Bought out GameGavel.com, need community input.

[PikoInteractive]

Well anyway I got the Email you sent out and checked my account, updated some of my Homepage info as some of the info was a few years outdated, who knows? If I ever get around to actually selling stuff I will give it a go, to this day the one and only thing I have sold online was through GameGavel lol. I admit I am still a little scared of Ebay, huge exposure there perhaps but so many horror stories with sellers and fees, not sure the niche I might sell need to be on Ebay instead of HERE or Gamegavel first. I appreciate that you grandfathered unlimited accounts so I am willing to give it another shot - THANKS.

Woo! You've made my day!

 

Cheers!

[FamicomVinnk]

I have used Game Gavel as a selling platform for a few years and have had success with it. I've had 250+ transactions. I think because so few people used it, my listing really stood out. I was the only seller selling imports. I made a little storefront page and I would just link people from my facebook or twitter. I don't think many people just stumbled upon GG but I could point them toward it. And I had no fees other than paypal, which was my reason to use it over ebay.

 

On the negative side, GG could be fickle and it was often down or buggy. Sometimes several weeks would pass when it was down and I couldn't even log in to check my sales. I am looking forward to seeing what the new owner does with the site. From my point of view, I wold be happy if they just kept the existing site bug free. I hope that the redesign is not so drastic that I have to relist everything from scratch.

 

I know a lot of people had no luck with GG in the past, and I don't mean to downplay anyone else's experiences, but just saying it worked out well for me and I remain cautiously optimistic that it will continue to do so.

[derFunkenstein]

As long as you don't adopt ebay's the-seller-is-always-wrong philosophy, I'll be happy. And don't include shipping cost in fee calculations - sellers shouldn't lose money (or have to overcharge just to break even) on shipping. Actually, come to think about it, just do the opposite of nearly every change ebay has implemented in the last 5-10 years and you should be good.

This is a huge pain in the rear on eBay. Paying fees on shipping costs is for the birds.

 

I think I get the reasoning - eBay is trying to avoid the issue of $0.99 items and huge charges for shipping, which you can occasionally see on Amazon - but there's got to be a better way than charging fees on the shipping costs. Especially if I'm using calculate-shipping methods.

[mumbai]

This is a huge pain in the rear on eBay. Paying fees on shipping costs is for the birds. I think I get the reasoning - eBay is trying to avoid the issue of $0.99 items and huge charges for shipping, which you can occasionally see on Amazon - but there's got to be a better way than charging fees on the shipping costs. Especially if I'm using calculate-shipping methods.

 

 

If you see that behavior on Amazon still, it's not an end-run around fees there, as Amazon has charged a fee on total price (item + shipping) for quite some time now.

 

There's no reasonable alternative apart from setting fixed shipping amounts for items (as was the case on Half.com, now defunct), which would frustrate if not anger sellers all the more, I think.

[icemanxp300]

but there's got to be a better way than charging fees on the shipping costs.

 

Agreed, it's BS we have to pay fees for shipping. We don't make money on shipping. It's just another way for greedbay to charge us a higher fee for what we sell.

[derFunkenstein]

 

 

If you see that behavior on Amazon still, it's not an end-run around fees there, as Amazon has charged a fee on total price (item + shipping) for quite some time now.

 

There's no reasonable alternative apart from setting fixed shipping amounts for items (as was the case on Half.com, now defunct), which would frustrate if not anger sellers all the more, I think.

Didn't realize that Amazon was charging fees on shipping, so the practice is weird to me now. I'm sure they're getting to the "cheapest" option on some peoples' lists, but I always look at Amazon prices with shipping and taxes figured in.

 

 

Agreed, it's BS we have to pay fees for shipping. We don't make money on shipping. It's just another way for greedbay to charge us a higher fee for what we sell.

 

Maybe a nice middle ground is that if your shipping charges are less than 50% of the item selling price, you could be exempt? Say it's a $8 game, you could be exempt for shipping of up to $4.

 

It gets out of whack at the $30-40 level on a game, but for shipping a $30 Sega Genesis via USPS Priority Mail (in the US) it still comes in kinda close.

