We’re simplifying order cancellations, but still contributing to them.

[elpbeautysupply]

eBay's New Cancellation Process: A Step Forward, But Gaps in Fairness Remain

eBay’s recent update to the order cancellation process is a commendable effort to streamline interactions between buyers and sellers. However, this change, while beneficial, doesn't fully address the issues that continue to unfairly burden sellers.

Key Concerns:

1. Promoted Listings After Checkout: Displaying promoted listings immediately after a buyer completes a purchase introduces unnecessary doubt, leading them to believe they overpaid by a small margin. This practice exploits the buyer's sense of regret and often results in unnecessary cancellations, with sellers bearing the consequences. eBay should respect the buyer’s commitment to a purchase and eliminate such distractions after checkout.

2. 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee Loophole: While the new cancellation process aims to protect sellers, it doesn't address the fact that a determined buyer can still exploit the 30-day money-back guarantee to return an item after failing to cancel a processed order. This can leave sellers with significant shipping costs and a returned item, all because a buyer changed their mind or felt they paid a few cents too much. This loophole must be closed to prevent misuse of return policies at the seller’s expense.

3. Personal Responsibility: Personal responsibility means owning one’s mistakes, and sellers should not have to pay for buyer errors. When a buyer makes a purchase without asking questions or understanding the product, the seller should not be forced to bear the cost of their error, especially through frivolous returns.

Call for Equal Treatment:

• Promote Fairness Over Corporate Interests: Justice for all means that both buyers and sellers should be treated equally under the law, not disproportionately based on corporate leverage. eBay needs to advocate for fairness in all transactions, ensuring that sellers are not unduly penalized for buyer mistakes.

• Reform Return Policies: eBay’s return policy should reflect the principle of personal responsibility. Buyers must be held accountable for their decisions, just as sellers are held accountable for their actions. eBay should not allow buyers to make careless purchases and expect sellers to absorb the resulting costs.

Conclusion:

While eBay’s new cancellation process is a step in the right direction, it doesn’t fully address the imbalance that currently exists. In a marketplace that values fairness, both buyers and sellers should be treated equally, with each party taking responsibility for their own actions. eBay must go further in advocating for justice and personal responsibility, ensuring that all participants in the marketplace are treated fairly and that sellers are not unfairly burdened by buyer errors or the misuse of return policies.

[kensgiftshop]

Since Ebay needs buyers more then sellers, I don't think they are to worried about treating both equally.

They are going to do what they think is best for the buyers.

[elpbeautysupply]

Thank you for your response, but I believe you've missed the core of my argument. I fully understand that eBay prioritizes acquiring and placating buyers—this is clear to anyone who's spent time on the platform. However, what I’m advocating for is fairness.

If eBay insists on implementing policies that favor buyers to this degree, then the financial burden should be on them, not on the sellers who keep the marketplace thriving. It's easy for eBay to absorb these costs given their resources and shareholder profits. For sellers, though, a single frivolous return or scam can wipe out the profits from numerous sales.

It's not about resisting necessary changes—it's about ensuring that those changes don't disproportionately impact sellers who already work hard to make ends meet. I understand that eBay needs buyers, but treating sellers as expendable in the process isn't a sustainable or just approach.

I hope you have a safe Labor Day weekend as well.

[r_lresale]

I see this argument made all the time, and not just on ebay, and while "equality" between sellers & buyers/customers is something sellers wish for it will probably never exist. 

Can anyone give me an example of any business online, B&M, big box, small, local mom & pop where the business model Is NOT disproportionately  in  favor of  buyers?

[dbfolks166mt]

Since Ebay needs buyers more then sellers, I don't think they are to worried about treating both equally.

They are going to do what they think is best for the buyers.

     There is actually a dependency on both but it is the sellers that drive eBay's revenues. EBay could actually survive without any buyers and still have revenues from the store fees, PL fees and other fees eBay charges sellers irrespective of their sales. Of course this model would not be sustainable for very long. 

[fbusoni]

---

@elpbeautysupply wrote:

Thank you for your response, but I believe you've missed the core of my argument. I fully understand that eBay prioritizes acquiring and placating buyers—this is clear to anyone who's spent time on the platform. However, what I’m advocating for is fairness.

If eBay insists on implementing policies that favor buyers to this degree, then the financial burden should be on them, not on the sellers who keep the marketplace thriving. It's easy for eBay to absorb these costs given their resources and shareholder profits. For sellers, though, a single frivolous return or scam can wipe out the profits from numerous sales.

