Question thread: Reducing unpaid items

[seller_update@ebay]

Today we announced one of the ways we are reducing unpaid item cases. Buyers will automatically be charged when sellers accept their Best Offer. You can read more about that here. Feel free to review and leave any questions you may have below! 

Please note that eBay experts will be present and engaging on the boards between 8 am and 4:00 pm PST on 2.9.

[donsdetour]

"I don't use negative feedbacks, but if a seller continues to use such a badly programmed system as this, then they can expect to get defects and negative feedbacks, and they would be deserved."

Hmm blaming the seller/eBay vendor for eBays mess up ???????

[lacemaker3]

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

---

...

It would be much more effective and equitable if this were changed so that sellers have the option to require immediate payment when a buyer accepts an offer. That way, a seller would be able to make a counteroffer if they want to be paid immediately, and the buyer would have to pay in order to accept the offer. I can't think of a downside or con to this proposal. The seller could accept the offer or make a counteroffer without IPR if they want to allow the buyer to make a single payment for multiple purchases, and reduce FVF especially for lower-priced items.

Reportedly, making an offer puts a hold or pending payment on the buyer's CC or bank account, which may stay in place for days before finally being released. That has been causing issues for some buyers.

...

---

sandhya@ebay  and seller_update@ebay 

Why has eBay not implemented IPR for best offers as suggested above. This would address most if not all of the issues that have been raised with the way this has been implemented so far without being thought-through, and without considering the unintended consequences..

This suggestion was made several months ago, when the test was started, and it was made earlier on this thread. So far, this has not been acknowledged or addressed.

Please respond with eBay's reasoning for this.

[lacemaker3]

---

@donsdetour wrote:

"I don't use negative feedbacks, but if a seller continues to use such a badly programmed system as this, then they can expect to get defects and negative feedbacks, and they would be deserved."

Hmm blaming the seller/eBay vendor for eBays mess up ???????

---

As I said, I don't use negative feedback.

However, it was the seller's choice to force the buyer to provide payment authorization in advance. 

Given the major issues that have been reported, sellers should not be using this system until and unless eBay fixes it. So this is ultimately the seller's choice. 

[donsdetour]

Hmm might be best not to use it on the buyers end until it is fixed for sure.

Is this being a default on the sellers part ( ebay has a habit of doing so) since they rolled it out???

[ittybitnot]

Is this being a default on the sellers part ( ebay has a habit of doing so) since they rolled it out???

@donsdetour 

The default for this setting is set to YES.   However, that  "yes" only affects certain BUYER IDs that have also been included in the test phase of this program.  I am sure there are plenty of sellers that don't know that setting is even there yet.  For example, there have been sellers that see the preference set to YES, and still get offers from buyers where the immediate payment is NOT required and asking WHY????  (because those buyers are not enrolled in the program). 

I think @lacemaker3  has made some very excellent points, and so glad to see them.  That poster can say things and express ideas and concerns much more succinctly than I can!  I can now only hope that seller_update@ebay  replies and addresses the questions as requested. 

[lacemaker3]

@ittybitnot, you express yourself extremely well, and I reviewed your posts about this issue on some other threads before I posted (again) on this thread.

@donsdetour, the buyers don't have any choice in this, not really. Buyers who have been dumped into the test group without their consent can only provide their payment information, or not send any offers, if the sellers are requiring the pre-authorization. They can't get out of the test group.

I agree that the basic responsibility here is eBay, for implementing this badly. But if sellers are choosing to use it, then it's the seller's responsibility as well.

I have never given eBay pre-authorization to charge me for anything, not even for my selling fees when I was a powerseller and top rated seller. I always paid my fees before the due date, so I was never required to do so. I don't see any reason to change that, at this time.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

---

@donsdetour wrote:

"I don't use negative feedbacks, but if a seller continues to use such a badly programmed system as this, then they can expect to get defects and negative feedbacks, and they would be deserved."

Hmm blaming the seller/eBay vendor for eBays mess up ???????

---

As I said, I don't use negative feedback.

However, it was the seller's choice to force the buyer to provide payment authorization in advance. 

Given the major issues that have been reported, sellers should not be using this system until and unless eBay fixes it. So this is ultimately the seller's choice. 

---

I'm sure a lot of sellers have no clue that they have this option turned on unless a buyer emails them that is in the test group(instead of hitting the back button).

[mam98031]

The vendor determines the amount.  A $1 ping is typically just to make sure they got your CC number correct.  Ebay would not be doing this.  They are going to ping for the amount of whatever it is you are purchasing to make sure your funding source can and will cover the payment you are submitting.

I've always been under the impression it was the funding source that controls how long the ping [which creates a pending charge] stays on the account.

For example: One of my vendors I use for inventory pings my CC for the amount of my order when I place it.  Then when the payment actually processes through whether higher or lower than the pinged / pending amount, that pending charge disappears at the point of the actual charge is getting posted.  This is how it is on my CC that I primarily use for business.  It is NOT a business card, I just use it like one.

I personally think you are trying to make Ebay responsible for something they simply aren't responsible for.

The process of pinging an account to verify that a payment from a buyer is good, is NOT a new process.  Certainly this policy on making offers is, but not the pinging of funding sources.

[mam98031]

---

@d-k_treasures wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

I understand what you are saying.  So what do you think the solution is?