 

On all my eBay auctions, I use calculated shipping charges but based on those calculations for a ZIP code 3 states over, I'll add a 10% handling fee (so if it works out to $20 shipping, I'll tack on $2) and figure that most of the time I'm breaking even on shipping.

[mumbai]

We don't make money on shipping. It's just another way for greedbay to charge us a higher fee for what we sell.

 

 

Not to defend eBay too strongly, but (a) plenty of sellers still profit, at times handsomely, on shipping despite the fees; (b) it's a transparent cost of doing business that can sellers can easily account for; © eBay isn't the only online marketplace with this fee structure; (d) the advent of DSRs alone related to shipping costs applied by sellers isn't enough to curb abuse of eBay's overall fee structure by "putting all the value into shipping costs."

 

But, please, feel free to suggest an alternative of your own that is fair to both sellers and the marketplace that is less hassle for either.

[mumbai]

Didn't realize that Amazon was charging fees on shipping, so the practice is weird to me now. I'm sure they're getting to the "cheapest" option on some peoples' lists, but I always look at Amazon prices with shipping and taxes figured in.

 

Amazon now presents listings to buyers in that order, as well. It used to be ordered on item price alone, which was goofy given how some sellers shifted the cost burden onto shipping and were awarded a better listing position because the item price was lower. Positioning on Amazon in terms of buyer presentation is still a mess, but for a number of unrelated reasons.

 

 

Maybe a nice middle ground is that if your shipping charges are less than 50% of the item selling price, you could be exempt? Say it's a $8 game, you could be exempt for shipping of up to $4. It gets out of whack at the $30-40 level on a game, but for shipping a $30 Sega Genesis via USPS Priority Mail (in the US) it still comes in kinda close.

 

I'm not certain this mitigates abuse of eBay's fee structure any better nor is easier on sellers in terms of transparency and uniformity of application, but my gut tells me it isn't on either count. My gut could be wrong here, having not done back-of-the-napkin math or considered corner cases like combined shipping, etc.

[icemanxp300]

 

Not to defend eBay too strongly, but (a) plenty of sellers still profit, at times handsomely, on shipping despite the fees;

 

No they are not. Whether you buy an item for $50 and free shipping or $10 and $40 shipping the seller still gets paid the same. The only difference is those dumbasses probably still fail to realize they pay fees on shipping.

 

An item is only worth $X. and that cost includes shipping.

 

 

Maybe a nice middle ground is that if your shipping charges are less than 50% of the item selling price, you could be exempt? Say it's a $8 game, you could be exempt for shipping of up to $4.

 

Middle ground? You are still paying fees on something you do NOT sell and do NOT profit on. The main reason ebay started this horseshit was because sellers were charging low prices and high shipping to get out of fees.

 

A simple solution would be for ebay to credit your account w/every label you pay for and ship through ebay. They "Could" do that but they will not, they make too much money charging us for what me make no money on.

 

You use ebay you get charged a fee to sell on ebay and then you get charged a fee to ship what you sell on ebay. The only real winner is ebay. The buyer is the real loser because people like me just charge more for shipping and or the bin price to cover the extra fees I have to pay ebay for shipping.

 

If I want to profit a certain amount, I simply figure in all the fees and shipping and that is what I charge.

[mumbai]

I'd also add that the postage discounts eBay extends for those who choose to use the integrated shipping at times more than offset the 10% taken in fees, though do range from 2% to 34% under retail, so your mileage may vary. Overall, I don't see much room to complain here on the whole. Maybe I'm wrong, but it could certainly be a lot worse, e.g. Amazon Marketplace charges 30% on self-shipped items and used to tack on an additional, trivial, though irksome, $0.07 "label fee" if you took advantage of their integrated shipping options.

 

ETA: to clarify that the costs are "under" and not "over" retail. oops.

Edited August 8, 2017 by mumbai

[mumbai]

 

No they are not. Whether you buy an item for $50 and free shipping or $10 and $40 shipping the seller still gets paid the same. The only difference is those dumbasses probably still fail to realize they pay fees on shipping.

