Is eBay stealing from sellers?

[prettywoman-2012]

I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for. 

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment. 

This is just one sale and one seller. Multiply the 40 cents (and many items ship for much more than 4.00 dollars, plus many have far more returns than I do) by 1,000,000 (1 million) sellers and you get 400,000 (four hundred thousand!) dollars if the seller does not notice it / or does not care to /or cannot get hold of anyone at eBay. Again, this is just ONE return to ONE seller (me) and most sellers have at least one return now, even the best ones, within the same calendar year, so the actual number must be tens of millions of dollars. I am assuming that returns are more prevalent for sellers who are selling electronic devices or high-end jewelry and appliances. 

Interesting way of earning enough to pay their CEO Devin Wenig 57 Million in the severance package. Now I am no longer wondering where they got the money for the exorbitant compensation of their Execs. 

PW

[coffeebean832]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for. 

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment. 

---

Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.

Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

[luckythewinner]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:
Care to explain why it is an absurd idea to link millions of dollars in (undeserved) income to millions of dollars in expenditure?

PW🐿

---

You wrote:

"Interesting way of earning enough to pay their CEO Devin Wenig 57 Million in the severance package. Now I am no longer wondering where they got the money for the exorbitant compensation of their Execs"

That statement does much more than just "link" it - it implies that you did not think it would be possible to pay him without it. 

IMHO that is absurd when you are talking about a company that made  $4.3 billion in the last two years. 

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@chapeau-noir wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

---

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

Now I am no longer wondering where they got the money for the exorbitant compensation of their Execs. 

---

I suspect eBay makes far more money on successful transactions than they do from returns.

---

I agree, however, the point of my post is not how much more money eBay makes from successful sales, or how much it makes as its total income (you could add eBay's other money-making endeavors to it, also, because their income consists of more than just the eBay marketplace). 

The point of my post was to (a) call out an outright fraudulent activity (= keeping a portion of the FVF from returns) and (b) to point out that these activities may very well contribute to eBay's ability to pay the exorbitant salaries it does, to its Execs. 

Sorry for spelling it out again - I thought this was quite clear from my original post. 

PW🐿 

---

I was not disagreeing with your main point, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of linking it to the CEO's compensation.

---

Care to explain why it is an absurd idea to link millions of dollars in (undeserved) income to millions of dollars in expenditure?

PW🐿

---

I see your connection and it does feel like getting nickle and dimed to death, but unfortunately a company can be failing and a CEO being booted out will still get his (usually) golden parachute because it's part of a sign-up agreement.  Humana in around 2014 is a great example of this. The entire system is rigged and a lot of the compensation is previously illegal stock options that are now baked into the system, and CEO compensation has far outstripped real worth. There's no real connection between company revenue and what they pay (and award) their latest rent-a-CEO. 

---

You are probably correct. It is still impossible to pay if the company makes NO money, whatsoever - and I am solely pointing out that they have these returns that bring them revenue. Is this the only thing that brings them revenue? Absolutely not. Just one of the many ways to earn undeserved cash.

PW🐿

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@upgradedendmills wrote:

I am behind you 100% on the Managed Payments issue. However, trying to reinforce or justify a decision about that issue by picking apart small, completely unrelated details as to how eBay conducts business doesn't seem to carry much weight and could be thought of as "sour grapes" from a disgruntled seller.

---

I am glad we are in agreement that eBay's MP program is a joke. As for eBay keeping a portion of the fees it is not entitled to, which is the main topic of my opening post - you can interpret it as you wish. I see many sellers posting on these boards long after they have left this venue - and as for sour grapes, I prefer sweet ones, yes. Since this non-refunding of the FVF of shipping is something I just noticed, I fail to see why anybody could view posting about it as a "sour grapes" situation. I simply expressed my disgust. But we are all entitled to our opinion. 

Thanks for your comment

PW🐿 

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@tellmemama wrote:

Don't forget you already lost the rest of the shipping cost when you sent the item to the buyer...

---

Yes, that is correct. And I did not forget it, hence my comment that the FVF on the shipping needs to be returned to the seller (per default). I do not think sellers should have to jump through hoops to request it. 

Thank you

PW 🐿

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.

Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

---

Are you serious? Or just sarcastic? In the unlikely case you have asked this question in all seriousness, the answer is, because it was already spent from OUT OF POCKET of the seller (in this case, mine, but my post is valid for most return cases with buyer's remorse and a HUGE portion of the other returns that are FAKE INAD cases. 

Sending good vibes 

PW🐿

[comicsmyth]

Yes, stealing is the correct term for what they're doing, but it's like one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions where there's a ton of extra steps & most people don't even see it. 
I like the idea of getting an employee to make the calls to ebay, if only I had one. 
A soundboard program could probably make most of the calls & keep up with the employee runarounds & nonsense. One with a strong accent would be ideal, LOL. 

