Locked
Discussion interactions are currently paused.
eBay Lays Off ~1000 Employees, CEO Blames Macroeconomic Headwinds, Expenses Outpace Growth
Breaking news: eBay is laying off 1,000 employees, about 9% of workforce. CEO Jamie Iannone says headcount and expenses are outpacing growth.
Exact details about specific areas affected have not been disclosed, so not sure what the impact on sellers will be yet but...this does not bode well for the Q4 report in my opinion. 👀
https://www.ebayinc.com/stories/news/ensuring-ebays-long-term-success/
We are on a path to building a stronger eBay for the future — one that is growing, and resilient in the face of any challenge. Over the past three years, we made fundamental changes in our experiences across categories and accelerated the pace of innovation at eBay. In areas where we’re investing, we are seeing consistent increases in customer satisfaction and a meaningful improvement in our growth relative to the market.
Our strategy is the right one, but there is more we can do to ensure our success. We need to better organize our teams for speed — allowing us to be more nimble, bring like-work together, and help us make decisions more quickly. Today, I am sharing news about changes we are implementing to better position eBay for long-term, sustainable growth.
The most significant and toughest of these decisions is to reduce our current workforce by approximately 1,000 roles or an estimated 9% of full-time employees. Additionally, we plan to scale back the number of contracts we have within our alternate workforce over the coming months. These are not actions we take lightly — and we recognize the impact they will have on all eBayers. We have to say goodbye to people who have made so many important contributions to the eBay community and culture, and this isn’t easy.
The Need for Change
Despite facing external pressures, like the challenging macroeconomic environment, we know we can be better with the factors we control. While we are making progress against our strategy, our overall headcount and expenses have outpaced the growth of our business. To address this, we're implementing organizational changes that align and consolidate certain teams to improve the end-to-end experience, and better meet the needs of our customers around the world.
valueaddedresource
OP2 years ago@mam98031 @vintagecraze50 yes, I was only talking about the deferred prosecution agreement eBay signed with the DOJ on the criminal side of the cyberstalking case.
For clarity on the $64 Million - that was an amount set aside for potential losses related to the cyberstalking case as well as EPA and DEA investigations into illegal or restricted items being sold on the site.
From eBay's 10-K filed with SEC on December 31, 2022:
I think many of us (myself included) naturally figured the bulk of that would be in relation to the cyberstalking because what happened to the Steiners was so egregious - and maybe (hopefully) there will be a much larger number in play by the time the civil case resolves.
But wait..there's more!
In a 10-Q filed with SEC on September 30, 2023, eBay disclosed they added another $50M to the pot, bringing the total set aside for these legal matters so far to $114 Million.
That additional amount likely reflected the fact that they were in negotiations on the criminal side of cyberstalking case, close to resolving that and this DEA deal, so they had a better idea on those numbers, but since they've chosen to fight the EPA suit (for now) and the civil side of the cyberstalking is still ongoing, there's still a lot up in the air.
So $3 Million to to government for criminal cyberstalking and $59 Million to the government for pill machines knocks out $62M, leaving $52M still set aside for the EPA case and civil side of cyberstalking...and of course more could be added in future disclosures.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoRight. The 3 mil is gone already to the government. That was what I was referring to.
frankenhobbit
·2 years agoOK, I admit I am lazy and not going to read through nearly 300 responses, especially the lengthy pontification ones.
BUT, I would imagine more than 1000 people quit working for ebay every year. So 1000 layoffs could easily be achieved by attrition anyway. Lay off 30 percent of your staff? Newsworthy. 1000? Snoozeworthy.
cool.jewels.by.jeff
·2 years agoI blame the CEO and the failed business model they continue to push
ittybitnot
·2 years agoFrom what I just read, those "macroeconomic headwinds" just turned into something more in line with "tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunami or two"
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoFunny. Is there an evacuation order yet?
bctk5292
·2 years agoMore expenses.
eBay to pay $59m over illegal pill press sales
eBay has agreed to pay $59m over claims it sold equipment that can manufacture illegal drugs.
The US Justice Department had alleged that thousands of pill presses and encapsulating machines were sold on the site, including to people who were later convicted of drug-related crimes.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoI just heard it on the news. Also 3 million on criminal charges for the Steiner episode, ands we wonder why people are getting laid off. What a bleeping mess that is.
valueaddedresource
OP2 years agoAnd don't forget there's still the EPA lawsuit hanging over their heads too. So far they are fighting it....using some very expensive outside council from the same firm that defended Volkswagen and Chrysler during their emissions scandals and also BP in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoKnow why Deepwater happened? Movie is complete farce.
Short of it:
Gulf has high pressure rivers of oil connecting lakes of oil (basically). One was located and Russia sent drilling equipment to Cuba and they began drilling. Well that river run between oil owned by Gulf Corp. and Shell Corp. respective. Rather than have Cuba have wealth BP/Halibutt (LOL! Oh you know who!) start drillin' upstream. Gulf/Shell filed international courts stop it. When it was saw via Satt's that BP was laying down the concrete and well heads pressure ramped up in speeding the proceedings. Now that concrete takes months to fully setup and when the dates moved up they decided punch through having not done some critical testing. K-wrap loads of methane hydrates released and the concrete had not fully cured. The entire rig was lifted two feet into the air on what amounts to pipe about the size of sewer pipe what run through you're streets. Was the explosion, piping buckled, well head foundation broke and bammo.
Now they also to speed drilling drilled into a salt dome, area where geographic plating meet hence the salt collection. Salts very stable except when smashed. Well the pipes twisting and arching under the weight of the rig fractured the salt dome and hydrates started bubbling up all over the place. That's the "Cave" they spoke of and issues of hydrates impacting any type containment.
My ex-politician of a lady was all over it. There's MUCH more of course. But Poly-Tickly was all about Cuba not pumping oil hence the involvement of Hallibut Inc. (LOL but not so much...)
mam98031
·2 years agoYes, this was share at least a couple times on this long thread. Ebay has had something like 64 million set aside for at least a couple of years to pay for what they felt was coming on the horrendous treatment of the Steiners'.
"EBay has set aside $64 million to cover potential liability from the Steiners' case, a potential related settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and some other unrelated matters."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/couples-case-over-ebay-stalking-campaign-can-move-forward-us-judge-rules-2023-12-13/#:~:text=EBay%20has%20set%20aside%20%2464,The%20case%20is%20Steiner%20v.
chapeau-noir
·2 years agoMost corps have a cookie jar fund set aside to pay off lawsuits. I mean, we're not talking about keeping cash in shoeboxes - corps have enough money to pay failed CEOs like Wenig multi-millions just to fulfill a stupid sign-on contract and get rid of them. $64 mil is chump change.
mam98031
·2 years agoIDK if that is "chump change" for the purposes the fund is intended. The Steiners' will certainly win big, but we just have no idea of how much that will be.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoYep, I know. What a waste of resources for one of the most incredibly stupid acts in history.
kensgiftshop
·2 years agoI read last night where UPS is going to lay off 12,000.
I have a feeling it's going to get a lot worse before things get any better.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoUPS is a cow and has been for quite a long time. I know people who work for both UPS and FedEx and to the shipper or receiver both appear quite similar yet really they are not.
