08-14-2013 10:02 PM
Return preferences
Do you want to use eBay’s return process? Yes
Do you want to use your Return Merchandize Authorization (RMA) number instead of eBay’s unique return identifier? Yes
Do you receive returns at multiple addresses? Yes
Tried to DISABLE this crap, wont work.
I never enabled it, it was disabled, apparently this has happened to others as well.
More eFailbay problems...
08-15-2013 06:24 PM
In the first link - the one for managed returns - it specifically allows for the buyer to return becuase they changed their minds (i.e., buyer's remorse) ::
The second link - buyer protection - specifically states that buyer remorse isn't covered under Buyer Protection - so, if you don't accept returns, Buyer Protection won't force you to take on for remorse - again, we all recognize this is foolish and better covered with a good returns policy, but . . .
Emphasis added is mine
So you accept returns for buyers remorse if you accept returns?
08-15-2013 06:36 PM
Short answer - yes - if your policy is that you accept returns, you have to accept them for buyer's remorse.
The Managed Returns policy makes that clear, but so does the "Creating your return policy" policy (that sounds weird) http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/return-policy.html
"If you accept returns, a buyer can return an item for any reason, including when they change their mind about a purchase—as long as the return meets the return requirements—for example, returning an item within your stated time frame, and meeting item condition requirements"
That said, you are fee to make buyer's remorse uneconomical (make them pay shipping both ways, charge a restock fee, etc.) - but those approaches have commensurate risks.
08-15-2013 06:38 PM
For what it's worth, I think managed returns will be required soon too. I get very, very few returns and most of my items cost no more than $3-5 dollars to ship. So, if I have to bite a couple of return shipping costs, I guess it's OK.
People that sell larger, heavier items may be just killed. I am guessing that nearly every return will be for SNAD if buyers figure out the postage will be paid by the seller that way.
08-15-2013 07:03 PM
Equallly interesting - if you use managed returns and the buyer returns for "item not as described" - you eat the shipping BOTH ways, no ifs, ands, or buts - and no restocking fee is allowed. From the managed returns policy:
When the item isn't as described:
If a buyer returns an item because it's not as described in the listing, arrives damaged, or is missing parts, then your refund to the buyer equals:
Total purchase price (including the cost of the item, any other charges, and any sales tax paid by buyer) + Original shipping (if paid for by buyer) = Total refund
In these situations, you can't charge a restocking fee and you're required to pay for the return shipping charges. If the buyer used alternative shipping arrangements, you're expected to refund the buyer for those agreed-upon charges through PayPal or another payment method.
For now at least, the Buyer Protection Policy outside of the Managed Returns policy has the buyer paying return shipping, but the seller is still on the hook for original shipping and can't charge a restock fee. "Return shipping will be at the buyer's expense."
08-16-2013 12:26 AM
08-16-2013 01:36 AM
08-16-2013 04:53 AM
@mintrobmint wrote:
BMR...doesn't that absolutely contradict what I posted in post #6..?
So wait...
Ver:1 if theres a SNAD..seller pays return shipping! No matter what
Ver:2 if theres a SNAD..seller pays return shipping "unless seller".."specifies"..buyer pays return shipping.
So....?.....uh....you gotta be "specific"...or is it automatic?
I have a better chance at finding the KFC original recipe "recipe" than understanding all this nonsense!
I agree its confusing . . . the way i read it (doesn't mean this is what they meant to say) - is that if you use managed returns you can set who pays, add terms (restocking fee, etc.), but if they claim SNAD - none of it matters.
If you don't use managed returns - then on SNAD, they still pay return shipping . . .
I expect more SNAD abuse in the future, better start pricing it in now.
08-16-2013 03:03 PM
08-16-2013 03:18 PM
08-16-2013 03:53 PM
@adf07bid wrote:
CSR says Managed Returns will be MANDATORY for all sellers in October.
http://community.ebay.com/t5/Clothing-Shoes-Accessories/CSR-says-Managed-Returns-will-be-MANDATORY-f...
Even if this is accurate (jury's still out on that) - you can still opt for "no returns" . . .
What I will say is that this discussion has me more and more looking at managed returns as a positive vice a negative . . . tho I haven't decided yet.
08-16-2013 03:58 PM
08-16-2013 05:32 PM
@adf07bid wrote:
since I can not afford to pay for returns every time someone feels like it, and buyers learning that they can return whenever they want FOR FREE would certainly increase the chances of returns.
all they have to do is claim SNAD, and the return postage is on us.
Well aBid, some time ago, when eBay introduced putting an "Average" completed price on auctions while they were still running, quite the uproar was heard here at the forum. I'll say the same thing now as I did then, let's see how it plays out before we go into "Chicken Little Hysteria".
The sky is falling!
Just so ya know, I took quite a tongue lashing the last time I posted Chicken Little...And that "Average Price Paid" went the way of the dinosaurs. You have to understand, if I had a buck every time I read about how this new policy or that new rule will bring about the demise of eBay I would retire to 2M2M's beach house, quite a wealthy man.
08-16-2013 05:58 PM
08-16-2013 06:18 PM
@adf07bid wrote:
Who said that this would "bring about the demise of ebay" ?
Ok, you got me, I embellished as much as you.
@adf07bid wrote:
since I can not afford to pay for returns every time someone feels like it, and buyers learning that they can return whenever they want FOR FREE would certainly increase the chances of returns.
all they have to do is claim SNAD, and the return postage is on us.
http://pages.ebay.com/sellerinformation/news/returns.html
08-16-2013 06:36 PM