I narrow it down to one buyer- look in to her- she is a Competitor-selling Identical Items- Her E-mail states - Everything Was Perfect-I gave you all 5 Stars- I would buy from you any day!
Any seller in my position will find a way to figure out the DSRs- I did- I KNOW for a fact she left the bad ratings- she left a total of 28 Low DSRs for 7 items- Including 5 1s for shipping charges- keep in mind 6 out 7 items shipped free- and the Shipping Charge for the first was less than what she charges to ship the identical item- she waited 3 days to pay- I shipped 8 hours after payment- she gave me low DSRs on shipping time- she left feedback 6 days after paying- slow? Her Terms state she ships 4 days after payment. Communication- Low DSRs- How Many e-mails did she want? EOA-Inv. Note saying Items Shipped- I Know! I forgot to send her a Birthday Card, Item As Described- all Low DSRs- yet she resells them!
Ebay has a Feedback Manipulation policy- it states: "Manipulating another member's detailed seller ratings (DSRs) through a combination of repeat purchases and low DSRs to reduce another user's Feedback scores" is a Violation- then has an "or" section of Patterns of leaving Positives with Low Ratings- 2 different-separate rules. Yet ebays only response is that they do not see a pattern- so they are leaving the DSRs. I am citing the Repeat Buys with Positives and Low DSRs- come on seriously if a Customer was that Unhappy with 7 items don't you think they would have left at least 1 negative???
So far- no results from ebay, although I am sure there is a Legal Remedy against the buyer- as there will be Financial Damages as a Direct Result of her actions. I have all the DSR printouts- the screen shots of the 15% discount which was calculated 2 days before her DSRs and the Screen shot of the "Lost Discount Warning" because of DSRs. I am in the process of removing items from ebay inventory so that I can close down the store when the new "lower" fees take affect- I HAVE to shut down- Lowered Search Ratings +Higher Insertion Fees- + Loss of FVF Discounts = Operating at a Loss=Loss of Income.
Who profits from all of this? The Dishonest Seller and Ebay. Who Loses? In the end it will be the Remaining Buyers and Ebay,
Just Sign It- Free Shipping is a VERY BAD thing on ebay!
eBay UK Seller Objects to Mandatory Shipping Limits
By: Ina Steiner
Wed Feb 3 2010 13:09:09
To the Editor: As a UK seller in eBay's clothes category, I am just facing up to the postal charge changes being forced upon us on March 29th. A compulsory limit of £4 for the first item within the UK.
"According to research" most items can be sent within this cost limit. Not true in our case, most items cost £6.80 by courier, tracked and insured. eBay recommends using second class post, which is unreliable and not tracked or insured! We are meant to offer courier delivery as an option. So anything we send second class would be entirely at our risk. It would also mean that items will arrive slowly, or even not at all, which no doubt would do wonders for our DSR score and the mythical TRS qualification. Also, we'll have a deluge (even more than usual) of people asking where their item is even if they chose the cheapest option.
To help us dimwit sellers out, who have already cut great deals with the most reliable companies, they list some alternative systems such as "My Hermes" which is widely known to be dire, it took them 3 weeks to get an item to me.
We actually subsidise postage to our customers already to the tune of £5 K per annum to keep it on the right side for them, and of course charge nothing for time and materials so add that on top.
Clearly, we are not going to use eBays recommended companies, other than the ones they mention that already cost more that we already use so what do we do?
The only option I can see is FREE UK POSTAGE! But of course we all know that there is no such thing. So we'll have to raise the price of our entire inventory to cover it, which no doubt will reduce sales even more than eBay have already done with the ongoing deconstruction of a site that worked really well for us and others for years.
I've been reluctant to hurl abuse at eBay, we always try to work round the obstacles they constantly create, but they MUST be completely insane? Are they employing Sales Prevention Officers? Peter
PS: I must apologise. I wrote to you yesterday about the £4 postage cap for Clothing on Ebay UK. I got part of it wrong...
After reading it all again I see the you cannot offer free postage on auction items! Yet if I offer free postage on FPI I get better search visibility, so I need to do that and raise the price on FPI's, swings, roundabouts etc,.
Selling on eBay is literally becoming an obstacle course, the amount of management involved is time that should be spent creating listings. Its becoming a marginal activity for us at this rate.
eBay's Secret Testing Harmful to Sellers' Business Plans
By: Ina Steiner
Tue Feb 2 2010 17:13:55
To the Editor: eBay has become the most inconsistent, unpredictable and unstable platform in eCommerce.... and it is by their own design.
Under neophyte CEO John Donahoe, eBay is in the third year of a three year tear whereby destructive innovation rules at the expense of providing a consistent and reliable platform for sellers.