Within days we're going to see Amazons Q4 results and I bet they are going to be impressive and in a few weeks Walmarts and others. I'm going to say Walmarts are going to be impressive. eCommerce has changed and this is what sellers will not get through their skulls in as far as those areas where third party sellers have control over their finite selling.
It'd be interesting to see the numbers past/present of how Amazon's fulfillment has impacted the freighting companies. I know they were or perhaps still are the USPS #1 customer bar none. Walmart is the other big player on the stage now and the companies own logistics have been the envy of the entire retail sector for ages and they've leveraged it in very big fashion towards their online endeavors.
UPS contract with the Postal Service is also up this year I believe, August or September I believe I read someplace several months back. That could be an impactor towards these layoffs. Forward facing press releases seldom tell the full story.
FedEx is seeking drivers all over the country and whilst Amazon has had layoff's that too appears regional matters per se. Where I live Amazon has bought up small regional shipping/receiving operations and they cant get enough drivers. It's part in fact of what caused postal service disruptions over the holidays. Amazon was dropping "Heavies" at main postal offices and in doing so that all has to be revenue loss for the company. But the volume so great Amazon's own to door fulfillment couldn't handle the volume which is why I predict their Q4 is going to exceed expectations and it also speaks towards where consumers are spending, same of Walmart.
mam98031
·2 years agoYes, lots of companies are sadly having layoffs this year. Some are UPS [as you stated], Ebay, Etsy, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Macy's, PayPal and more.
gloryglorygifts
·2 years agoWow. now that's a high number. I guess the union shot itself in the foot with demands for wage increases. Interesting to see how this plays out.
voguevintage
·2 years agoIf expenses are outpacing growth look for them to gut seller protections in the coming months...
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoThere is not much of that anyway that is not a big part of the problem IMO.
bennotbill
·2 years agoHow would anyone notice.
mam98031
·2 years agoBecause while many of us firmly believe Ebay could do better in this area, there are some protections that are very helpful to sellers. They may not be protections you have been able to take advantage of, but others have.
bennotbill
·2 years agoI assume we are talking about proof of delivery. I've always found that an odd one to come under the "protection" banner. As a seller I sell something and have proof of delivery.
So sometimes I'm not quite sure where the protection comes in and for who. For instance say proof or not eBay refunded regardless with an INR. How would that pan out for eBay? Is the protection here really for eBay?
mam98031
·2 years agoYou are correct, INR protection for sellers that follow the rules can be very good. If the tracking shows delivered or attempted to be delivered or buyer refused or some other reason that the buyer chose not to pick up the package, it all equals delivered. And the seller would be covered if the buyer opened an INR.
And really that is how it should be. On the rare occasion the buyer gets a seller that is misbehaving and does the scam of shipping something to someone else in their zip code. The buyer can gather the evidence that it happened, get it is written form from the carrier, file and INR, submit the evidence and if the evidence is clear on what transpired, the buyer can win the INR. And that is how it should be with a misbehaving seller.
I've personally had this happen, that is what I did and I won the INR even though the tracking said delivered.
But that is not the only seller protection on Ebay. While there admittedly are not many others and none as good as the INR protections, there are others that still exist. Still a world of space for Ebay to improve on Seller Protection, of that there is no doubt.
Partial refunds for issues with the item returned is a good protection for sellers if used within the rules.
mam98031
·2 years ago@voguevintage
That would be unlikely. Seller Protection isn't that expensive of a program for them. There would be other places that would come under fire long before Seller Protection.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoAnd on my news feed, UPS is laying off 12,000 human beings.
As I said in prior posting I recently acquired a brand new pack of underwear from Walmart after an associate released it from its plexiglass anti-theft cage. I get my underwear in January as that way "That good feelin' " goin' towards a new year (Ya'll know what I sayin'). Now I'm thinkin' maybe I ought better double down and get my investments in early on TP and Hand Soap.
gloryglorygifts
·2 years agoYou just never know if there is a reorg going on at the same time, tho. I remember, back in the 1980's, I had a job interview and before I left to go to it my Mom called me and asked are you going to blank bank today for the interview? I said yes. She said they just announced on the t.v. that they are laying off 7,000 people. I ended up working there for 5 years. There may be a positive side to this that the media is not savvy to.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years ago... and meanwhile The National Association of Manufactures, Partnership for Safe Medicine (this past month) and the not so friendly friends to legit product resellers the AAFA (American Apparel and Footwear Association) just today press release calling for fast passage of Shop Safe. Just came on my news feed.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years ago@mam98031
So you're saying eBay is both card processor (aggregate) and merchant of record processing in the USA?
Below please find the link to interview with Alyssa Cutright who worked for PayPal and essentially help lead the design of managed payments.
https://www.protocol.com/fintech/ebay-managed-payments-alyssa-cutright
You will notice:
"Under the new system, sellers just have an eBay account. To make this happen, eBay built its own checkout and payments process which uses Adyen on the back end. (eBay and PayPal agreed to keep PayPal as a payment option for consumers, but the proceeds now go to the merchant's bank account, not a PayPal account.)"
.... and a little further down ....
"When Cutright got to eBay in July 2016, she spent her first six months educating the executive team and board on the payments landscape and options and what other marketplaces do, and recommended a strategy. In January 2018, eBay announced it would have its own payments system, with Adyen as payments processor. The goals: lower cost, more simplicity, higher conversions. And of course, more revenue for eBay."
Adyen is the "Aggregate Processor" just as when I was with EMS Systems for my first merchant account Wells Fargo was the aggregate processor. When I moved to Card Service International they did both, they were my merchant account provider and the aggregate processor.
When I was with EMS Systems say a chargeback happen say for $10, instantly cost me $75. That'd be $25 to EMS Systems (processing fee), $25 Wells Fargo (Processing Fee) and $25 from Chase Manhattan (my bank) as fee to reserve those $10 dollars. Now if I want respond to the chargeback to defend against it, another $25 fee to EMS Systems but they do not mitigate dispute. The aggregate in case I am showing mitigates dispute (Wells Fargo). If my merchant account provider EMS at the time mitigated chargeback dispute obviously they are biased towards me, the merchant, their customer. On the other side the consumers bank obviously will be in bias favor of their customer hence why Wells Fargo an independent entity mitigate dispute. Also why even if I won a chargeback the cardholder could file another one on the same transaction, cost me another $75.
Now I switched to Card Service International and I did so because it reduced the chargeback fee's. Instead of being $75 it turned into $50 and there was no additional $25 per response back to a CB. Reason being it was electronic versus paper. When I asked Card Service about structure as with EMS it was Wells Fargo who managed dispute, not EMS nor the cardholder bank. Card Service told me they are aggregate processor have a completely independent arm of merchant account provision.
Now in this article noted above it says there are some 400 eBay employee's working risk management but it doesn't clarify what they do but the article clearly states Adyen is the payment processor.
The article links this:
https://www.ebayinc.com/stories/news/ebay-to-intermediate-payments-on-its-marketplace-platform/
Which in first sentence says, "eBay has signed an agreement with Adyen, a leading global payments processor, to become its primary payments processing partner."
Maybe eBay has some sort of hybrid system in place?