 

You are being obtuse. Whether it's deliberate, I cannot tell. You give sellers' thinking too little credit. You neglect side-benefits to listing with free shipping. You ignore the fact that despite the fee, eBay is still rife with sellers who charge more than it costs to ship, even after accounting for the 10% fee.

 

 

An item is only worth $X. and that cost includes shipping.

 

From one perspective, sure. But having watched bidding habits of comparable items over the years, I'm not certain buyers always think with such clarity. I would add, though, that if this is truly your viewpoint, then one might reasonably adopt it to justify charging a fee on the entire "worth" of a product, and not just one line item of its total end-user cost. Right? Or am I missing some internal logic, here?

 

 

Middle ground? You are still paying fees on something you do NOT sell and do NOT profit on. The main reason ebay started this horseshit was because sellers were charging low prices and high shipping to get out of fees.

 

...and your own statement disproves your point. By shifting the value from the item to shipping, sellers did profit, by getting around eBay's past fee structure. Again, I can't tell whether you're willfully ignoring the meaning of your own statements or don't see it.

 

 

A simple solution would be for ebay to credit your account w/every label you pay for and ship through ebay. They "Could" do that but they will not, they make too much money charging us for what me make no money on.

 

eBay "could" do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they should. They already extend a discount on postage purchased through them, of varying value, so I don't see how one can fault the system for trying to extract every penny from sellers. Bringing this back around to GameGavel, for this "better" way to occur, then GameGavel would have to offer a similar service of postage-on-demand. See that happening?

 

 

You use ebay you get charged a fee to sell on ebay and then you get charged a fee to ship what you sell on ebay. The only real winner is ebay. The buyer is the real loser because people like me just charge more for shipping and or the bin price to cover the extra fees I have to pay ebay for shipping.

 

Yeah, because sellers always look out for the buyer's interests...

 

Anyway, I believe that sellers "win" at least in part by pushing out those (apparently well-intentioned) sellers who would face no penalty for selling an item for $0.01 and charging as much as they could on shipping to reach the same price point. There's a leveling of the playing field here, despite its imperfections, that you seem to overlook.

 

 

If I want to profit a certain amount, I simply figure in all the fees and shipping and that is what I charge.

 

Good for you, so then what's the problem?

 

ETA: poor wording.

Edited August 8, 2017 by mumbai

[icemanxp300]

 

 

You are being obtuse. Whether it's deliberate, I cannot tell. You give sellers too little credit. You neglect side-benefits to listing with free shipping. You ignore the fact that despite the fee, eBay is still rife with sellers who charge more than it costs to ship, even after accounting for the 10% fee.

 

I have no idea what you are arguing here! What does side benefits to offering free shipping have to do with fees you pay?

 

I sell on ebay, I know how much ebay charges for shipping, I know how much pp charges for shipping, I know they are discounted and that price I know I have to pay is figured in when I list an item.

 

Item is worth what item is worth and that includes shipping. If someone wants to pay $20 for a game they are only going to pay $20. They are not going to pay $20 plus shipping.

 

Seller makes the same profits whether they charges more for item or more for shipping when the total sale is the same price.

 

I'm not really sure what you are arguing here.

 

 

...and your own statement disproves your point. By shifting the value from the item to shipping, sellers did profit, by getting around eBay's past fee structure. Again, I can't tell whether you're willfully ignoring the meaning of your own statements or don't see it.

 

 

DID like 5+ years ago. My statement disproves nothing! I simply made a statement about why ebay NOW charges on shipping.

 

Apparently when you made your comment about sellers profiting on shipping you must have meant like 7 years ago...that's nice of you to make a statement in 2017 basing on policies from like 2010 or whenever they started charging fees on shipping.

 

I'm talking about fees today not back in the stone age. Again it doesn't matter whether you charge more for shipping or more for item at the end of the day you pay the same fees to ebay and the same shipping charges. Total cost is all that matters, it's really not that hard to understand.

