Pay less??

masonic

Whilst I don't personally see much of a problem with what this seller has done, I think some of the posts in this thread have blown the issue out of all proportions. EVERYONE has a right to an opinion on this board.

Ebay's surcharging policy can be found here. I think anyone who reads it will come to the conclusion that the area of 'discounts' boils down to a matter of opinion. I would encourage anyone that disagrees to post an argument supporting their position, rather than attacking those of the other posters.

Road_Hog

Ebay statement, on surcharging.

Why does eBay have this policy?
This policy reduces the potential for confusion among bidders about the full cost of an item. These listings undermine the trust and legitimacy of eBay’s marketplace.

Oh right, and I though it was to ensure that everybody used PayPal, so as to ensure they got their cut from the payment method as well.

masonic

soolin wrote:

troo wrote:

What they're saying (by not actually saying it ) is that they charge £5 if you pay by Paypal.

Which is of course a surcharge whichever way you look at it, so worth a report to ebay.

This is, of course, absolutely correct. At face value, there is no difference between someone asking for an extra £5 from paypal payers and bumping up the total price by £5, then giving a £5 discount to non-paypal payers. However, this was an auction, so the only way to bump up the price would be through P&P (or shill bidding ). Given the size and value of the item, along with the claim that it is being sent by courier, there really isn't enough evidence to suggest the price has been artificially increased above what is a reasonable P&P charge for such an item.

As well as the above, I think you need to consider what ebay say about the reasons behind their surcharging policy:

Why does eBay have this policy?
This policy reduces the potential for confusion among bidders about the full cost of an item. These listings undermine the trust and legitimacy of eBay’s marketplace.

Ebay does not want people to be misled over the total cost of an item. Reading between the lines, ebay does not want people to bid their max, then win, only to find hidden charges in the auction text that push the price above what they had been willing to pay. Does this apply also to hidden discounts? Well, I don't think it does, because anyone who does not read the small print can only be pleasantly surprised if they win the item; anyone who does not opt for the discount will still be paying an amount they were happy to bid.

soolin wrote:

However, it could be considered a a scam in a way by having something in the small print that induces a buyer to use a payment method that offers no protection, as opposed to using a payment method that has some protection.

Soo, I think this is the main drive for you not liking this sort of discount, so please brace yourself as I attempt to demolish it...
Sellers can quite legitimately refuse to accept paypal in their auction completely, forcing buyers to use a less secure method of payment. I don't think you can say encouraging buyers not to pay using paypal is wrong, given that paypal need not even be offered as a payment method. It could be argued that the seller is empowering bidders by offering paypal in this situation where it would otherwise not be offered at all, but of course the seller is probably only doing that to drum up more business.

So what would happen if paypal was not even offered as a payment method? Well, arguably, a buyer paying by cheque would be £5 worse off. Some people would pay by cheque, whilst others would not bid. I am confident that anyone who would not bid if paypal was not offered, would not pay by cheque with the auction in it's current format. Therefore, I don't think that offering a discount for non-paypal payments is going to sway any more people into using less secure payment methods than listing only those methods.

I'll try to make my next post a bit shorter.

cougar_3

Paypal costs the seller extra. It's like sending everything special delivery when 1st class is adequate. If the buyer wants the enhancement, then they should pay.

Paypal is also less secure for sellers, so quite why you would want to enoucrage people to use it is beyond me.

I don't mean to be rude, but I find Soolin far too pro-Paypal to be a fair board guide. I think that they should tame it down a bit and start encouraging money saving by using free options like cheques or BACS transfers.

masonic

cougar wrote:

Paypal costs the seller extra. It's like sending everything special delivery when 1st class is adequate. If the buyer wants the enhancement, then they should pay.

Paypal is also less secure for sellers, so quite why you would want to enoucrage people to use it is beyond me.

I don't mean to be rude, but I find Soolin far too pro-Paypal to be a fair board guide. I think that they should tame it down a bit and start encouraging money saving by using free options like cheques or BACS transfers.