Not that any of it matters to sellers per se "who does what" it simply sparks my interest as an engineer towards structure. But that said you can see where I'm coming from. Adyen is a aggregate card processor (they process cards) and a merchant account provider. As such connecting in eBay payments to Adyen card processing if laws say in the USA were to change requiring any online hard goods businesses if accepting cards to have their own merchant accounts eBay would be positioned with Adyen to provide that capability rapidly.
mam98031
·2 years agoThis is hijacking this thread and since the conversation is really getting or going no where, I politely bow out. I simply don't see the point.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoNot really especially if some of those 400 people in risk assessment/management were laid off and towards eBay's future noted in the press release the company has goals towards being more agile etc. Doesn't get much more agile. eBay has to be concerned over Shop Safe and I am 110% positive that in the DC talks merchant processing has come into the equation. Counterfeits are being paid for by the same mechanisms used in marketplaces be they Mamazon or elsewhere so, yeah, its hugely relevant.
mam98031
·2 years agoHonestly you are talking about stuff to me that is really far fetched and simply a waste of time to discuss. Now if you are saying that some of the lay offs Ebay is doing is going to have an impact on what you previously described, then they have far more ability to affect current laws than I would have ever imagined.
We just need to agree to disagree.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoDont know who's been laid off. Some of those 400 in risk management being laid off could be an impactor. Maybe some of those folks dealt with Feedback removals, hunting down sellers or buyers doing many chargebacks for evaluation. Subjective of course but not irrelevant.
If I were in the shoes of the board and CEO my biggest concern right now be Shop Safe and how to move onus unto sellers versus the corporation. Requiring they hold merchant account be a huge step in that direction.
chapeau-noir
·2 years agoIt would kill the site, though.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoWell sure wouldn't help it in as far as revenues at least in the short term IMHO. Essentially right now every sellers has a merchant account without having a merchant account. The obscurity however that exists now would be removed perhaps in accordance with INFORMS so the merchant of record now is clearly shown on cardholders statement. Removing obscurity MIGHT make counterfeit sellers think twice for example as there now exists direct records paths removing ambiguity.
I dont know... I'm reaching at clouds but that's what many a programmer do, don't tend be linear in thought processes, have to see things in a bigger scope as well as linear scope. "Top down" not "Bottom up" thought processes as top down the additional thought threads glare out versus bottom up where the entire goal is get to the top and tend miss things, hence why Top Down engineering is the way things done these days like "Mobile First."
Corporations need deal with today, yesterday is past and chart path to the future given the hordes of information available with insight about what is both likely will happen and might happen weighting them in decision making and policies.
Top Down is the reason I see eBay rather differently than most who to me seem in a bubble. I see mirror like bubbles in political forum I help moderate at times albeit a far far far larger scale than these forums. I see eBay as a company whos very birth allowed folks chart a path they create on a scale that humanity never witnessed before in human history. For years on end expertly navigating treacherous waters but now they are being punched from every conceivable angle and sellers blame the company when the punches are forcing them to become reactionary. Instead of being grateful sellers get angry. Buyers ripping off sellers which is happening everywhere, Walmart to Mamazon to Autozone and all between but someone that's eBay's fault it happening here. Sellers selling things that not to be sold, eBay's fault. No its not, Its a game of Whack A Mole when you realize 241,000 listings removed 365 days a year more or less those who've managed not be removed.
I've tossed many a concept out off top of my head and you as clearly a critical thinker have many a time counterpoint which I appreciate. Many minds are better than mine and yours is one of them.
With Shop Safe its one of those matters whereby sellers/buyers really need be speaking up to the powers that be. If it slides under the radar into law this all changes across the board no matter where online people want try sell. Normally I'd not be so rather "**bleep**" about such matters but I care about people and realize what as sellers that means to them, buyers as well and gratitude towards eBay shown or not. The fact the original legislation wanted fine based on Trademark and Trademark terms speaks very very loudly about ending it all with swipes of pens.
mam98031
·2 years agoYou are making assumption I simply don't agree with. It isn't more complicated than that. You are absolutely welcome to your thoughts, ideas and opinions. I'm not trying to take away from that at all.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoAh NO. The poster is not making totally irrelevant posts regarding the issues. I really enjoy Retro’s posts because he/she takes a broad look at as many mitigating factors involved in e-commerce. He/she is obviously extremely intelligent and it’s good to have some intelligent conversations on here rather than the usually bash ebay folks on here. He/she obviously cares about the direction this company is taking and is one of my favorite posters here.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoThank you!
Amma' he. Not so sure about the egg-stream intelligent part everhow. I learned a ton from my ex, a politician about how to view things along w/ my programming background. She make's me look like a "Dog" walk in the park but I appreciate the kind words.
Everything is multifactorial, there is little simple in the world yet simple is how most folks like things to be. I prefer the simple over the complex but to ignore the complex more often than not results in ill informed blindness per se. This is how America ends up with two Presidential Candidates that most any nation on the planet would deem unacceptable yet here we are. One of those situations where we need every former President who has passed away to Zombie resurrect from the grave storming DC offices and more with a device that turns any bad legislators into Salt Cubes.
What's happening or has happened past at eBay is multifactorial. Whilst some care bash the CEO that too displays a level of ignorance quite frankly. A corporation operates and makes decisions upon many more folks than solely a CEO. Its similar to a President, bash or praise a President for inheriting failings or successes of past Presidents, makes little sense there are many many other people involved. Yet both President or CEO realize "the buck stops here" because the lions share of folks are linear thinkers and usually pretty short-sighted at that. Most folks at least in America want be Judge, Jury and Executioner on just about any topic but the keyword is "Opinion," but in reality more like, "Blind Opinion."
"Oh the CEO of eBay makes 13 MILLION DOLLAR SALARY! CAN YOU FATHOM THAT?"
Yeah, easily... Dont mention the fact average for a Pro Baseball Player in the USA is 4.9 Million Dollars for swinging a stick at a ball and/or catching it for 26.5 weeks a year. The highest player right now is 70 Million a year on a 10 year contract ($700M).
Its like so let me get this straight, there are pickers here who do better than a million or two a year who's extent of knowledge wouldn't get them in the door of Walmart as a Store Manager nor branch manager at any bank on the planet. But yep, they know better than the CEO that sits atop the mechanism by which they earn that money. Hmmm?
If I had the skills and I am not in the same league by any stretch of the imagination of eBays CEO, CMO, CFO or any of the "O's" at 13 Million living in California w/ cost of living there? I'd be like "You serious?"
The CEO of Hertz Rent A Car is $182M, CEO of Pinterest is $123M as rather high end examples.
Ask most sellers what would you do to solve the problems in the place as CEO assuming said CEO had sweepings powers which most dont. "Oh I'd put it back where it was 10 years ago."
Oh really? So by year two after that fallback in "Today's times" be out of business or regulated out of business. Why do people think that way, "Because back then I as a seller made more money!"
Sweet! But ya' better roll back Temu, Walmart Online, Amazon, every retailer who's made positive alterations in eCommerce, make sure to talk to God so he knows Covid is completely unacceptable. Perhaps the Board of Angels will replace him if he doesn't. He also needs to roll back everyone's age by 10 years, I prefer 20 but hey... Call me an optimist. Oh yeah, that Putin guy, maybe in the ten year rollback we can change history and have him be the worlds first Martian.