[mumbai]

I have no idea what you are arguing here! What does side benefits to offering free shipping have to do with fees you pay?

 

There is a difference in paying a fee and getting nothing in return and paying a fee and getting something in return. Simple as that.

 

Again, this is in reference to the "dumbasses" (your word) who don't ship free-of-charge versus those who do, relative to eBay fees.

 

 

Item is worth what item is worth and that includes shipping. If someone wants to pay $20 for a game they are only going to pay $20. They are not going to pay $20 plus shipping. Seller makes the same profits whether they charges more for item or more for shipping when the total sale is the same price. I'm not really sure what you are arguing here.

 

I'm not arguing anything here, though the variance in bidding that I have seen suggests that bidders don't always think this way about shipping costs and "total" value. That's less an argument than an observation. And a small one, at that.

 

The argument I did make is that your logic justifies eBay assessing a fee on the entire value of an item, including shipping, in exchange for access to their marketplace rather neatly, contrary to the position you take elsewhere that shipping should be exempt from valuation in terms of fees. Taken together, your statements don't fit.

 

 

Apparently when you made your comment about sellers profiting on shipping you must have meant like 7 years ago...that's nice of you to make a statement in 2017 basing on policies from like 2010 or whenever they started charging fees on shipping. I'm talking about fees today not back in the stone age. Again it doesn't matter whether you charge more for shipping or more for item at the end of the day you pay the same fees to ebay and the same shipping charges. Total cost is all that matters, it's really not that hard to understand.

 

Aside from the veiled personal attack, you're misreading me. Again, I can't tell whether it's deliberate or not. It's clear that sellers were profiting (you assert as much above) and so eBay stepped in to curb the loophole that disadvantaged them (fee circumvention) and other sellers (less equal playing field). This is important context to understand "fees today". Absent that context, one could much more freely harrumph about unfair fees on postage and it would be more persuasive.

 

My other observation was merely that more than a few sellers still profit from shipping, despite the extension of the fee. That's entirely unrelated to the above point.

 

 

ETA: grammar. and then a misworded sentence. and then reinsertion of a dropped word from that sentence (d'oh!).

Edited August 8, 2017 by mumbai

[mumbai]

Maybe a nice middle ground is that if your shipping charges are less than 50% of the item selling price, you could be exempt? Say it's a $8 game, you could be exempt for shipping of up to $4. It gets out of whack at the $30-40 level on a game, but for shipping a $30 Sega Genesis via USPS Priority Mail (in the US) it still comes in kinda close.

 

Upon some reflection, unless finely tuned (and perpetually retuned as carriers adjust their rates, which is its own problem), this could easily lead to at least one frustrating corner case for sellers who use calculated shipping costs. Say the arbitrary percentage limit set on this free harbor narrowly exempts from fees the cost associated with shipping to one buyer but doesn't with another buyer of the same item who resides in a higher-postage zone (I'm only considering one class of domestic shipments here). I don't think sellers are going to be happy about this, especially for instances where fractions of a percentage point in the postage differential mean paying the fee or not.

 

I also think it might produce inflationary pressure on item costs or shipping charges by sellers who attempt to game the proposed system as much as possible, which may or may not be countered by competitors offering the same goods.

 

EDIT: ridiculous overwording. autocorrect shenanigans.

Edited August 8, 2017 by mumbai

[icemanxp300]

 

There is a difference in paying a fee and getting nothing in return and paying a fee and getting something in return. Simple as that.

 

Again, this is in reference to the "dumbasses" (your word) who don't ship free-of-charge versus those who do to eBay fees.

 

 

Yeah paying a fee on what I have to pay to ship an item is me getting nothing in return. It sounds like you are justifying ebay charging fees on shipping. If you think the discount ebay gives as compared to going to the post office is a "deal" you are sadly mistaken. The fees for shipping online period are discounted. Shipping via ebay, etsy, PP, hell even my personal USPS account all give me about the same discounts on most packages.

 

My dumbasses comment was related to the reason people still post item w/high shipping. They obviously didn't get the memo that ebay charges fees on shipping or they are just dumbasses who fail to see charging high shipping prices just irritates potential buyers and will result in lower selling prices.

