What if YOU owned eBay?

[mr_lincoln]

I would promote and advertise the site as THE leader in vintage, antique, unique and rare items and add, "Oh, by the way, we sell new stuff too!"

[joesoucie22012]

You mean run for your life?

[joesoucie22012]

The top vp from what country....

[joesoucie22012]

But what of the bad buyer ripoffs? I would send them to the Frisky processing plant.....

[valuestore]

Use stock offerings rather than seller fees and onsite ads to fund strategic mergers and acquisitions to keep up with the competition.

[mr_lincoln]

---

@rockusone wrote:

---

@sunny_ell wrote:

No fees on shipping at all didn't work as some people built their prices into the shipping to avoid fees.

---

At least no fees on actual shipping.

---

This is a GOOD one ... NO Fees on the Actual Shipping cost.  There is a thread where a Buyer saw a $ 15 item with $ 50 shipping ... I gather from their thread the item would NOT cost that much to ship ...

[myjunqueyourtreasure]

And they could monetize THAT by making it only applicable to those who shipped using ebay labels = )

[turquoisetulips]

---

@mr_lincoln wrote:

I would promote and advertise the site as THE leader in vintage, antique, unique and rare items and add, "Oh, by the way, we sell new stuff too!"

---

I'd put it on auction with a 99 cent  starting bid . Tulips 

[lasantino]

I would first and foremost start unwinding any and all policies that ebay has regarding what kind of business policies a seller must offer.

No returns is no returns.. just make sure that a buyer realizes it's not returns before they bid. or buy.

 I would allow sellers who do allow returns to charge a restocking fee,, as long as when a buyer is getting ready to purchase ,,there is a popup screen that says,, this seller charges a restocking fee...   that way,, buyers will know beforehand..  as we know not all buyers read the small print..  so buyers were mad when they were charged restocking fees when they hadn't realized it when they purchased.

I would also completely overall not as described...

the not as described abuse is rampant..

not as described is when a buyer purchases an ounce of gold and is sent an ounce of copper...

not when a buyer puchases a preowned item and finds some miniscule flaw to point out so they can get free return shipping.

as a  matter of fact.. if i owned ebay i would completely get out of being the judge and jury over buyer and seller transactions.. ebay does not have possesion of the item, they have no way of possibley making an accurate decision.. they need to  tell the buyer to take it up with the seller.. and if the seller won't resolve the issue, the the buyer can block the sellers items from appearing in their search from now on..lol

[the*dog*ate*my*tablecloth]

If eBay dropped the fee on shipping they would raise it elsewhere. Same difference. 

I personally happen to feel that using the total to allocate fees is the most fair.

changing the way EBay allocates fees would not make them lower. That is a given. They would merely raise the FVF percentage to compensate.

[flo_mingo]

I would treat sellers as the partners not  eBay employees.  Consider collaboration and informed decision making when changing policies. Rollback GTC because it has P.ssed off most of the small OOAK sellers, who are moving away from eBay. Small OOAK Sellers have left eBay to " partner" with other sites, making the new sites great, something eBay will never be again. 

[mr_lincoln]

---

@lasantino wrote:

I would first and foremost start unwinding any and all policies that ebay has regarding what kind of business policies a seller must offer.

No returns is no returns.. just make sure that a buyer realizes it's not returns before they bid. or buy.

 I would allow sellers who do allow returns to charge a restocking fee,, as long as when a buyer is getting ready to purchase ,,there is a popup screen that says,, this seller charges a restocking fee...   that way,, buyers will know beforehand..  as we know not all buyers read the small print..  so buyers were mad when they were charged restocking fees when they hadn't realized it when they purchased.

I would also completely overall not as described...

the not as described abuse is rampant..

not as described is when a buyer purchases an ounce of gold and is sent an ounce of copper...

not when a buyer puchases a preowned item and finds some miniscule flaw to point out so they can get free return shipping.

as a  matter of fact.. if i owned ebay i would completely get out of being the judge and jury over buyer and seller transactions.. ebay does not have possesion of the item, they have no way of possibley making an accurate decision.. they need to  tell the buyer to take it up with the seller.. and if the seller won't resolve the issue, the the buyer can block the sellers items from appearing in their search from now on..lol

---

Personally I would do away with the No Return policy but I respect your opinion.  My questions would be:

1. Do you mean a Buyer would have to keep whatever they purchase if the item is set for No Returns?

2. What protection would a Buyer have if the Seller is a scammer? Meaning, they buy a $ 125 item marked No Returns ... the package arrives and the box is empty?

[inhawaii]

MEGA?  LOL

[inhawaii]

Receiving a empty box or "not as described" is one thing,  but we're talking about "remorse" returns,  people who want to return something because they simply changed their mind. 

[mr_lincoln]

---

@inhawaii wrote:

Receiving a empty box or "not as described" is one thing,  but we're talking about "remorse" returns,  people who want to return something because they simply changed their mind. 

---

That's no different then a B&M store, eBay is technically "Retail" sales and returns happen for any reason the Buyer wants to use, true or not.  If Returns are 1 in 10 then THAT is a real issue ... if they are 1 in 100 its an annoyance ... if its 1 in 1000 it's part of doing business ... if its 1 in 10,000 then pinch me I must be dreaming ...