Ebay takes an extra 5% if you below standard... This is just greed...

[chapeau-noir]

It would help to know why you fell below standard.  It's actually not THAT easy to do and takes 4 unique transactions with major defects.  It doesn't matter if someone is a large or small seller.   In fact, it's easier to rack up those defects for a larger seller just due to volume.

https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/seller-levels-performance-standards/seller-levels-performance-stan...

[pikabo-icu]

---

@collectfest wrote:

---

@pikabo-icu wrote:

@olushola364 

The question is why are you falling below?

If you share that perhaps the members here can give you some tips to help you stay above..

The sellers here are willing to help you with ideas on how to remedy any issues. 

---

I want to take the time to thank you for your rational comments. You are refreshing member on these boards. Many of the comments by others are argumentative and facilitate BAD POLICY directed at low volume sellers as I see it.

The FACT is the OP has 100% positive feedback with almost all 5 star ratings.

The original poster IS NOT a bad seller but a LOW volume seller. We can argue if eBay policy is right or wrong all day. To me it's WRONG.

So my advise to the OP, understand the absurd arbitrary policies eBay has set (read them, know them), either abide by them or charge an extra 5% on your items. If the do not sell as a result of the 5% increase, find another place to sell them.

That is what I will do. If a member sells 10 items a year for 100,000, they fall below standard. If I sell 1000 items for 5,000, I meet standard. Not a wise business plan in my eye's. That's arbitrary. 

---

@collectfest 

That was very kind of you. Thank you. 

I was guessing it might be a shipping thing since the seller's FB seems outstanding.

Perhaps an adjustment to their handling time and/or adding tracking if they don't have that.

There are little adjustments that can help make the difference. 

Also many sellers don't understand that asking eBay to step in for things is never a good idea. 

I genuinely believe & hope this sellers problem could be solved with a few small tweaks. 

[luckythewinner]

---

@collectfest wrote:
If a member sells 10 items a year for 100,000, they fall below standard. If I sell 1000 items for 5,000, I meet standard. Not a wise business plan in my eye's. That's arbitrary. 

---

I am not sure I agree. In order to fall to Below Standard, that seller would need to have accumulated either: 

a)  three out of 10  (30%) transactions with a case closed without seller resolution; or

b) five out of 10 (50%) transactions with defects

That is not "abitrary" and has nothing to do with volume.

That is just a bad seller. 

[collectfest]

---

@theteamsetguy wrote:

How does the metrics differ for high volume sellers versus low volume sellers? I don’t think the metrics are any different for high volume versus low volume sellers.

I would think it is much easier to keep metrics up for a low volume seller since they have less orders to worry about.

---

First, I did not say the metrics were different I said they were arbitrary. Feedback from buyers are facts not arbitrary. 

I could be very wrong, and if so, please educate me why should a seller with 100% positive feedback as well as near 100% rating needs to worry about any metrics. The only reason I mention volume seller I already posted and would refer to that. 

The only thing I can figure is that they have not added tracking or post office has not scanned, maybe not enough sales (didnt check that) I have no clue. I do know whatever it is, IT'S arbitrary rules affecting them.

The facts are the facts. 100% positive feedback, almost 100% ratings from actual customers. That's any sellers job.

I 100% agree with you and others who state it's no cake walk for volume sellers. I am not anti volume sellers. They amaze me how they juggle the in's and outs of selling on this and other platforms at a high standard.

[katzrul15]

They have a bunch of Dell products listed.

Thought perhaps the issue was SNADs and the Seller did not handle the returns correctly?

Hopefully, the Seller/OP will come back and enlighten us.

[collectfest]

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@collectfest wrote:
If a member sells 10 items a year for 100,000, they fall below standard. If I sell 1000 items for 5,000, I meet standard. Not a wise business plan in my eye's. That's arbitrary. 

---

I am not sure I agree. In order to fall to Below Standard, that seller would need to have accumulated either: 

a)  three out of 10  (30%) transactions with a case closed without seller resolution; or

b) five out of 10 (50%) transactions with defects

That is not "abitrary" and has nothing to do with volume.

That is just a bad seller. 

---

How do you come up with your data you reported?

The actual evidence reflected on their seller page is all I can see.

If what you say are facts, I'd agree with you. How do you know that's the evidence in this case?

I'm not privy to that info, are those facts of the actual OP, if so where do you get those facts?

Unless someone shows me those facts you state, I will have to believe the fact's actually available to me to have an opinion. 

My opinion is they have 100% feedback and buyers report overwhelming performance in all areas. I would add they also receive over 50%  response feedback by buyers. I think some are challenging me about the metrics and thinking just because they are low volume they are burdened. Thats not my point. I think the policies/rules are arbitrary for both large and small sellers.

To take the stance its harder for large sellers to meet the satisfactory threshold is of no relevance to my position.

[chapeau-noir]

Amount of sales would affect TRS status, but not standard itself (I remain above standard but top rated itself will come and go depending on how much I sell).  It's why it would help to know how this happened.

It makes no difference to me whether anyone agrees or disagrees with why eBay does this, they are entitled to their opinion, just that if it happens, what can be done about it.  There is a two month window to improve before below standard is envoked - what happened during this time?  With all the seller experience here, we might be able to help.

[collectfest]

---

@katzrul15 wrote:

They have a bunch of Dell products listed.

Thought perhaps the issue was SNADs and the Seller did not handle the returns correctly?

Hopefully, the Seller/OP will come back and enlighten us.

---

Agreed.

[oldold-timer]

Of all the post thus far, yours is one of the few that is truly helpful, not condescending.

[inhawaii]

I was thinking about selling those on ebay.  😉

Small tweak: $10

Large tweak $20

[bearswatching]

Is there any way you can live with the increased fee while you correct the issues that took you below standard? At least eBay didn't flat out restrict or suspend you as we hear about so frequently. They are actually giving you a chance to come out from under this.

[oldcoin007]

Well said.    Also, please consider that ebay should give its "best" sellers a 5 % discount on FVF, if it can penalize the "worst" sellers with an extra 5 %.  Fair is fair. 

[pikabo-icu]

---

@inhawaii wrote:

I was thinking about selling those on ebay.  😉

Small tweak: $10

Large tweak $20

---

LOL @inhawaii 

Jason Momoa tweak $500. LOL

[katzrul15]

---

@oldcoin007 wrote:

Well said.    Also, please consider that ebay should give its "best" sellers a 5 % discount on FVF, if it can penalize the "worst" sellers with an extra 5 %.  Fair is fair. 

---

---

---

They do - TRS+ receives a 10% discount off of FVFs.

e-Bay considers TRS+ to be their "best" sellers based on e-Bay's criteria to meet/exceed a buyer's needs.

[numisnorway]

Always funny to see the shills/cheerleaders rationalize this behavior from ebay. I got hit with this extra fee because i got scammed out of a $500 item by a brooklyn resident using return fraud. One instance that i had no control over.

Its like adding insult to injury.