Service Metrics - EBay has given enough information to prove racketeering

[sonoranboutique]

This is about the Service Metrics page (not  the Seller Dashboard.)  If you go to this page and it says you have a "Very High" rating, starting today you are paying 40% higher fees: https://www.ebay.com/sh/prf/service-metrics

This is based on your "Item Not As Described" return rates, which cannot be disputed, even if the buyer lies about why they returned the item.  In a recent Q&A video where someone asks about this, EBay admitted that "incorrect returns exist", but the solution they offered was that they "only measure your performance against closely related peers that face a similar risk."

This is flawed logic, and thus, EBay has admitted to racketeering.  Why?  The reason "incorrect returns" are incorrect is because they are received randomly and are out of the seller's control.  So let's say the peer average in your category is 3 "incorrect returns" a month.  This doesn't mean every seller in your category gets exactly 3.  Some people will get 0 or 1, while some will randomly get 7 through bad luck.  If you are the one with bad luck, you are punished.   So EBay has admitted that a certain percentage of sellers with bad luck will be charged extra fees each month.

EBay has admitted that, each month, a percentage of unlucky sellers will randomly be charged more fees for something Ebay calls "incorrect returns", which cannot be disputed.

[sonoranboutique]

---

@softersilk wrote:

One thing has been consistent on eBay boards over 20 years... sellers get mad at the corporation, hear a legal term that they don't understand, and believe that wow, the whole eBay corporation is going to come crashing down.  They found the proof.

Because, you know, a multi-national, publicly-traded corporation does not have teams and teams of lawyers on the payroll.

---

I don't think a lawsuit will happen, but I have hopes there will actually be a pushback to this particular policy.  I've been selling since 2011 and have endured all the annyoing anti-seller changes.  Having the TRS discount lowered sucked, but I knew there wouldn't be much pushback against it, and I didn't make a thread like this about it.  But a 40% higher bill is ridiculous, and when people get their bills in November I expect there to be more pushback than we've seen for other policies.

And EBay hid the Service Metrics page away, so I think a lot of people aren't gonna know what's going on with it until they get their bills.  I just predict that there will be a blow up over it in November.

Also there are actual alternatives to ebay nowadays, lots of apps that let you sell stuff in specialized markets that make ebay's "one size fits all" approach look like a boring, clunky, garage sale site.  My point is that if sellers get mad at this racketeering, they can actually try alternatives.

Also losing sellers has been a hot button issue for ebay lately, which has never happened before.  An analysis of their stock a few months ago complained about them alienating sellers.  Ebay recently accused Amazon of trying to poach sellers.  Before this year, I'd never seen ebay care or worry a tiny bit about losing sellers.  If a bunch of people wake up in November to a 40% higher bill, and people on the forums are informed in all the ways this policy is unfair and illicit, then hopefully sellers will be able to be informed and there will be some kind of pushback against ebay, and possibly a change in the policy.  At least, that's my hope.

[twnpopcards]

---

@lordskylark wrote:

Another thing I thought of...

If all of the selling metrics for returns are based on averages, then a certain group of people are always going to suffer even if they improve. For example, if the current rate is 1% for returns. Let's say every single seller gets their rate down to under 1% and all of the rest of the sellers already at 1% work to get their returns down as well. The average will then be calculated based on those numbers, and the return percentage will now be, let's say 0.25%. And all of those sellers who worked to get down to the 1% average, will still suffer. In this calculation, some group of people will ALWAYS suffer.

---

@lordskylark

That is the whole idea behind this plan.  it has nothing at all to do with sellers improvong their metrics, its all about an extra 40% increase in the FVF for Ebay and that is all it has ever been about.  Ebay needs to show Wall Street and the Shareholders that they have growth happening and the only way they have figured out to do this is to take more money from the current sellers.  Since the platform is not operating well enough to justify a rate increase they cam up with this idea where no matter what happens Ebays revenue increases and they can tell Wall Street that they are showing growth, until the sellers keep leaving or not selling in the categories they are above their peers in and then Ebay will have to look for another short term fix to take out of the current sellers pockets.

Eventually they will run out of pockets to keep taking money from as they will have killed the golden goose.

[gracieallen01]

---

@lordskylark wrote:

Another thing I thought of...

If all of the selling metrics for returns are based on averages, then a certain group of people are always going to suffer even if they improve. For example, if the current rate is 1% for returns. Let's say every single seller gets their rate down to under 1% and all of the rest of the sellers already at 1% work to get their returns down as well. The average will then be calculated based on those numbers, and the return percentage will now be, let's say 0.25%. And all of those sellers who worked to get down to the 1% average, will still suffer. In this calculation, some group of people will ALWAYS suffer.

---

Using a 'peer' system, there is ALWAYS going to be someone who is on the wrong end, no matter what their stats are.  It is a comparative system - 'Someone is high, compared to everyone else - tag, you're IT'. 

There will ALWAYS be somebody paying.