Constant changes to policy and systems make it impossible for a seller to develop and implement a successful business plan that is able to produce positive results for any meaningful length of time. This is a sin exclusive to eBay .No other platforms come close to the number of changes both public and private that eBay constantly subjects buyers and sellers to.
Sellers attempting to make a living on eBay need to know that eBay admits they tinker with search algorithms without announcement of any kind as to the nature or duration of said tinkering.
The secretive (unannounced/undisclosed) nature of search algorithm changes/testing was revealed in a podcast posted on auctionbytes.com with eBay Senior Director of Selling Experience Todd Lutwak. That podcast can be heard here:
In the podcast, Mr Lutwak stated that eBay frequently updates/changes/revises search algorithms on eBay, as well as conducts various system and search "tests". The nature and duration of these "tests" are not announced to buyers or sellers, before or after, despite the fact that such "tests" might positively or negatively impact visibility of sellers listings. As a result, sellers have no reliable way to measure and evaluate their success or failure in the marketplace.
So, with constant system changes, policy changes, search changes, search manipulations, and secret tests, sellers can not have expectations of any reliability or consistency with regard to listing visibility and thus selling on the eBay platform.
Sellers frequently report inconsistencies with regard to sales performance. Some sellers have previously attributed the inconsistencies to "rolling blackouts" which eBay has vehemently denied.
Given Mr Lutwak's statements to auctionbytes, it now seems probable that sales inconsistencies are not the result of "rolling blackouts" per se, but, instead are the result of eBay's secretive tweaking and testing of search algorithms. The reality is this essentially amounts to the same thing, eBay chooses to simply play the semantics game.
Constantly fluctuating search algorithms negatively impact sellers, not just in reduced sales due to inconsistent and unpredictable buyer experience, but also makes it impossible for sellers to create successful business plans and listing strategies that produce successful or consistent results for any period of time.
This begs the question how sellers are supposed to determine a consistent strategy for selling on the eBay platform when these secretive changes effecting search are being randomly implemented?
eBay might genuinely be attempting "improvements', but when buyer experience is inconsistent, sellers success is inconsistent as well. eBay is failing their fee paying sellers by managing a platform that fails to offer consistent search results due to deliberate, planned, and secretive testing.
Sellers pay listing fees for exposure of their items in search. It would seem that when the search algorithm is being revised, tweaked, experimented with or tested, that sellers' may not be receiving consistent exposure of their paid listings in search results presented to buyers. This being the case, sellers should be entitled not just to advance notification of changes or tests, but some consideration with regard to refunding fees when visibility is negatively impacted.
It is apparent that eBay does not officially acknowledge these tweaks, tests, or experiments, in order to dissuade sellers from attributing reduced sales performance or increased success to the time period these experiments are being conducted. Instead, sellers are left uninformed, and have no way of knowing that testing is the likely cause of their erratic selling success.
Without information, sellers are unable to accurately measure their success or failure unless or until an announcement is made after the fact as has happened in this rare instance. eBay essentially blinds sellers and prevents them from accurately determining why they have inconsistent or irregular success. (Perhaps when sellers open a selling account or store, eBay should present them with a complimentary tin cup, pencils, a red tipped cane, and dark glasses.)
In this instance, sellers are being told long after testing was completed that testing had taken place, and it is suggested they look back at previous performance to see if they were helped or hurt. Had it not been for the intentional or unintentional comment from Mr Lutwak, sellers would have no reasonable explanation for their success or failure during the time the test was conducted.
The point is, eBay is charging sellers fees, engaging in secretive tests, and blinding sellers with regard to changes in the level of consistency of their sales for better or worse until after the fact, and usually, not at all. This does nothing to improve seller satisfaction or confidence in their so called trading partner.
eBay's lack of transparency and candor with their selling community is no secret, however, when a basic feature such as search is going to be revised, tweaked, experimented with or tested, sellers should be entitled to timely notice in order to be able to make more informed decisions with regard to how said issues may be impacting their success.
Sellers should not hear about tests or tweaks months after the fact, and have to go back months to find out they were positively or negatively impacted. eBay has an obligation to be honest and transparent with their sellers, and they consistently fail in this regard.
Given the disclosure of highly secretive tinkering with search algorithms it is hard to imagine sellers being satisfied that the listings they are paying to place are receiving consistent exposure.
eBay holds sellers to specific standards of performance and reliability, yet as a company they ignore the fact that they are consistently failing to even come close to affording their fee paying sellers the same standards.
To the Editor: We just celebrated (using that term loosely) our 11th anniversary on ebay and have watched the 20 ton gorilla grow from a chimpanzee over the years. Lately, the past two years, that gorilla has gone berserk and the end result has been a mass migration of sellers to other sites, their own web presence or worse yet...off the web completely.