---

The merchant - ebay - can cancel or revoke the authorization at any time.

---

That would make sense.

[mam98031]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

The vendor determines the amount.  A $1 ping is typically just to make sure they got your CC number correct.  Ebay would not be doing this.  They are going to ping for the amount of whatever it is you are purchasing to make sure your funding source can and will cover the payment you are submitting.

I've always been under the impression it was the funding source that controls how long the ping [which creates a pending charge] stays on the account.

For example: One of my vendors I use for inventory pings my CC for the amount of my order when I place it.  Then when the payment actually processes through whether higher or lower than the pinged / pending amount, that pending charge disappears at the point of the actual charge is getting posted.  This is how it is on my CC that I primarily use for business.  It is NOT a business card, I just use it like one.

I personally think you are trying to make Ebay responsible for something they simply aren't responsible for.

The process of pinging an account to verify that a payment from a buyer is good, is NOT a new process.  Certainly this policy on making offers is, but not the pinging of funding sources.

---

Correction:

I think @lacemaker3 is correct.  Maybe it is Ebay not releasing the pings / pending funds fast enough.  That seems to be something Ebay could fix.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@d-k_treasures wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

I understand what you are saying.  So what do you think the solution is?

---

The merchant - ebay - can cancel or revoke the authorization at any time.

---

That would make sense.

---

Yes. But it appears that they are not doing it. The auth on a best offer should only be for the length of the offer if no seller response, or until the buyer cancels the offer, or if the seller declines the offer. Otherwise it should be revoked instantly. 

If accepted, it also should use the same auth # to settle, which releases the auth amount. If they settle without using that, the auth still says in place.

[ittybitnot]

@d-k_treasures 

@lacemaker3 
@donsdetour 

seller_update@ebay 

Perhaps there is another option that would satisfy the need for "immediate payment" required that would address the concerns of both buyers and sellers. 

Allow buyers to make offers without the preliminary requirement of choosing a funding source. 

If the seller accepts, the BUYER has to pay BEFORE the listing is closed and remains available for anyone until the payment  is made.  A time limit on how long the "offer"  would remain in effect (and can be purchased at the offer price)  without payment would be necessary, since auto accept/decline options are not always set.

If the offer is declined, there will be no charge holds on the buyer's payment source.  If the offer is accepted, payment must be made (insert short timeframe) or it expires.  Again, the listing is STILL FOR SALE until payment is made. The buyer can elect to check a payment source for immediate payment voluntarily if the offer is accepted and requires a manual action by the seller. 

I am sure there is probably something wrong with this idea, feel free to tell me. 

[woodland_gnome]

---

@ittybitnot wrote:

@d-k_treasures 

@lacemaker3 
@donsdetour 

seller_update@ebay 

Perhaps there is another option that would satisfy the need for "immediate payment" required that would address the concerns of both buyers and sellers. 

Allow buyers to make offers without the preliminary requirement of choosing a funding source. 

If the seller accepts, the BUYER has to pay BEFORE the listing is closed and remains available for anyone until the payment  is made.  A time limit on how long the "offer"  would remain in effect (and can be purchased at the offer price)  without payment would be necessary, since auto accept/decline options are not always set.

If the offer is declined, there will be no charge holds on the buyer's payment source.  If the offer is accepted, payment must be made (insert short timeframe) or it expires.  Again, the listing is STILL FOR SALE until payment is made. The buyer can elect to check a payment source for immediate payment voluntarily if the offer is accepted and requires a manual action by the seller. 

I am sure there is probably something wrong with this idea, feel free to tell me. 

---

This was tried several years ago.  The outcry against it by both sellers and buyers was deafening.   I personally thought that it was a good idea but the critics carried the day and the test was quickly shut down and the concept never mentioned again.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@ittybitnot wrote:

@d-k_treasures 

@lacemaker3 
@donsdetour 

seller_update@ebay 

Perhaps there is another option that would satisfy the need for "immediate payment" required that would address the concerns of both buyers and sellers. 

Allow buyers to make offers without the preliminary requirement of choosing a funding source. 

If the seller accepts, the BUYER has to pay BEFORE the listing is closed and remains available for anyone until the payment  is made.  A time limit on how long the "offer"  would remain in effect (and can be purchased at the offer price)  without payment would be necessary, since auto accept/decline options are not always set.

If the offer is declined, there will be no charge holds on the buyer's payment source.  If the offer is accepted, payment must be made (insert short timeframe) or it expires.  Again, the listing is STILL FOR SALE until payment is made. The buyer can elect to check a payment source for immediate payment voluntarily if the offer is accepted and requires a manual action by the seller. 

I am sure there is probably something wrong with this idea, feel free to tell me. 

---

Nothing I can see that is wrong with the idea - other than it's logical.

[lacemaker3]

@ittybitnot, that's a great suggestion.

This would essentially mean that a best offer is handled exactly the same as buy-it-now is handled on a fixed price listing. The listing stays active, and available for purchase, until it is paid for. So having an accepted offer, would not mean the item had been purchased, or that it was "reserved" for that buyer. 

There could be a time limit when the offer would expire, if it was not paid for. That would work.

There would then be no need for a pre-authorization, and multiple offers from the same seller could be accepted at the same time, to allow combined shipping as long as the seller has combined shipping set up on their listings.