Service metrics peer group return rate in Jewelry & Watches.

[mycheaperstuff]

I have had 2 SNAD returns in the last 40 days.

• Irrelevant to the gist of the post, but as some are curious, one legitimate due to my oops and one so clearly not legitimate, someone using the guarantee to rescue them from their own mistake, not mine.

As a result, I can now see the benchmark peer group return rate for the Jewelry and Watches category.  It is shown as 0.55% in March and predicted as 0.58% in April.

•  eBay loves to add meaningless digits of precision to meaningless statistics!

That is, 58 of 10,000 buyers made SNAD return June to April in the jewelry category, caveat, caveat… for whatever statistic defines my "peer group.**

My comments/questions for discussion are:

• the peer rate seems unbelievably low
• If this is an honest statistic there should be some consistency within a given category for the same general class of sellers. Anyone else see a peer rate in the jewelry category and care to share?
  • I believe it is neither honest nor a meaningful statistic as a predictive or indicative measure of “GOOD” seller behavior. Merely a random fee increase.
• It is so contrived that slow sales, GTC limitations, and promises of seller protection distract from discussion of voodoo service metrics and fee hikes just one to two months from the metrics full enactment and 12 month look back.

**Based on previous reveal at the time the penalty rate on high returns metrics were announced , the factors that might define my peer group are the following:

• Small/infrequent sales (about 20 trades/month),
• used items,
• 30 day returns accepted but not free returns, and
• average prices per sale about $15.

[bmp_auto_salvage]

WELCOME TO THE CLUB OF ROBBERY!!!! EBAY IS ROBBING US ALL BLIND! THESE % #'s ARE ------UNREAL----- SORRY ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE ALL TAKE THE HIT!

[darkeyedman]

My information shows the peer percentage as .54%. I think the push on these percentages is less about more fees and more about coercing sellers to offer free returns with the hope that if people don't have to lie to return an item then the seller will not face nad defects. the problem is, ebay has had this customer is always right attitude about inad returns for so long that customers just automatically say that. It is just wrong the way ebay tries to manipulate sellers. They have used far less carrot lately, and far more stick.

[mam98031]

• It is so contrived that slow sales, GTC limitations, and promises of seller protection distract from discussion of voodoo service metrics and fee hikes just one to two months from the metrics full enactment and 12 month look back.

I'm not clear on what you mean here.  The Service Metrics started the fall of 2018, not just a couple months ago.  

The 12 month look back doesn't go back further than June of 2018 because that was when Ebay announced the Service Metrics was coming.  Originally they were going to count claims that were a full 12 months back for sellers eval'd on the previous 12 month period when they started the Service Metrics last October.  But the sellers yell a lot about that and Ebay decided to change their position and went with the date they first told us the Service Metrics was coming.  Granted we are extremely close to this really not mattering anymore, but it was helpful in previous months for some sellers.

There is no transparency on how Ebay selects our peers, so it is impossible for any of us to really determine if the peer numbers have any accuracy to them at all.  

Fortunately you are a long way from the Service Metrics negatively impacting you because you have less than 10 claims in any one category.

[jewelbiz]

Still can’t believe that eBay considered a partial refund of a watch sale, a Return therefore jacking up my negative 👎 percentage metric.

A refund is not a return.......

He kept the watch, didn’t return it, and left positive feedback.

[gracieallen01]

The determination of a 'peer group', based on unspecified or disclosed parameters and undisclosed specifics of participants, as well as undisclosed comparison, processing and review procedures, can be highly questionable, but generally beneficial, though, frequently, only to the entity establishing an unproved benchmark - especially noticeable when a 'penalty' is involved for a part of the 'peer group', but no 'benefit' is provided for other participants of the 'peer group' - other than not being penalized.

Merely a general observation.

(personal opinion - your mileage may vary)

[m60driver]

The "service metric peer group" has been shown to be a number that has been, to be overly polite and to avoid censorship here, pulled out of thin air and is always absurdly low.  Resistance to such nonsense is futile as sellers are in a asymmetric power relationship with the Borg entity running the show down in San Jose.