All because of a few bad apples; ebay has had to make changes that safeguard buyers but tend to lump all sellers in that same apple barrel.
These are good folks that only want to make a decent profit on their goods and have a measure of control over their business and be allowed to take care of their customer through good customer service and communication...two keys that seem to be missing in many business models.
We had resisted leaving as we considered 11 years too much of a commitment in our time and efforts to help build ebay, but the bottom line makes it difficult to continue. We recently closed our ebay store after 8 1/2 years as the visibility and profitability had become almost nil.
The new changes make us re-think this, as to survive on ebay, it almost makes it a necessity to have a store subscription; although it would actually be a monetary commitment to the site rather than what we had come to recognize as a store presence.
The recent changes ebay has announced seems to send a message that ebay recognizes that they are losing the store business model to new sites and want to stop the migration. This is before they become a venue where the seller is transient in nature and has no permanent ties to the San Jose-based site; other than to use it as a billboard for customer harvests. The new fee structures address this partially in that the part time seller will pay more.
Other sites such as Bonanzle do not presently require a monetary commitment. Maybe this is because they want to attract sellers who can help them build. Why then does ebay require a monetary stake when others are willing to wait for the Final Value Fees? Perhaps it is due to their higher overhead and some exorbitant salaries that could be trimmed in the interest of keeping the site financially healthy. After all, it's the sellers that bring the buyers to ebay. I see the announcements as a good start towards recovery.
When I was a member of ebay's seller/buyer advisory group; we always felt that all listings should be in core. They were even experimenting with it at that time; that was 4 years ago and it has taken them that long to come to this plan. In 2006 I remind you, they opened up the search to all and Bill Cobb came out with his famous statement that "it upset the balance of the marketplace."
I can see several areas in the new announcement that may backfire on ebay. I addressed several with you previously with the main concern of the 100 free 99 cent auctions a month being one major one. Aside from seeing it drowning the site in cheap merchandise (I can see that ebay wants to reinvigorate the auction trade which is a positive); I can also see members with multiple accounts gaming the freebies into 200, 300, 400, 500 or more free auctions a month depending on how many I.D.'s that particular member held.
I applaud Richard (RDH) for acting as a go between with Auctionbytes readers and ebay...he did a great job (and without a flak jacket)...I sent this concern to him and he came back with this email reply:
"Hi Carl, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. For now, I have an answer to one of your questions. Still tracking down the other.
You asked what we are going to do to control sellers from gaming the system with multiple accounts when it comes to the 100 listings per month cap and free insertion fees.
The answer is nothing, for now. Currently, a seller may have as many accounts as they wish. We are not expecting any serious misuse of the current allowance for multiple accounts but of course, we’ll monitor it (as we do everything) and adjust the policy and allowance if necessary."
Thanks Richard...so the already over-worked T&S folks get another headache...if ebay wants to see what will happen who am I to complain ...but then I have to ask where were their "mine canaries" on these changes? Did they run these changes past them?
Overall...like I said, this is a good step forward for ebay...but, they did open the door for alot of competition that won't soon go away.
Talking to other sellers, they are still pushing free shipping...one told me that it was suggested to her by her TSAM just add the shipping into her listing price...ok, what happened to transparency; something I thought ebay was all for. More profits for Paypal and ebay FVF's...
By the way..how does one hide the shipping fees into a 99 cent auction???
so here is how that translates...seller A pays the same thing as Seller B in listing fees. Seller A offers free shipping and Seller B does not, yet seller A's offering is priced higher than B's and Seller A gets higher exposure in search due to free shipping. What is right about that?
Okay so Rome wasn't built, or in this case rebuilt, in one day...but the buyer (and most sellers) are not stupid. That's that for now... Regards, Carl G.
Although an eBay spokesperson recently told me eBay would not be making changes to feedback in 2010, it looks like they are continuing to test a new feedback question that pulls from the Net Promoter Score system. A reader sent me some screenshots of a feedback survey she took this week.
To the Editor: Here are the pages of a new eBay Feedback survey. Looks like eBay is considering allowing sellers to contact buyers who leave less than stellar DSRs.
I was shipping out a couple of packages today (Thursday) using USPS Priority Mail and Paypal click and ship and noticed that the postage being calculated by Paypal which was correct according to the new postal rates does not match the amount calculated by EBay's postage calculator. Of course the Paypal postage amount is greater than the Ebay calculation.
This appears to be happening not for all zip code areas but did in going from NJ to MA. The postal rate for a 1 pound package is $5.86 but Ebay calculates it as $5.35.
Is anyone else finding an error in the Ebay generated postal rates for other areas? I spoke to Ebay customer service and they are looking into it.