It's not about resisting necessary changes—it's about ensuring that those changes don't disproportionately impact sellers who already work hard to make ends meet. I understand that eBay needs buyers, but treating sellers as expendable in the process isn't a sustainable or just approach.

I hope you have a safe Labor Day weekend as well.

---

I understand your argument.

My personal take is that sellers on a platform like eBay should be making sufficient profit over the long haul to be able to absorb periodic losses.   

I would also humbly submit that if a single frivolous return or scam has the ability to erase the profits from "numerous sales," then one might need to revisit the entire selling strategy.   regards

[elpbeautysupply]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective, but I believe you're overlooking the key issue here. Selling strategy aside, the reality is that the impact of a frivolous return or scam isn't equal across all sellers. For those of us who deal in high-value, brand-new items, the stakes are much higher than for those who sell lower-cost goods or items acquired at minimal expense.

When I sell a $300 professional clipper, I'm putting up significant upfront capital, and my margins on eBay are slim—often around 5% net. A single fraudulent return can wipe out the profits from many legitimate sales, making it a substantial financial hit. Unlike sellers who might source items from garage sales or Goodwill, where the initial investment is minimal, my losses aren't so easily absorbed.

What I’m advocating for is a fairer system where eBay acknowledges this disparity and takes on more responsibility when their policies enable buyer abuse. This isn't about resisting change—it's about ensuring that eBay doesn't place the burden of their buyer-centric policies squarely on the shoulders of sellers, especially those of us who sell high-ticket items and are more vulnerable to significant losses.

It's not a sustainable model for sellers like me to bear the full brunt of these policies, especially when the platform has the resources to absorb these costs. If eBay wants to continue attracting quality sellers who offer valuable products, they need to balance their approach to protect both buyers and sellers equitably.

Thanks again for the dialogue, and I hope you enjoy your Labor Day weekend as well.

[elpbeautysupply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The disparity between how buyers and sellers are treated is indeed a widespread issue, not just on eBay, but across many business models. This is precisely why we needed labor unions and organized movements in the United States—to address and correct the imbalance of power when businesses become too focused on profit at the expense of fairness and equity.

When businesses are allowed to run unchecked, they often become tyrannical and out of control, prioritizing their own interests over those of their workers, customers, or, in this case, sellers. Unions have historically played a crucial role in bringing these businesses back down to earth, ensuring that employees and workers are treated fairly and not exploited.

Perhaps it's time to consider that online platforms, like eBay, should be included in that same realm of accountability. These venues should be held responsible for how they treat sellers, particularly when they shift the burden of their buyer-friendly policies onto those of us who are simply trying to run a business. Sellers shouldn't have to bear the costs for mistakes they didn't make or for policies that disproportionately favor buyers.

If we value justice and fairness, as Malcolm X and Robert Kennedy both advocated, then we must continue to push for changes that protect all parties involved, not just those with the most leverage. The balance of power needs to be addressed, and online platforms should be no exception.

[dbfolks166mt]

     I have mixed emotions about the new cancelation process and agree while it is not perfect, nothing ever is or we would not have change, I think it is a move in the right direction. Tweaking the process can follow if eBay listens. 

     On the good side the process allows a buyer to request a cancellation rather than them simply waiting for 4 days for the order to cancel for non-payment simply because they did not know they could reach out to the seller and request a cancelation and/or retract an auction bid. While IPR and auto-pay help to mitigate the non-payers those too have some issues that need tweaked. As others have mentioned I would much rather deal with the cancelation request than have a buyer pay for the item, me ship it and then have them immediately open a return request when they receive the item simply because they did not know what they could do up front prior to the shipment. 

     On the down side there is no penalty for a buyer abusing or amusing themselves with the capability. Unlike non-payers there does not appear to be any penalty for the cancelation request. A malicious buyer could place 100 orders followed immediately by 100 cancelation requests which may require the seller to waste time getting the item relisted, adjusting quantities available, adding to their BBL.............. I have not seen the buyer side of the cancelation request and do not know if the buyer has to provide a reason for the request but there would be no reason for the buyer not to provide an honest answer as opposed to a bogus reason like are often used on return requests. As  seller this may provide me with some valuable insight regarding the listing price, shipping, description, etc. that I could use to tweak my listing. 

[mam98031]

@elpbeautysupply 

While I understand and respect how you feel the site should be ran, you are going to be forever disappointed as Ebay nor any site similar to Ebay is going to function that way.  