Now how silly does that sound? It sounds just as silly as "Well eBay needs be what they were 10 years ago! Cuz' I'm like the Oracle of things!"
Another few facets I love and have heard from sellers over the ages is, "Oh so unfair!", "Money grabbers!", "Outrageous fee's" etc. Really? Whilst they trundle Flea Markets, Thrifts, Yard Sales often finding treasures sold for hundreds or thousands percentiles above what they paid but the equation of "fair" to those whom they've bought from doesn't enter into the equation. At the Yard Sale whereby Mom and Pop have a box full of Juniors old Boxed Nintendo Games at $5 each the resellers go rabid even to point of arguing with each other about WHO has RIGHTS by LAW of "I left my wallet in the car but saw them first" (well known as First Saw Doctrine!). You won't see em' sayin', "Mam' these are worth $3000 I'll give you $1500 versus the $150 at you're price." OH NO! That would break another law known as the, "Too bad I am great doctrine."
I mean really its comical. Some day in the future when Mankind has undergone major evolution there will be the Global Science Museum. Mom, Dad, Junior and Sis will go in there atop the gravity chairs and there sits the display, "The DNA of what was once known as Modern Man" and lil' Sis is gonna pipe up, "Gee Mommy it sure smells bad!" LOL.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoI like your point about people tending to see things from a very rudimentary perspective. It’s not that simple. It’s not solely the CEO absolutely. He has to operate among many others and whatever is happening with everything outside the company. Personally, after Wenig left and with all the meddling of that investment company I think this guy has a lot of courage to have stepped into all of it.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoI would wager to say that being CEO at eBay be QUITE the formidable task likely in fact a unique one among CEO's. Most CEO's in turdday's world don't have anti-pleasure of trying to make everyone happy across an enormous global landscape of sellers, buyers, Poly-Ticks, Manufacturers, law enforcement, Shareholders, tailers, trailers and retailers. I mean think about it?
Ever see the DiCaprio movie "The Man in the Iron Mask?" If I were named CEO I'm gonna need me one of them. I'd have to communicate via pencil and paper and take up a fulfilling hobby like Voodoo Doll Making.
I'm sure there are more difficult and challenging CEO positions in corporations around the world but to be honest I can't think of any. Not a one. CEO of anti-social media companies for example be a formidable challenge but when you consider that it too pales in compare. There's products, money changing, folks making a living and all that and wherever there is money movin' about among the global serfs well... You already know. Wars go on over socio-economics throughout history.
Its like I said before when you really take in breadth of what eBay is, its history, challenges and what the company has accomplished its remarkable. In fact, its way way way beyond remarkable.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoHe has huge challenges. And for my two cents worth, I am grateful to have been here as long as I have and have always felt that way. This website has offered opportunity for so many many people to thrive.
mam98031
·2 years agoI don't disagree with any of that. However some of what was being said is complete assumptions and huge leaps. Other things are more reasonable.
toomuchstuffagain35
·2 years agoBUT, more often than not, it's NOT the "reasonable" assumptions that come at you out of nowhere and slap you into the middle of next week.
mam98031
·2 years agoI understand that too. But there are certain points in previous posts that are so far fetched. Other points are interesting and others are good. It is a mixture. I tried to create a conversation, but it went no where, so I withdrew from the conversation as it served no point. It is fine if you take exception with that. But I did not feel it was fair to derail the thread, so I stopped participating in the conversation.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoWhat's a huge leap? Sellers having to have merchant accounts to take payment via buyers cards?
That's the way things were prior to PayPal. Checks, Money Orders, Western Union not too awful long ago and if one sold at business to consumer sites had have merchant account. Why I'd got one back in the day, even Amazon didn't do payment processing. Sure fraud existed back then too, far far far more so in people trying to buy w/ stolen card and the ever ever so constant "Not Captured - Declined" card orders.
Now if you want talk about "Huge Leaps" well, thats Shop Safe Act amending Trademark law. THATS a LEAP, heck 20 years ago that'd be called "Lift Off of Shop Safe Two on its way to mangle open internet commerce before it's Lunar Landing some three weeks after."
mam98031
·2 years agoLet's not start misrepresenting what I have previously posted. That will get us no where except into a conflict. That is simply not necessary nor do I have the need or desire to go that direction. I bowed out of the conversation to avoid this.
I said NOTHING about what the payment options where prior to PayPal on Ebay.
chapeau-noir
·2 years agoThe Fed approved Adyen's application to establish a US federal branch license in San Francisco in 2021.
mam98031
·2 years agoYes, you are absolutely correct. I supplied that info along with a link to the article up thread.
my-cottage-books-and-antiques
·2 years ago"headcount has outpaced... Growth." As if headcount were not a direct result of management decisions. And growth? Management is directly responsible for the lack of site marketing in favor of narrowly focused niche marketing. And management is responsible for the fact that the only new focus category added since P+A was Street wear, which is really just targeting the existing sneaker buyer base. (This in a company which has staked it's future on focus category and enthusiast buyer expansion.
The problem isn't too many employees. The problem is they clearly have not been managed effectively.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoI can’t resist mentioning that this whole turnaround seemed prompted by Elliot Management when they stuck their big toes into this company. Walked away with their billions.
valueaddedresource
OP2 years ago@vintagecraze50 just to address your last few comments re: growth, confidence, and momentum - there are some very important things to consider with this strategy:
A.) What is the cost and where is the money coming from to pay that cost?
B.) Is it worth it?
As I described above, putting together acquisition costs, facilities and maintenance, wages (and everything else that comes along with having a large, hourly physical workforce) etc. and we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly over a billion depending on how much they spent to acquire Sneaker Con.
The acquisitions are of course one time major expenses but the ongoing costs of those types of operations are not insignificant and a lot of risks have been introduced that eBay simply did not have before Jamie decided to go down this path.
How has eBay paid for these significant costs? They charged 0% FVF to authenticated sneaker sellers for over a year to get that program up and running and when they finally went up to 8%, it slowed down momentum.
More recently they've tried to monetize the program on the buyer side by mandating a $14.99 shipping charge for all sneakers going to the authenticator, with eBay providing a shipping label that likely costs them much less than that and pocketing the difference. Many buyers have not been happy with the charge or the shipping services being used, and again that impacts momentum.
eBay is between a rock and a hard place - they've built this entire strategy around very expensive labor-centric operations and made the use of these services mandatory for qualifying items, but if they were to directly charge only the sellers or buyers of those items enough in fees to cover the costs, those buyers and sellers would very quickly go somewhere else.
So over the last few years, eBay has had to make up those costs in other ways like raising FVF either across all categories or in some instances just across the categories in question, but spread across items that don't qualify for authentication as well.
In effect, that makes those sellers have to subsidize the costs of a program they are not even directly benefiting from and of course, because they have to raise prices to absorb those increased fees, that raises prices for buyers on the platform across the board as well.
I could give many other examples, like how ad fees and marketing spend are also largely being funneled into those categories, but hopefully that makes the point.
Another side of this is to look at where job cuts were made - assuming those 28 Vegas jobs were authenticators, stack that up against ~130 software engineers (just in California).
I could make jokes here about the quality of eBay's software engineers (and it's certainly questionable 😂) but other things being equal, software engineers at least in theory could be doing things to improve the entire site for everyone whereas authentication has a much more limited potential value.