The whole paypal/no paypal argument has been covered so many times... Ultimately buyers pay for it one way or another - if a seller can't make a profit after absorbing the costs in the price of the auction, then they would not offer it. Unfortunately for sellers, buyers like paypal far too much. You will find very few sellers who claim that they have made as much profit having stopped offering paypal in their auctions, despite its additional cost. Purely from a moneysaving perspective, I think most people would agree that removing paypal from your auctions would be a false economy.

Hintza

We all have our opinions on this subject, but to give Soo such a hard time is grossly unfair considering the hard work that she has put in on this board.

OK so now for my opinion:-

I accept and encourage paypal for ease and simplicity and would discourage cheques as potentially quite hazardous and a pain to process and as such would not consider a discount for their use.

I do however in my T+C offer a 4% - 5% discount for anyone to pay by bank transfer. I might add that I think that option has only been used once.

As MSE members and following the ethos of this site I must agree that any way folk can save a few bob from the big corporates (that is not detrimental to others nor illegal) should not be frowned upon and in most instances ought to be encouraged!!

Road_Hog

masonic wrote:

This is, of course, absolutely correct. At face value, there is no difference between someone asking for an extra £5 from paypal payers and bumping up the total price by £5, then giving a £5 discount to non-paypal payers.

You are wrong there. What ebay/paypal have said and done, is that when a buyer wins an auction, that is the price that they will pay. That you cannot surcharge (to add additional costs) to this price.

You are free to offer discounts, ebay would love to stop this but would find it difficult to enforce and probably illegal. They are on a very fine line with their no surcharge rule.

Why does ebay have the no surcharge rule,

"This policy reduces the potential for confusion among bidders about the full cost of an item"

With this being given as the reason they should be more than happy for buyers to get a pleasant suprise and have the opportunity to save money. Why aren't they happy, because their monopoly machine is missing out on it's cut.

masonic

Road_Hog wrote:

You are wrong there. What ebay/paypal have said and done, is that when a buyer wins an auction, that is the price that they will pay. That you cannot surcharge (to add additional costs) to this price.

You are free to offer discounts, ebay would love to stop this but would find it difficult to enforce and probably illegal. They are on a very fine line with their no surcharge rule.

Since when did the statement "at face value" relate to ebay at all?

Nothing you have said contradicts my post at all. I know it was a long one, but why not try reading it next time.

Road_Hog

Hintza wrote:

We all have our opinions on this subject, but to give Soo such a hard time is grossly unfair considering the hard work that she has put in on this board.

Well, as a seller, I am not happy with the pro paypal stance Soolin adopts. It is not the first time it has happened.

It is not good for me or my customers. It is a near monopoly and it is anti-competitive. It is not in the interests of money saving to use PayPal, it pushes up the cost of the transaction.

Soolin's comments carry more weight as a board guide and therefore has to have a more balanced impartial point of view. To say things like,

"However, it could be considered a a scam in a way by having something in the small print that induces a buyer to use a payment method that offers no protection"

or

"Also, if the seller can offer a £5 postal discount for cheques they must be overcharging for post and packing in the first place which is fee avoidance"

Well I don't see how it can be a scam to say to a customer, it's going to save me £20 if you buy one of my laptops for £650 and pay by cheque and I'll pass that saving on to you. Also if the seller chooses to give the discount from the postage costs to simplfy the process I don't see how that is overcharging or fee avoidance.

This forum is about money saving, not making ebay/paypal rich and other forms of payment should be given due credence.

masonic

Road_Hog wrote:

Soolin's comments carry more weight as a board guide and therefore has to have a more balanced impartial point of view.

Soo's comments carry more weight because they are well presented and supported by sound reasoning.

These personal attacks are totally uncalled for. If you can't debate the issue, then at least observe Martin's advice to be nice to all moneysavers.