What constitutes fasle/mislaeding advertising?

ArmitageShanks

Not necessarily ebay related this. But what defines the above?

For instance, does a picture have to correspond exactly to the product being sold? For example if part of a product is being sold but the full item has to be picture to illustrate what it is. Can this be significantly countered by the description and product title?

Ultimately what identifies what is being sold- picture or description (working on the basis the that description is concise and clear)?

soolin

OOh, that's a good meaty question for a slow afternoon.

I would not have a problem with a photo of a complete unit being shown if it is required to sell a certain item..as long as it is clearly , ie in same size font as rest of text, stated that the photo is for illustration only.

Sort of like in a clothing catalogue where it says things like 'belt not included' where a dress is shown with a seperate belt. Or even in Argos where it shows a table which has plate son it and the plates are 'not included'.

ArmitageShanks

A good example would be new car ads. eg. "The new ford focus from £10000" but the accompanying picture is almost always one of a much higher spec model which has alloy wheels, metallic paint etc. It is then stated in much smaller print "car featured is the blah blah model with optional blah blah".

The case in question has 4 short bullet points of spec, one of which states "product type only". Then bellow this is backed up by underlining what exaclt it is and where the other item is availalbe.

soolin

I see where you are coming from and it is actually similar to the current BT hub advert in the newspapers. Two products are shown and there is actually a disclaimer about hand sets or something which are shown in the picture but not included when the headline package on the advert is purchased. Kind of sneaky I feel but as long as you read the full text it is actually very clear what you are getting.

In my own personal opinion I would feel it necessary to be more careful on ebay as I worry that so many people don't actually read text and merely browse the pictures. About 5-6 years ago I was selling a very fast selling line where colour was important..both me and my main competitor was selling these with the line 'As seen on TV in Sex and the City' (this was before we had to worry too much about keyword spamming). Black and ivory fetched a real premium, red achieved a much lower end price. I had my own photos and listed all colours using the correct colour photo, my competitor used one stock photo of the item in ivory and just indicate din the text what the actual colour was so she had 'please note you are bidding on a red one' . She completely outsold me price wise on non ivory/black ones but after a few weeks of massive sales ehr negs started to hit and she wen tunder..people saw the photo and did not read the text even though nowhere at all had she said anything other that 'red' or 'blue' in the listing and had been clear to state that the photo was for illustration purposes only.

codger

If we're talking eBay, it's been the case that this auction site has given every indication that it couldn't care less what image a seller shoves in the listing -- so long as that seller is a high-volume trader.

One particularly notorious Powerseller, whose existence doesn't so much prove how venal eBay is but how stupid too many eBayers are, has for a lo-o-nng time created listings of which 75% of the text is devoted to preposterous terms and conditions, accompanied by a small-ish image which the seller describes -- though not always -- as "library pictures".

The seller then flogs off a damaged item and gets away with it because in amongst all the rubbish about terms and conditions there's a quick reference to item condition, often qualified with phrases like "may shown signs of wear" or, worse, the deliberately ambiguous "ex-display".

That the item image and the item substance bear no relation to each other -- and therefore constitute deliberate mis-selling -- means nothing at all to eBay in this instance: eBay isn't going to risk losing all that luvvly income from listing fees and FVs by being too hard on the miscreant.

(Though as noted above, the real crime is self-inflicted: if people will insist on buying something they can't see from sellers they don't know, it's no wonder the unscrupulous get such an easy ride from eBay.)

ArmitageShanks

Interesting point on ebay descriptions. Some our products we sell simultaneously from two separate accounts. One has a very detailed listing, has everything you need to know; from detailed item spec, multiple external hosted images, to shipping and our return policy- although detailed, it is very clear. From the other account
the description is 3'ish lines and one standard ebay image. Which one sells best- the latter, simple description and picture that gives you very little idea about the product!!

soolin

I have to disagree a bit with you Codger, if a seller was that bad then they would have gone, powerseller or not. It is also a case that buyers need to read and understand what they are doing, if a seller was truly awful then why on earth would anyone, however naive, still bid, Surely feedback alone would put them off?

Powersellers do get more warnings before suspension than non powersellers, but they will still get warnings that count towards a suspension none the less. if people come across a bad seller then they should complain, not just moan about them. Also stock photos can be reported and if ebay get enough reports all those warnings also count towards suspension.

soolin

ArmitageShanks wrote: »

I

Interesting point on ebay descriptions. Some our products we sell simultaneously from two separate accounts. One has a very detailed listing, has everything you need to know; from detailed item spec, multiple external hosted images, to shipping and our return policy- although detailed, it is very clear. From the other account
the description is 3'ish lines and one standard ebay image. Which one sells best- the latter, simple description and picture that gives you very little idea about the product!!

Someone else posted this on a different thread a while ago with the comment that he wondered whether people saw lots of text as a problem as they worried that something nasty was being hidden in there. It is a very interesting point though.

I have been fascinated for ages about how poor a description can be and still have people bid..I came across a seller who was selling 'shoes' just that and when I pointed out that she had no description she added 'size 5' and despite me emailing again saying they wouldn't sell, they blooming well did (on about the 7th attempt though).

codger

soolin wrote: »

I have to disagree a bit with you Codger, if a seller was that bad then they would have gone, powerseller or not. It is also a case that buyers need to read and understand what they are doing, if a seller was truly awful then why on earth would anyone, however naive, still bid, Surely feedback alone would put them off?

The seller was at the centre of a virtual firestorm of controversy last year on account of issuing highly questionable Stat Decs so as to force dissatisfied customers to retract negative feedback. The manipulation was blatant and eBay's investigation into it (which eBay later claimed involved very senior management) was, in any objective view, feeble.

Having emerged unscathed from that row, the same seller, earlier this year, continued to list exclusive of VAT, after eBay introduced the VAT transparency ruling. (As, of course, did many another high turnover seller. eBay could easily have introduced a rule breach reporting mechanism at exactly the same time as it introduced the rule. It did not. No prizes for guessing why.)

I mentioned the specific case of that one Powerseller only because it exemplified what has happened on eBay and what eBay has an unfortunate habit of allowing to happen whenever consideration of its own revenue stream comes into play.

But then, everything is about money, and as I think we all agree, eBay would be a lot better place if it stopped being so coy about that reality and abandoned the pretentious drivel about community values, community pillars, revered and respected etc etc. Those who have eBay's phone number and a fast link to an account manager are in that position solely because eBay can afford to resource them out of the money made from their listings and their sales, a situation both parties have a vested commercial interest in continuing. "Reverence" has nothing to do with it.

That said, I think eBay has made some attempt to eradicate seller abuse, albeit in a fairly clumsy fashion that leaves me unable to alert anyone else to the existence of a lousy buyer and vulnerable to half-wits who click on what they think is an entire line of validation stars to signify 100% satisfaction with, say, post and packing, but then unintentionally signify considerably less than that because of where their mouse happened to be positioned at the time.

The kind of deceit referred to in the OP does indeed continue though, and not just where one particular seller is concerned. And the reason -- ultimately -- isn't hard to fathom: when buyers are too lazy to read, and / or too stupid to think, their actions will continue to ensure the profitability of both eBay and the eBay sellers who abuse them.