The fact is that "staying the course" is going to continue to be an expensive proposition and if eBay is unable to monetize these services directly, they will continue to have to find other ways to fund these operations - which will likely include continued subsidization with fee increases or passing the costs along to all buyers and sellers in various ways and/or continued cost cutting in other areas to prop up this strategy.
Jamie's story is all of this is A-OK because this strategy is bringing "enthusiast buyers" to the platform and that benefits everyone, even if they aren't in those categories - which leads to the hundreds of millions (billion?) dollar question - is it worth it?
Overall, eBay's GMV and Active Buyer stats would tend to indicate "no."
Specifically on the topic of "enthusiast buyers", they've yet to show any solid evidence of significant, sustained growth in this area - in fact, by CFO Steve Priest's own admission, those figures have stayed relatively flat at best over the last year+.
Q2 2022 - "Enthusiast buyers made up approximately 17 million of our active buyers in Q2...average spend among enthusiast buyers grew sequentially and remains over $3,000 annually."
Q3 2022 - "Enthusiast buyers accounted for approximately 17 million of our active buyers in Q3...average spend per user grew sequentially and continues to be healthy at over $3,000 per year."
Q4 2022 - "Enthusiast buyers accounted for over 16 million of our active buyers in Q4...average spend per enthusiast rose again sequentially and continues to be healthy at above $3,000 annually."
Q1 2023 - "Enthusiast buyers remained relatively stable sequentially at 16 million in Q1...and on average, spend approximately $3,000 annually."
Q2 2023 - "Enthusiast buyers was stable at 16 million in Q2...spend per enthusiast grew modestly year-over-year, averaging roughly $3,000 annually."
Q3 2023 - "Enthusiast buyers were also flat sequentially at 16 million. Spend per enthusiast was stable quarter-over-quarter at around $3,000 annually, but modestly year over year."
The concept that these programs could possibly increase consumer confidence in ways that benefit the entire site may not have been a bad one generally speaking, but it's important to look at the actual reality of eBay's execution of that concept.
I think a fair look at that reality paints a picture that is not nearly as rosy as the corporate word salad coming out of the C-suite would like us to believe.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoIndeed but the problems and escalations thereof are not going away and you're not reporting on them.
These open marketplaces have created enormously significant issues and its not Mamazon's or eBay's on and on fault. In fact I cant even imagine the open marketplace internet of today had the myriads of commerce venues twenty years ago still thrived in todays web. It'd be a global disaster.
Ask the question of how many people have shopped online for hard goods or engaged soft goods services online only to be ripped off. The numbers are just staggering and escalating, completely spilled into retail no less now on the consumer perpetrator portion of the equation. This is why I say eBay whom once upon a time was a very proactive and aggressive mover in online commerce has been forced into almost a completely reactionary mode. There are bad sellers all over the place, bad buyers all over the place, manufacturer wolves, rights holder wolves, licensed wolves .vs. unlicensed wolves in distributorships and retailers (online/offline), banking wolves, competitor wolves and that of nations wolves in government. Those are the volcanic entities not even tapping on those who less explosive.
Yes, its not just eBay but when you're the big fella on the block the magnitude of order scale in all of the above is formidable. I think Mamazon was caught completely off guard when in congressional hearings was named poster boy of counterfeit product sales. There is a global Hurricane swirling around eCommerce as we speak. Now how a company need react to that seller here are not taking into account yet should as its not eBay doing it. The company has stated in a years time they removed 88 million questionable listings, 241,000 on average daily 7 days a week that comes down to and that's not mention those not caught.
Manufacturers dont want gift eBay the information to be proactive and stop the bloodletting, why would they? Their claim is they don't trust eBay or any other entity short of those said manufacturers contract with their information to spot counterfeit products. If you ask Macy's or Walmart would you like see Mamazon's and eBay open marketplaces gone the answer be yes. If you ask most manufactures, rights holders, on and on the answer will tend be yes. So why would they gift these open marketplaces abilities to truly authenticate? It doesn't serve them, it serves consumers and sellers whom they dont want selling their stuff to begin with. Yet... People care fault eBay or even Mamazon for being "hard core on sellers" when in fact the venues are and have already been in said HURRICANE for years on end. The sellers live in their own bubble and don't much see nor care about anything except their bubble. EXACT same thing is true of at least American's lifestyles, its why we are and have been at a point the land has never been in since its Civil War which was about the economics of slavery. Here we are 150+ years later and STILL CANT get it right, "Oh that shouldn't be taught in school! Oh no no..."
As a not so funny aside... I was trained in human diversity by Xerox Corporation yet worked for our local district. In that training within the district I'm in support staff jack of all trades master of none. I'm taking these courses along with district administrators, Principals, Teachers, Assistant Superintendents, etc and from support staff there's just me and another who's a Black fella, he the only one there. So there's all this training and forum, facilitation on and on and the teacher of the courses is a Black woman. VERY impressive lady. So all these highly college educated folks bantering about in controlled forum yack-a-thon displaying or trying to their impressive educational prose. The black fella also in support services is scared to say a single thing, literally whilst all this banter go on and I stayed modestly in my support service cage as configured.
It was like the third day into the training and the "teach" had read everyone's varied statement from questionnaire we had to do on day one as homework. Questions as to our heritage, thoughts on racism on an on. Next thing I know she's singled me out asking me questions targeted based on my answers and I'm like, "Oh crud cakes!" It's like, "Can't I take the fifth amendment?" LOL.
So I have to stand up in front of all these folks who could squash my employment existence and tell them my families heritage which goes back to Eastern/Western Europe, WW II and before. She start pushin' me on my answers of which one was, "If college educated people charged with teaching the youth of our community can't get past nor integrate things so obvious they literally are Black and White then how as a community or nation can the values that are claimed so dear ever become truth in living reality."
OH MY GOSH! LOL. Want talk about Deer in the headlights! FORTUNATELY she gifted me the opportunity to express family heritage and more. By the time I was done I'd earned a level of respect beyond that of the fella who fixes wall plugs, fluorescent lighting, painting, various types of floor care, plumbing, HVAC etc. I was told by her I was one of the best students she'd ever had but not by her teachings per se but my clarity of the human condition.
Now towards eBay all that diversity is here too but just as I did in those human diversity classes sellers need move out of their bubble and they may not be comfortable. Have to see things with broader vision and really at least as America goes the same with the state of this nation and the world. Anything other than that the powers that be are doing to do it for them and that's where we are. People feel powerless inside their bubbles and are in those bubbles by choice.
Shop Safe Act can end all of this and make no mistake that is its goal. Its initial offering would not been one of, "The Federal Government will fine any venue of hard goods sale whereby Trademark or Trademark Terms are used in offerings per ITEM." That's game over 110%. It is the biggest threat to all of you sellers pending make no mistake about it. Where is this being reported? Where are the Tuber's talking about this?
Sellers want pee all over eBay for being forced to be reactive due to what sellers do. Thats truth. That's reality. Someone might be a wonderful seller, fantastic but if they are sourcing at Walmart or Target, snarfing up Black Friday things to flip, impugning on the rights of other businesses who employ people who have families, bills and mouths to feed then well... Not so good after all.