 

 

The argument I did make is that your logic justifies eBay assessing a fee on the entire value of an item, including shipping, in exchange for access to their marketplace rather neatly, contrary to the position you take elsewhere that shipping should be exempt from valuation in terms of fees. Taken together, your statements don't fit.

 

Really! I posted why ebay started charging fees on shipping and you automatically assume I was justifying their actions. Unreal. If I was justifying their actions I would not have said:

 

 

Agreed, it's BS we have to pay fees for shipping. We don't make money on shipping. It's just another way for greedbay to charge us a higher fee for what we sell.

 

 

A simple solution would be for ebay to credit your account w/every label you pay for and ship through ebay. They "Could" do that but they will not, they make too much money charging us for what me make no money on.

 

 

 

My other observation was merely that more than a few sellers still profit from shipping, despite the extension of the fee. That's entirely unrelated to the above point.

 

I am saying your observation is flawed. How does a seller profit more by selling an item less than it is worth and charging more than shipping cost lol. Again at the end of the day an item is only worth what a buyer will pay and that total cost is sale price plus shipping. You can't argue that. Sure maybe something generally sells for $20 w/free shipping and someone may bid $20 on an item while there is a $5 shipping fee....but guess what that person likely would have bid $25 w/free shipping.

[mumbai]

Yeah paying a fee on what I have to pay to ship an item is me getting nothing in return

 

You're selling on eBay, you've already gotten something in return, whether you wish to recognize it or not. This position of yours reads as little more than a visceral desire not to pay what is asked, even though you voluntarily choose to do so.

 

 

It sounds like you are justifying ebay charging fees on shipping.

 

Justify is a strong word choice. I would hate to be tarred and feathered as an eBay apologist.

 

Explain is perhaps more accurate. As in, explain why it isn't altogether unreasonable. Also as in, explain why there may not be (m)any alternatives open to eBay or other online venues that don't cause as much obvious distress.

 

If you think the discount ebay gives as compared to going to the post office is a "deal" you are sadly mistaken. The fees for shipping online period are discounted. Shipping via ebay, etsy, PP, hell even my personal USPS account all give me about the same discounts on most packages.

 

Yes, I do think that when given a discount, it is something other than a bad thing. I wish I could say the rates the USPS extends are the same or lower as through eBay for the same delivery options, but in a number of cases (e.g., international shipping) they are not for the typical eBay seller. Same, too, for FedEx.

 

So, again, good on you for obtaining discounts that I don't believe exist in all cases. Or maybe I'm just really bad at comparing two numbers and determining which is larger.

 

 

My dumbasses comment was related to the reason people still post item w/high shipping. They obviously didn't get the memo that ebay charges fees on shipping or they are just dumbasses who fail to see charging high shipping prices just irritates potential buyers and will result in lower selling prices.

 

I'm not comfortable with the emotionally charged language you use here, but they aren't all what you think them to be. One counter example would be sellers with items of a certain weight or set of dimensions that want to charge going rates but not flat rate and so opt for calculated shipping. Or am I mistaken in thinking that?

 

 

I posted why ebay started charging fees on shipping and you automatically assume I was justifying their actions.

 

Your opening reason "why" was because it was "BS", which misses the bigger picture.

 

Your characterization of what I "automatically assume[d]" is just wrong. Though, again, I did point out that your reasoning on the value of a thing purchased with mailed delivery more or less plays into an argument that might be used to justify a uniform fee structure. It seems that you still don't see how.

 

The bits that you reposted mostly underscore your gut-level refusal to consider the fee structure in question as anything other than a personal insult to you and naked greed on the part of eBay. So be it. I don't share that worldview.

 

 

I am saying your observation is flawed. How does a seller profit more by selling an item less than it is worth and charging more than shipping cost lol.

 

You're right, I can't argue that. Because I didn't.

 

I honestly can't even follow what you mean to pin on me, here.

 

Again at the end of the day an item is only worth what a buyer will pay and that total cost is sale price plus shipping. You can't argue that.