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@comicsmyth wrote:

Yes, stealing is the correct term for what they're doing, but it's like one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions where there's a ton of extra steps & most people don't even see it. 
I like the idea of getting an employee to make the calls to ebay, if only I had one. 
A soundboard program could probably make most of the calls & keep up with the employee runarounds & nonsense. One with a strong accent would be ideal, LOL. 

---

Haha, yes, that is a good analogy. Facit is, the calls need to be recorded because otherwise there is no proof. Stay safe, my friend. 

PW🐿

[mam98031]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.

Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

---

Are you serious? Or just sarcastic? In the unlikely case you have asked this question in all seriousness, the answer is, because it was already spent from OUT OF POCKET of the seller (in this case, mine, but my post is valid for most return cases with buyer's remorse and a HUGE portion of the other returns that are FAKE INAD cases. 

Sending good vibes 

PW🐿

---

@coffeebean832 is correct and it makes sense.  When you have a BR claim and you refund, if you have separately stated shipping on the listing, you do not have to refund the original shipping charge.  Since most sellers don't refund that original shipping when they have a BR claim, then NO FVF credit would be due because no refund on that amount was given to the buyer.

So is it your opinion that even though you didn't refund the original shipping you should still get the FVF refunded to you?  Why would you be entitled to that?

Your out of pocket expense on the original shipping should have been covered by what you charged your buyer.  If you didn't charge the buyer enough, that isn't on Ebay.  That is a decision you made on the price to charge the buyer.  So how are you out anything?  

On INADs, when you refund in full, you are give your FVFs back unless you asked Ebay to step in and they ruled for the buyer.

[fern*wood]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.

Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

---

Are you serious? Or just sarcastic? In the unlikely case you have asked this question in all seriousness, the answer is, because it was already spent from OUT OF POCKET of the seller (in this case, mine, but my post is valid for most return cases with buyer's remorse and a HUGE portion of the other returns that are FAKE INAD cases. 

Sending good vibes 

PW🐿

---

If you charged shipping on this item (which you must have since you were charged FVFs on that amount), why do you say it was out of your pocket?  This response is exactly correct and not sarcasm at all.   You are not supposed to be refunded the FVF on an amount you did not refund to the buyer.

[cashvaluerecovery2011]

You are right! They certainly do! Now imagine how many more successful transactions ebay would be making if they didnt run off billions of dollars in transactions from sellers who left.

I have already done $350k elsewhere this year. Just $20k or so here. Just 35k in missed revenue no biggy.

[luckythewinner]

---

@cashvaluerecovery2011 wrote:
 Now imagine how many more successful transactions ebay would be making if they didnt run off billions of dollars in transactions from sellers who left.

---

The number of listings on eBay has grown at a healthy clip, while at the same buying levels have remained essentially flat. That suggests that more listings might just shift transactions between sellers rather than increase it. 

[coffeebean832]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

---

Are you serious? Or just sarcastic? In the unlikely case you have asked this question in all seriousness, the answer is, because it was already spent from OUT OF POCKET of the seller (in this case, mine, but my post is valid for most return cases with buyer's remorse and a HUGE portion of the other returns that are FAKE INAD cases. 

Sending good vibes 

PW🐿

---

Serious- not sarcastic. When shipping is refunded, so is the shipping FVF. When shipping isn't refunded, neither is the shipping FVF. I don't understand why somebody would feel entitled to a fee credit on a shipping amount they didn't refund.

If this is a big concern for you then you can charge buyers retail rates for shipping while purchasing postage with the online discount. The difference is usually close enough to cover FVF on shipping. There's also the option of adding a handling fee- 5 cents on every sale should more than make up for any FVF not refunded on the occasional return.

[mam98031]

---

@comicsmyth wrote:

Yes, stealing is the correct term for what they're doing, but it's like one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions where there's a ton of extra steps & most people don't even see it. 
I like the idea of getting an employee to make the calls to ebay, if only I had one. 
A soundboard program could probably make most of the calls & keep up with the employee runarounds & nonsense. One with a strong accent would be ideal, LOL. 

---

@comicsmyth 

Why should the OP get a refund on FVFs on an amount they did not refund to the buyer?

[ironeagle7378]

eBay does not care about the sellers. they never did. they have always settled for the buyers. and the sellers pay the price. here's something you forgot. when that Item was returned to you. you paid for it. eBay lets them print a label, but that is deducted from you funds when the eBay fee's are collected.  you lost the first shipping cost, lost the sale, lost the second shipping cost and eBay walked away with any extra that was left over. and Now they want to pull us out of PayPal and run our payments and pay outs too ?  They have forgotten who put them where they are. it was the little private seller, not China.