OPEN THE VISION and THINK. eBay has to be everything to everyone who uses the site and how is that possible? They have to be the police, they have to the arbiter, they have to be buyer centric, seller centric, competitor on and on and on and on all under one roof and being punched on from every conceivable angle yet going to judge them? Pretty hard to do, walk a mile in the shoes. This is why for most part I've nothing but respect for this company and pretty much always have.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoOh yes Retro, all you say is true. I understand the moves ebay are making in reaction to this and all the stuff to come. And, as always, I appreciate your intelligent and humorous at times posts.
valueaddedresource
OP2 years ago@retro_entertainment_collectibles not sure what you mean about not reporting on it? I've definitely had a thing or two to say about SHOP Safe and many of the other things you mentioned here before.
As to the general gist of your post that eBay is simply being forced by external factors to be reactive because of bad sellers and the good sellers shouldn't "pee all over them" for it, well there's a lot of history there and eBay (and other marketplaces) have had decades to have been more proactive about those issues but they weren't so....here we are.
INFORM Act, SHOPSafe, IP infringement, stolen, counterfeit and dangerous goods and on and on...none of that happened in a vacuum and eBay isn't just some innocent bystander who now finds themselves being pummeled from multiple regulatory and legal sides with no responsibility for how things got here.
Of course, that's not to say eBay has done nothing about these issues, as you pointed out with the millions and millions of items that do get caught, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have done more proactively to "keep the wolves at bay."
Just as one example - eBay did not have to wait for the government to pass INFORM before doing more to vet and verify sellers on their platform.
Publicly displaying or providing that info to buyers could have been a whole other matter without explicit legislation, but there is no reason in the world they couldn't have required ID verification as part of the terms of service long ago.
They made a business decision for whatever their reasons were not to do so, which absolutely enabled all kinds of fraud and criminal activity to flourish on this platform unchecked for many years.
In some ways you could even make arguments that some of those decisions may have been *right* for the company - again none of this happens in a vacuum and from a business perspective eBay is always going to have to walk a fine line trying to balance trust and safety with the need to make selling on the platform as easy and friction free as possible for legitimate sellers.
So I'm not saying eBay has been entirely wrong in how they've handled some of these issues over the years, I'm simply saying they made intentional business decisions along the way that they must have believed benefitted them at the time and that some of those decisions may have had consequences that are partially responsible for where all of this has ended up today.
I think it's entirely appropriate to judge those decisions and we should hold them accountable for the part they've played in this whole mess, not just shrug our shoulders and say poor innocent eBay is being forced to do all these things by evil big daddy Government overreach and sellers just need to give them a break about it because...what are ya gonna do, right?
I'm not a fan of legislative or regulatory interference in markets generally but this whole issue is so much more complex than you describe and there is plenty of legitimate criticism to go around.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoRight. All along the way ebay has tried to make this a platform for everyone to benefit from financially. AND, NOT MAKE IT SOO DARN DIFFICULT TO DO SO. For the legitimate and good sellers that is has.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoAlso right in that there were some things that could have been implemented earlier on for the problem sellers.
toomuchstuffagain35
·2 years ago"Just as one example - eBay did not have to wait for the government to pass INFORM before doing more to vet and verify sellers on their platform."
They didn't require REAL vetting of sellers until they took over with Managed Payments.
It's always about the $$$
valueaddedresource
OP2 years ago@toomuchstuffagain35 yep and all of that was again not because eBay wanted to do it or thought it would provide a better/safer experience, they are required it to do it by Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering laws and regulations, which they knew would come into play when they made certain business decisions to handle Managed Payments the way they have.
Another example is sellers who use fake strike through pricing to present false discounts to buyers - it's rampant and blatant on this platform especially from some very large, well known brands in the daily deals section.
You can watch the pricing history and see they offer an item at one price for months, then increase the price literally minutes before their sale/coupon/strike through discount launches conveniently usually to the exact price needed to make it so the total "discounted" price exactly matches what the price had previously been so...no actual savings at all.
On the Australian site, eBay put a Comparative Price Policy in place in 2022 to deal with this exact issue and now in order to use strike through pricing there you can't increase the price within 10 days of the supposed "sale" and have to be able to provide documentation (receipts, sales history etc.) to confirm items were actually sold at the higher "previous price" within the last 6 months etc.
https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/eBay-Announcements/We-re-introducing-a-new-Comparative-pricing-policy/ba-p/2475564
https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/listing-policies/comparative-pricing-policy?id=4711
That change was not made out of eBay's concern for their buyers, it was made due to Australian consumer protection laws.
I know the argument will be here in the states it's still caveat emptor and buyers should do their own due diligence on these so called discounts....which I don't actually disagree with.
But I think there's a strong argument to be made that just because the legal stance should perhaps remain "buyer beware", that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate concerns about how these practices impact the consumer experience.
Again, eBay does not have to wait for a regulatory or legislative "nudge" - there is absolutely zero reason they couldn't say "we are aware that some sellers engage in this behavior, we acknowledge that it can create a negative experience for our buyers and so from x date, our user agreement will require sellers to abide by such and such policies on this matter."
There is also zero reason they couldn't very easily enforce such policies - they already have all the data they need to see price revision history on listings and actual sold price history on completed transactions and they could very easily use all that magical AI and automation to identify and flag sellers who repeatedly engage in these fake discounting shenanigans.
From there they could simply say for first violation, you lose the ability to use strike through pricing for x days on up to if you are a repeat offender, we will no longer allow you to do business on eBay....or a least that's what I would suggest if improving consumer confidence and trust was really that important to them (and it would cost a whole lot less than they've blown on authentication so far.)
But they likely won't do any of that any time soon. So if the day comes that the FTC steps in and/or new laws are created about pricing and discounts that make things more difficult for the legitimate sellers too, I certainly won't be celebrating that, but I also won't be saying "poor eBay" just got innocently blindsided by it either.
mam98031
·2 years agoWell that is rather incorrect, you seemed to have forgotten that when MP went site wide, that made Ebay our Money Processor, which made Ebay subject to more LAWS and regulations because they are now the money processor.
So while you want it to seem to be something else, 'vetting sellers', it isn't. It has to do with a change on the site that made the site responsible to comply with laws and regulations they were never responsible to do before.
toomuchstuffagain35
·2 years agoWhat it IS, is a fact, regardless of the reason.
When PayPal was the processor, ebay left it up to THEM to vet sellers (and buyers).
mam98031
·2 years agoThat is not true. I don't remember anytime in the past that Ebay vetted buyers, either on this site or PP.
PP didn't vet anyone either, at least not before all these laws started kicking in for Money processors. Now they have to do much more than they did before. It was not always like that.
While PP was our money processor for a few years, there are many years before that when there was no money processor. We could use snail mail for payments. There was no vetting of members except for them being at least 18 years old.
Now I am fine with being wrong, if you want to provide some details that are different, I'm always willing to listen and learn.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoThe processor is Adyen, eBay is essentially the Merchant account holder, merchant of record per se I'd estimate. I say estimate as it still is offshore of the USA. In the USA wouldn't happen, every seller would need a merchant account to accept cards or at least that used to be the case. Now with Venmo and such perhaps there are alterations that have happened but I've not sought any that info out.