 

And again, I didn't.

 

And again, you fail to see that this implicitly provides ground from which to argue that fee assessment need not differentiate between "item" and "shipping" pricing should one choose to take up that position.

 

 

EDITS: whitespace. wording. admission of incomprehension.

Edited August 8, 2017 by mumbai

[Andromeda Stardust]

get a room you two...

[mumbai]

get a room you two...

 

 

Yeah, it wandered far off-range from the original subtopic. Sorry.

[icemanxp300]

One counter example would be sellers with items of a certain weight or set of dimensions that want to charge going rates but not flat rate and so opt for calculated shipping. Or am I mistaken in thinking that?

 

This example could actually cause a seller to profit less on a transaction and still pay the same fees. I'm in NY if I sell an item in a live auction and it is only worth $50 shipped and someone in Ohio buys it for $40 with $10 calculated shipping I'm making $40 minus fees. However if I sell that same item and someone from California wins it for $30 plus $20 shipping, I'm only making $30 profit. That is not likely to happen but could.

 

This is one reason why I will not do live auctions and only Bin's. For something like this I would do a bin for $40 w/calculated shipping. Which basically ensures only a local buyer will buy from me and I don't have to pay twice as much for my shipping.

 

There really is no scenario where a seller is going to profit more by charging s/h that is higher than their actual cost. Lets end this bickering and just give me an example of how a seller will profit off s/h. Maybe they get lucky and find some noob who will pay them $10 for an item plus $40 shipping when they can literally buy it normally for $30 shipped, simply because they are the only listing on that day. However that uneducated buyer would have also purchased that same item if seller had it listed for $50 free s/h.

 

There is a BIG difference in over charging what an item is worth and splitting up what an item is worth between cost and shipping.

[Good_Times]

get a room you two...

 

I had an 'angry/repressed kissing' gif at the ready....beat me by minutes....

 

Well done.

[mumbai]

As I noted above, I accept that this conversation at this point contributes nothing to its original intended purpose in service to the greater thread.

 

 

There really is no scenario where a seller is going to profit more by charging s/h that is higher than their actual cost.

 

That statement makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Lets end this bickering and just give me an example of how a seller will profit off s/h.

 

No need, as it wasn't even the original point of my replies. I see no reason to continue trying to convince you otherwise.

 

 

There is a BIG difference in over charging what an item is worth and splitting up what an item is worth between cost and shipping.

 

Again, you're arguing points that are inconsequential, and furthermore, moving the goalposts of the original discussion yet again to prove something, though I know not what.

 

 

I'll repeat: Kosmic Stardust and Good_Times are correct that this subthread serves no purpose with the direction it's taken. I'm content to just let it die.

 

 

EDIT: typo.

Edited August 9, 2017 by mumbai

[Andromeda Stardust]

I had an 'angry/repressed kissing' gif at the ready....beat me by minutes....

 

Well done.

I'd like to see it anyway...

[Austin]

I'd like to see it anyway...

 

Same here.

[Good_Times]

I'd like to see it anyway...

 

 

 

Same here.

 

[Flojomojo]

I have used Game Gavel as a selling platform for a few years and have had success with it. I've had 250+ transactions. I think because so few people used it, my listing really stood out. I was the only seller selling imports. I made a little storefront page and I would just link people from my facebook or twitter. I don't think many people just stumbled upon GG but I could point them toward it. And I had no fees other than paypal, which was my reason to use it over ebay.

 

On the negative side, GG could be fickle and it was often down or buggy. Sometimes several weeks would pass when it was down and I couldn't even log in to check my sales. I am looking forward to seeing what the new owner does with the site. From my point of view, I wold be happy if they just kept the existing site bug free. I hope that the redesign is not so drastic that I have to relist everything from scratch.

 

I know a lot of people had no luck with GG in the past, and I don't mean to downplay anyone else's experiences, but just saying it worked out well for me and I remain cautiously optimistic that it will continue to do so.

 

Serious question: what did GG give you that you couldn't do yourself with a simple web shop?