Put an end to "reserve not met" for auctions

[taffgiraffe]

Setting a reserve price should be abolished. The only benefit is to the seller to "test the waters" of what people are willing to pay rather than a true auction. It's a waste of time for everyone else.

If they wish to set a "reserve price," setting their starting price to that should be sufficient.

[redmodelt]

If the seller wants to pay for using reserve price that's up to them. Reserve price is used in all kinds of auctions, so is pretty normal. If you don't want to mess with an auction that has reserve price, find a different seller, no one is twisting anyone's arm to bid. 

[janet9988]

---

@taffgiraffe wrote:

Setting a reserve price should be abolished. The only benefit is to the seller to "test the waters" of what people are willing to pay rather than a true auction. It's a waste of time for everyone else.

If they wish to set a "reserve price," setting their starting price to that should be sufficient.

---

LOL.......  NO Ebay makes easy money of of sellers using reserve pricing. Especially the uninformed sellers who do not read ebay policies thoroughly.

[gone.c-33]

I treat reserve prices as I treat competitors’ highest bid: I don’t know what it is but I bid the maximum I’m willing to pay and if I’m outbid or don’t meet the reserve, it just wasn’t meant to be.

[kensgiftshop]

Why, if the seller wants to use a reserve and take a chance on the item not selling and still have to pay a fee for using it, Ebay isn't going to give up that easy money.

[sumsum70]

You can't ever count on eBay having buyers to bid, or even a fully functioning website, so reserves can be a useful tool to make sure something doesn't sell for a tiny fraction of it's value.

I don't use reserves on the rare occasion I auction stuff, but the concept should only be offensive to people who want something for nothing. I simply make the opening bid the lowest I will accept.

[cbe-commerce]

This comment doesn't quite make sense. Help me understand, you want eBay to end a listing option that has a listing fee that a seller is required to pay for when using, because it only benefits the one who is paying out of pocket on an otherwise free listing? I don't see this ever changing since eBay is getting paid on this feature regardless of item getting sold ever. Besides, what does it matter to the buyer if the item has a high starting price or a reserve price? Only difference is buyer can't see the reserve price, seems better to me if I was buying, because then I get to decide what I am willing to pay without added influence. Enter my price and if reserve not met then is more than I want to pay and move on. If a price is set then I have to decide if that price is too much for me, rather than what do I want to pay. 

[slippinjimmy]

Charging a big fee for a reserve is probably similar to the 3 or 5 day auction surcharge. eBay likely wanted to get rid of them (I'm sure their data shows that auctions with reserve don't sell very well) but to avoid push back from the very few that want to use a reserve they kept the option but jacked up the fee.

[frankenhobbit]

Reserve prices are common in 'Live' auctions. Why would ebay not allow the same, especially if they still charge something like 7.5 percent of the reserve price if it doesn sell? (there is a max amount, but not inclined to look it up).

It's common practice at auctions for  high dollar items to start low to get the bidding going, but have a reserve. The auction houses would not do it if it did not work. 

The main issue with reserve prices is that people see a $1000 item for $50 and think they can get it for that. They then find that they cannot and it can leave a bad taste. But the seller isn't interested in that buyer anyway. 

For the right item, they make perfect sense. Now, on eBay, a seller would need to make absoultely sure it IS the right item. Something where there are a hundred similar items out there, it's daft to use a reserve.  But if you had an item that historically sees strong bidder activity and does not show up often, I see a use for it. 

Nothing that I sell though!

[taffgiraffe]

That's part of the problem... you don't know until those red letters appear the day the auction is ending.

[taffgiraffe]

I don't understand the laughing, because it's still a dumb system regardless. Having people invested in an auction and only warning them hours before the auction is ending is a ajor turn off to auctions. That's why nearly everyone stops bidding when they see it. If they have a set price they want, start with it.

[paxilill]

There's no need to go thru the trouble of creating a listing. The seller can just look at completed/sold listings to get an idea of price for a lot of things. I always do this before listing anything. 

[reallynicestamps]

I agree that Reserves are a waste of money for the seller.

If the "reserve is not met" the auctioneer still pays eBay a fee based on that reserve.

But it's there for two reasons:

First because it soothes the nervous auctioneer that their item will not be "stolen" by a lowball bidder.

Second because eBay,in spite of telling the nervous auctioneer that Reserves are a Bad Idea and that they will be charged a fee for them, does make money from those scaredy-cats.

And eBay is in business to make money.

You are right that the scaredycat would get the same result with an opening bid they would be content to get.

In addition, they would not be annoyed by what they consider"lowball bids". and would not be charged for a listing that does not sell.

Most Reserves are going to be on auctions from newbie sellers who don't understand what does and does not sell well at auctions (collectibles yes, mass merchandise - including mass produced collectibles- no) and who have not learned that over 85% of eBay transactions are actually Fixed Price, Buy It Now, or Best Offer sales, not auctions.

Then if it does sell, the newbie learns that most Unpaid Items were Auctions.