This might well end up being one of the changes instead of Shop Safe, that US vendors to accept cards need have their own merchant account. That'll give all sorts of sellers a new education in the mass that really they are currently very shielded from not to mention direct accessibility via powers that be and probably somewhere in the area of 70% perhaps higher never qualify. Back when I'd the merchant account qualifications for online (Mail Order) required sourcing info validations (publishers in my case), new consumer product whole slew of hoops. Only via a retail setting could pre-owned anything be sold but that was then, now no clue. Cant use a in store type terminal as there is no AVS (Address Validation System) so had use either software ($1400 annual lease) or payment gateway which at least with EMS back in the day was $350 a month plus whatever the card processor interface software cost for a given point of sale. All sorts of hoops, secure printed records storage on and on and on.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoWell, let’s not even imagine that is going to happen yet. I know you are worried about this but I think that may not happen. EBAY AS MERCHANT IN QUESTION carries the load of the risk and reaps the profit from the processing payment.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoA lot of the things you bring up about this shop safe stuff would DESTROY several marketplaces. I am sure all of them will work to prevent that from happening.
mam98031
·2 years agoEbay [or any other money processor] is the MOR [merchant of record], we however stay the SOR [seller of record]. In our case here I don't believe Adyen is the MOR, I believe that falls to Ebay. Kind of like PayPal, they were the MOR, the bank that supported them [like Adyen supports Ebay] was not the MOR.
" I say estimate as it still is offshore of the USA." I'm not quite sure of what you are saying here. My guess would be you are talking about Adyen being located in a different country, which there parent company is, however they are also a US Bank.
"In the USA wouldn't happen, every seller would need a merchant account to accept cards or at least that used to be the case." I don't know what the first part of that sentence means. As to sellers having their own Merchant accounts. The majority of sellers would not qualify to have their own Merchant Account. We simply aren't big enough.
Venmo is money processor like so many other options out there. I'm not sure what you are driving at with this.
Ebay use to allow sellers to have Merchant accounts of their own. That changed when Ebay was preparing to launch Managed Payments. It is unlikely this option will ever return unless somehow Managed Payments failed and I'm uncertain as why it would, so you would need to enlighten me on your reasoning. I'm willing to listen.
I have not a clue as to what you are explaining about 70% of something.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoPoints well taken and most definitely we can attempt measure, I try not judge as I'm not in their shoes decisions made among company leaderships be that here, Etsy, Mamazon etc. Times change and trying protect a business from such matters be they bad sellers/buyers, counterfeiters, wolves without creating a condition that alienates the consumer public is a quite a significant task(s) and revenues count.
If we glance at Mamazon we see FBA and the ability to force vendors into using that creating a mechanism of validation. Here folks cite the expense and usefulness of authenticators. What I am saying is those pursuits were not one of want but of necessity. Why should Coach or other corporate manufacturers need scan a marketplace with a bazillion listings to locate product that shouldn't be sold? In their world no unauthorized entity short of an actual consumer under First Sale Doctrine should ever be profiting on their products.
As you noted, there are numerous sides to this topic and validity exists on all sides of that equation but ultimately it comes down to the actual sellers doesn't it? We don't hear them getting on the phone or sending certified mail to manufacturers saying, "Can I sell this?" They just do it. eBay getting into the authentication business is a reactionary result of sellers activities and thus mounting pressures. There are no solutions other than authentication as otherwise its simple he said/she said which still dominates the environment.
When speaking eBay eIS again, its not wholly some sort of money grab. Nations have the right to charge duty whereby people ask, "Can you write Gift" and if you don't expect a slam. They have the right to say what comes and goes from their borders in products and manufacturers have interests in many those nations. I don't know if you ever read the one large experience I'd had with that back in the day, software publisher called UBISoft. We were licensed with pretty much every publisher, Electronic Arts, Mindscape, Atari, on and on yet UBI said no in American licensing, we cannot buy product destined for authorized US points of sale. That due to sales domains whereby retailers or online retailers pay them to own a geographic sales domain. Making arrangement with us put them in contract breaches. Yet if I'd wanted, go to Gamestop buy em' and resell em' taking risk of legal action perhaps in doing so. Yet, UBI Canada no problem at all dealing with us, same company. Restriction, no sales in North America but fine selling it into Europe online but not to any retailer in the EU. Crazy huh?
Point being, the view of the terrain depends where one cares stand to look upon it and sellers dont tend to look at all. But then howl at the point of sale marketplace about what they do and dont do when in fact at the base of problems lay the sellers. Vetting sellers with ID's or INFORMS doesn't stop sellers only vetting product does and that's exactly what the places like the former iDeal Networks, Onsale, uBid used to do.
We have to onus where onus belongs and whilst eBay or Mamazon or others have made decisions be they good or bad in terms of short/long time is certainly discussion worthy but its past. Anyways its cut the roots of onus fall upon sellers, every seller in these forums might be 110% stand up watch the buy and sell to not impugn on consumers or rights holders yet likely not.
I've said for ages that a mutually beneficial round robin mechanism should exist between sellers, points of sale and rights holders whereby all have opportunity the right way. That looks like you're in a biz supported by say Coach whereby anything Coach goes to you to authenticate and sell creating a revenue share between all parties associated. Things dont have to adversarial but instead mutually beneficial.
But I cant point fingers at a venue when ultimately it at the roots of problems are sellers who simply are motivated in self-interest. I've said this before as well, I'd not be surprised if many a scammer buyer is someone who's been scammed and goes into a vengeance mode. That of course aside the current Gen-Z mix according to Mastercard that are some 60%+ of "friendly chargeback fraud" according to their statistics reported. Apparently they cannot afford wanted lifestyle so they'll simply take it.
When a company has to be nearly wholly reactionary things pinball. For a place like eBay due to an open environment we're talking extremely formidable tasks. Specialization focus is again a reactionary response to causations. There is the clear fact shipping expense is going to destroy significant sales of low ticket items so focus on the stuff that makes real revenues per purchase and that consumers want. Makes complete sense yet the sellers not vending those items see's it as "They dont care about us," yet those sellers dont howl at congressionals about the USPS or go to a competitor in masses saying, "Obviously the USPS rather than inducing changes such as bi-daily delivery doesn't want my business so... Buh Bye."
It's that squeeze every penny, the same squeeze every penny resulting in over valuations.
I dont even pretend know all the answers but what I do know is eBay would like every single transaction to be perfect for both sellers and buyers whilst not lawfully impugning on varied rights holders but many sellers simply dont care. It's a "Not my problem..." live in the bubble ordeal but it is.
There's all sorts of innocence and not in this whole mass of eCommerce open marketplaces spaghetti.
toomuchstuffagain35
·2 years ago" Someone might be a wonderful seller, fantastic but if they are sourcing at Walmart or Target, snarfing up Black Friday things to flip, impugning on the rights of other businesses who employ people who have families, bills and mouths to feed then well... Not so good after all."