[iamalwaysright]

---

@elpbeautysupply wrote:

If eBay wants to continue attracting quality sellers who offer valuable products, they need to balance their approach to protect both buyers and sellers equitably.

---

Do they though? I don't know if ebay favors attracting one type, sales-volume, or ticket-level of seller over another. It certainly doesn't seem that way given their current policies. Especially as you pointed out with their returns policies. In the B&M world we see some high-ticket more niched items follow a different set of policies than your everyday consumer products. Or even with products that aren't always as high-ticket like electronics. They tend to have their own separate set of returns policies, but I don't believe ebay does for that right? So that tells me that ebay doesn't really favor one seller over another.  Does ebay have a separate department specifically for high-ticket item seller cases? If so, unfortunately I'd say your example of a $300 sale wouldn't fall into that. I'd probably guess the sale would have to be at least 1k. 

I'm sure all of us sellers ideally want what you just described. Realistically I don't see that happening soon because of the sheer volume of people who want to sell online. Even now I think the masses still see selling online as a super easy glorious thing. The moment we end up seeing this paradigm shift is when we can expect your concerns to be addressed. Except your #1. That one is just plain stupid and should never happen regardless of the seller-buyer-ebay dynamic.

[mam98031]

---

@elpbeautysupply wrote:

Thank you for your response, but I believe you've missed the core of my argument. I fully understand that eBay prioritizes acquiring and placating buyers—this is clear to anyone who's spent time on the platform. However, what I’m advocating for is fairness.

If eBay insists on implementing policies that favor buyers to this degree, then the financial burden should be on them, not on the sellers who keep the marketplace thriving. It's easy for eBay to absorb these costs given their resources and shareholder profits. For sellers, though, a single frivolous return or scam can wipe out the profits from numerous sales.

It's not about resisting necessary changes—it's about ensuring that those changes don't disproportionately impact sellers who already work hard to make ends meet. I understand that eBay needs buyers, but treating sellers as expendable in the process isn't a sustainable or just approach.

I hope you have a safe Labor Day weekend as well.

---

@elpbeautysupply 

I think you misunderstand this particular policy change.  The buyers are not given anything that they didn't have before this update except a formal way to ask for a cancellation up to the point that the item is marked shipped.  Most buyers, before this change, asked for cancellations well after the first hour and just sent sellers an email.  Now they have a formal form.  This is unlikely to increase cancellations, most buyers don't purchases something just to cancel the order.  There will be some, but this is so unlikely to increase the requests.

But sellers gain.  We have feedback protection and we now will get the fixed transaction fee refunded too.  Under the old rule, you only got that refunded if the buyer had request a cancellation using the formal form in the first hour after the purchase.

We got much more out of this change than the buyers did.

[mam98031]

---

@dbfolks166mt wrote:

Since Ebay needs buyers more then sellers, I don't think they are to worried about treating both equally.

They are going to do what they think is best for the buyers.

     There is actually a dependency on both but it is the sellers that drive eBay's revenues. EBay could actually survive without any buyers and still have revenues from the store fees, PL fees and other fees eBay charges sellers irrespective of their sales. Of course this model would not be sustainable for very long. 

---

But why would sellers stay if they had no buyers, that is nonsensical, I'm not being rude.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  And yes, you are correct, the model wouldn't last very long.

The OP is looking for a site that doesn't exist.  If they want a site like that, they need to build it for themselves and then advertise for more sellers.  See if they can make a go of it.  If they can't, it is likely they'd come back with a better understanding as to why Ebay, or any other similar site, could do as they are wishing they would.

[dbfolks166mt]

@dbfolks166mt wrote:

Since Ebay needs buyers more then sellers, I don't think they are to worried about treating both equally.

They are going to do what they think is best for the buyers.

     There is actually a dependency on both but it is the sellers that drive eBay's revenues. EBay could actually survive without any buyers and still have revenues from the store fees, PL fees and other fees eBay charges sellers irrespective of their sales. Of course this model would not be sustainable for very long. 

But why would sellers stay if they had no buyers, that is nonsensical, I'm not being rude.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  And yes, you are correct, the model wouldn't last very long.

     It's the chicken/egg question but in this case the seller definitely came first as it is with most business startups either because of consumer demand or a perceived need where the consumer is not yet aware they need it.  Why would buyers come if there were no sellers? 

The OP is looking for a site that doesn't exist.  If they want a site like that, they need to build it for themselves and then advertise for more sellers.  See if they can make a go of it.  If they can't, it is likely they'd come back with a better understanding as to why Ebay, or any other similar site, could do as they are wishing they would.

     Agreed.