[mam98031]

---

@jewelbiz wrote:

Still can’t believe that eBay considered a partial refund of a watch sale, a Return therefore jacking up my negative 👎 percentage metric.

A refund is not a return.......

He kept the watch, didn’t return it, and left positive feedback.

---

This is actually an EXCELLENT point.  I mean really good.  I know I've certainly overlooked this difference.  I assumed the policy read that it was about the mere fact a claim was opened, but that isn't how the policy reads.

What are service metrics and peer benchmarks?

Service metrics provide you with data on the percentage of your transactions that result in 'item not as described' returns and 'item not received' requests from buyers. Peer benchmarks are an indicator of how you are doing in these areas compared to other sellers who sell similar items.

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-policies/seller-performance-policy/service-metrics-policy...

So if we were to accept the policy as written, then those SNADs that do not result in a return shouldn't be counted.  But of course we know that is not how it is applied and Ebay will merely claim that the policy page needs to be updated.

So let's get this over to the guys so they can get it to the right department to get the page updated.

tyler@ebay 

@Anonymous 

[mam98031]

---

@m60driver wrote:

The "service metric peer group" has been shown to be a number that has been, to be overly polite and to avoid censorship here, pulled out of thin air and is always absurdly low.  Resistance to such nonsense is futile as sellers are in a asymmetric power relationship with the Borg entity running the show down in San Jose.

---

The explanation for this by the blues has been that you don't see an accurate peer percentage until you have a minimum of 10 SNADs in any one category.

[sharingtheland]

The explanation for this by the blues has been that you don't see an accurate peer percentage until you have a minimum of 10 SNADs in any one category.

To see one's peer percentage:   10 SNADS or 100 transactions and 30 peers in that particular group.  Of course, "group" is not defined.   

I am reluctant to put the word "accurate" in any sentence with "peer percentage."

[mycheaperstuff]

---

@bmp_auto_salvage wrote:

WELCOME TO THE CLUB OF ROBBERY!!!! EBAY IS ROBBING US ALL BLIND! THESE % #'s ARE ------UNREAL----- SORRY ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE ALL TAKE THE HIT! [Emphasis added.]

---

100% agree.  Thank you for the reply!

[nmemoryof]

Running things by statistics removes the individual detail and human element of transactions.  Sure, that element exists in all, but that doesn't mean the details are the same.  It is similar to the stats we get comparing our listings to other ppls listings.  It is often apples to oranges.  Of course, when you have the massive number of transactions to oversee that eBay has, you are driven to find shortcuts.

Regarding returns and defects:

Buyers are being trained to exhibit and then rewarded for bad, dishonest, and selfish behavior.

Sellers are damned if they do and damned if they don't in many cases.  They often pick up defects for things completely out of their control and as a result of one of the buyer rewards (see above comment).

I don't think the defect/higher fees system is totally bad if it were redesigned to concentrate on unethical seller practices.  I personally wouldn't even concentrate on seller mistakes, though I can live with that.   What I'm against is a system where sellers pick up defects for things out of their control.  It shouldn't be about luck or lack thereof.

[nmemoryof]

Also, some things are more prone to buyer remorse.  Luxury items are obviously in that category.  People impulse buy and then remember they can't afford it and don't want to pay return shipping.  Why should a seller get a defect for that?

[nmemoryof]

Post #3:  It is not an acceptable alternative to coerce sellers into losing money on return shipping for fickle buyers.  That might help eBay.  but it is totally unfair to sellers. 

[mycheaperstuff]

---

@darkeyedman wrote:

My information shows the peer percentage as .54%. I think the push on these percentages is less about more fees and more about coercing sellers to offer free returns with the hope that if people don't have to lie to return an item then the seller will not face nad defects. the problem is, ebay has had this customer is always right attitude about inad returns for so long that customers just automatically say that. It is just wrong the way ebay tries to manipulate sellers. They have used far less carrot lately, and far more stick. [Emphasis added.]

---

Awesome! 10 kudos and many thanks for sharing a comparison point. 
The return rates you and I are shown as the peer group are essentially the same. (LOL, if I believed the number was an actual calculation, the mathematician in me would wonder why the .01%difference  (that is 1/10,000).)