What's the difference? A sale is a sale, right? And a reseller's $$ are just as bankable as anyone else's.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoRetro is putting this into the context of the “what if†scenerio if brands decide you cannot sell their product without authorization to do do. Even stuff you bought and then re sell. This impinges on the first right of sale law which says you can do whatever you want with something include sell it again if you bought it as long as you are not selling replicas or fake items by that manufacturer. This shop safe act is mainly to prevent people from selling counterfeits. But RETRO sees this going a step further where all these brands are going hoot and howl and get a law enacted that you cannot resell their products.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoYes and no... Its shifted. The original legislation that was put forth in Shop Safe served to fine any point of sale whereby trademark or trademark terms (such as say Subaru and "All Wheel Drive") are used to sell product by unauthorized sellers. The actual rights holders need not even complain, it simply be matter of law. Law firms all over hoot and creation stated its the end of the eBay's, Poshmark's on and on EXCEPT for Amazon as they are a retailer. They already have arrangements with manufacturers and towards third party supplier's (sellers) the company could adjust to FBA as source of intake for all third party goods. Thus Amazon never spoke a single word about Shop Safe as it effectively eliminate Amazon's competition.
Now, since that legislation was shot down one thing you're seeing are lawfirms more aggressive yet again about rights holders not simply citing, "counterfeit" but licensing to sell branded items as they can pivot on the Trademark stuff. First Sale Doctrine's origination had nothing do with resale for profit, intent to buy this/that to resell for profit.
Now Shop Safe has been reintroduced and the focus of it is counterfeiting yet while in part that was certainly part of the conversation of the original Shop Safe licensing and more was as well. You don't propose legislation that seeks to fine in this case we'll say eBay Corporation for every listing whereby unauthorized trademark or trademarked terms are used. That says EVERYTHING in as far as intent of said legislation, it was drafted to not only impact counterfeiting but licensing to even use trademark or trademark term in an offering.
Gonna sell a Beanie Baby, well that's a trademark term and eBay gets fined even though the manufacturer care less. "Tank Top" gonna be a trademark term and is used by many a manufacturer perhaps under license I don't know just as "All Wheel Drive" is a trademark term of Subaru yet many manufactures use the term, perhaps licensed, I don't know. But Shop Safe WAS if I happen to use any of those selling here on eBay, eBay's getting fined. They are not going to fine me... Oh no, imagine the court cases and voters?
Even the term "Shop Safe" all about "Selling the legislation to consumers..." Marketing of it to the public, damage done to businesses by counterfeits and in lesser tone unauthorized businesses....
Average consumer: "Ah, yea that sounds like a great idea!"
So they changed shop safe in attempt to get into law and from what I've been told once its law it's going to be amended. As with all law its harder to get it made into law than amend it once becomes law and of course much harder repeal it.
If you were to make a map of points of sale, all kinds. And the spots on that map are made up of pallets of colors, green, blue, red, different shades thereof that relate to consumer issues be they being defrauded, counterfeit, NAD, jut plain old problems... WHERE are the places on the globe online and off going to be VERY BRIGHT RED.
These same congressional committee hearings late last year, I watched em. Amazon got tagged as the poster boy of counterfeit sales... How much irony is in that considering they'd been the big winner if the original Shop Safe legislation had made it to law? Well that news went all over DC and elsewhere like a wild fire and that's why have saw them running up those Informercial spots all about how they are so very active in protecting consumers. A Chinese fire drill response literally.
I dont know where it all ends up but its there and its real and really sellers and consumers should be howling about it. Appears to me DC gonna just kinda try slide it in and go, "Oh by the way..." and shuffle the marketing campaign to consumers saying its all about protecting them and businesses. Ya' know? One of those laws goes on the books that nobody ever heard of until two weeks after it becomes law, "Oh starting in January of 2026..."
Now I dont think its imminent in that oh come January of 2025... UNLESS these issues become focal in the General Election. Since the proposed legislation has bi-partisan support likely not. If it gets to where they want it and where they want it be is clearly shown in its first offering Trademark and Trademark Terms its a Coup' D'état for manufactures, distributors and retailers.
Really, this is what the youTubers talking about.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoThanks for clarifying all of that. That is wild that Amazon got tagged like that the lesser of the sites as far as the restrictions they put on sellers there.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoRetro also notes that these brands and walmart and target etc certainly do not like being undercut on their goods so they may see it as a threat to their business. My thought on that is they will not be able to stop that. It could get to be a ridiculous law where your rights as a person are being manipulated by these mobster companies trying to prevent you from being able to sell your own property.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoThats exactly what it is but its not just the retailers, manufacturers, distributors, licensed authorized parties.
Now "Mobster Companies" is rather inaccurate but David and Goliath or as I said from the movie, "Erin Brockovich" more like David and Goliaths whole "<blank>" family in them fighting PG&E in the film.
Its not just the companies, billions of dollars of reported consumer fraud to the FTC/FBI and other authorities across the globe. There's real resources used within authorities.
Here's the problem with what they are thinking IMHO. They think hitting the points of sale stop the bloodletting and that makes sense. If counterfeiters and unauthorized resellers have no place sell then problems solved. But that's not what will happen. Ridding the web of eBay, Etsy, Posh on and on is not going to stop counterfeiters. They will set up shop and destroy digital media advertising to drive the illegal activities. In other words it will create a "Global Whack a Mole" whereby it becomes HUGELY more difficult to catch the counterfeiters... Like the illegal drug market as long as there are folks who'll pay they will find a way.
The way it is NOW IF RIGHTS HOLDERS care work PROPERLY with places like eBay to identify counterfeits that problem can be VASTLY reduced. Yet the manufacturers refuse to share those details of spotting counterfeits with the points of sale. They hire external firms do that work and gift them the data, engineering stuff, this that. Those firms spider the websites reporting to the rights holders etc and ADVISE said rights holders. Obviously if eBay, Amazon etc had the data do that themselves those hired firms are now pushing burgers at the take out window per se.
Towards the LICENSING issues which is the BIG CLOUD in the room w/ First Sale Doctrine being the protective rain tarp that's another matter. 98.6% of authorized points of sale and manufacturers, distributors would tell you, "No, we dont want our stuff sold by third parties. We are not in the business of making them money." That's true enough but its a MASSIVE impugning on simple rights.
"Well we're only talking about online..."
REALLY? Well when does the discussion take place about offline? Is that next? So can't have a yard sale? All flea markets and co-ops gone? What about that used car parts place? Used tire place? Pre-owned electronics store? Huh? WHEN? Or is just let's single these sellers out online and take away their rights and not those of those who care sell anything please offline? Pawn Shops? How about used cars?
Pardon my distress but is "SB" reversed!
If rights holders are so bent due to online sellers then INVENT. Create the mechanisms whereby those sellers and rights holders have a mutually beneficial environment, win win.
I've a pair of genuine Nike sneakers that I wore ten times before realizing I loath them I should be able send them to VintageCrazedNike who is an authorized reseller and authenticator. Why Old' Crazed Nike has so many great sneakers coming in creating great jobs for people with handicaps authenticating and shipping shoe's. Crazed Nike making money, revenue share is done with Nike itself and I get to sell these terrible sneakers I loath. Win, Win, Win.
chariot_badges
·2 years agoThat is one of the traits of fascism.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoSome of the brands like NIKE, did hoot and howl and I think you cant sell that stuff with being an authorized seller not sure. Some of them belong to Vero.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoThanks Liz for that fab explanation. I really appreciate it.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoIt takes time to get a foothold into the process. We all should hope it moves along at a steadier pace, and better executed with whatever he plans next. But I can see from your analysis that it has not taken off as much as needed yet.