If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Peterson wrote:
snip The only thing that will reduce fees to sellers is some kind of competition and what little there is right now is pretty pathetic. The reason that current competition is pretty pathetic is that most of it is run by someone who thinks that if they open up a site on a shoe string, and promote it by spamming a bunch of newsgroups, they can suddenly become real competition for a multibillion dollar company with a huge advertising budget. Yahoo and Amazon are the exceptions, but they failed in their bids to become legitimate competitors to eBay years ago, and the huge losses they incurred on their auction sites have deterred most big companies from trying to take on eBay. Amazon is still a major player in the used book market, but their selling method that's successful, i.e., the marketplace, wouldn't really be workable for most eBay merchandise. The real competition to eBay, when it comes, is going to require two things, a big company with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, and a new idea. Amazon and Yahoo auctions were big companies with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, but the only idea they had was to copy eBay and tinker with the minor details. To take on eBay, someone's going to have to do something dramatic and innovative, something that buyers like better than eBay. For a big company to pour a bunch of money into something like that, investors have to forget about all the money that Yahoo and Amazon lost in online auctions. |
Ads |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Ward wrote in message ...
Bob Peterson wrote: snip The only thing that will reduce fees to sellers is some kind of competition and what little there is right now is pretty pathetic. The reason that current competition is pretty pathetic is that most of it is run by someone who thinks that if they open up a site on a shoe string, and promote it by spamming a bunch of newsgroups, they can suddenly become real competition for a multibillion dollar company with a huge advertising budget. Yahoo and Amazon are the exceptions, but they failed in their bids to become legitimate competitors to eBay years ago, and the huge losses they incurred on their auction sites have deterred most big companies from trying to take on eBay. Amazon is still a major player in the used book market, but their selling method that's successful, i.e., the marketplace, wouldn't really be workable for most eBay merchandise. The real competition to eBay, when it comes, is going to require two things, a big company with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, and a new idea. Amazon and Yahoo auctions were big companies with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, but the only idea they had was to copy eBay and tinker with the minor details. To take on eBay, someone's going to have to do something dramatic and innovative, something that buyers like better than eBay. For a big company to pour a bunch of money into something like that, investors have to forget about all the money that Yahoo and Amazon lost in online auctions. Just what would be dramatic and innovative enough to be worthwhile? I think an auction site could well survive if it had the deep pockets and the will to do so. I am amazed that neither amazon nor yahoo ever seriously promoted their auctions. I don't think any serious tinkering is needed with the auction formats, in fact even if the rules were the same, just having competition is a good thing, and would tend to keep fees down. The problem I see is that how do you get people - both buyeres and sellers - to come to your auction site? There has to be some reason people would want to go there, and the drama and/or innovation issue should probably be applied to that problem rather than tinkering with the rules a bit. I doubt any serious player is going to have any significant difference in their rules versus what ebay's rules are. ebay's rules are pretty reasonable for the most part, with a few minor annoyances, but it works pretty well. the big problem is their continually increasing fees. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
bob peterson wrote:
Richard Ward wrote in message ... Bob Peterson wrote: snip The only thing that will reduce fees to sellers is some kind of competition and what little there is right now is pretty pathetic. The reason that current competition is pretty pathetic is that most of it is run by someone who thinks that if they open up a site on a shoe string, and promote it by spamming a bunch of newsgroups, they can suddenly become real competition for a multibillion dollar company with a huge advertising budget. Yahoo and Amazon are the exceptions, but they failed in their bids to become legitimate competitors to eBay years ago, and the huge losses they incurred on their auction sites have deterred most big companies from trying to take on eBay. Amazon is still a major player in the used book market, but their selling method that's successful, i.e., the marketplace, wouldn't really be workable for most eBay merchandise. The real competition to eBay, when it comes, is going to require two things, a big company with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, and a new idea. Amazon and Yahoo auctions were big companies with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, but the only idea they had was to copy eBay and tinker with the minor details. To take on eBay, someone's going to have to do something dramatic and innovative, something that buyers like better than eBay. For a big company to pour a bunch of money into something like that, investors have to forget about all the money that Yahoo and Amazon lost in online auctions. Just what would be dramatic and innovative enough to be worthwhile? I think an auction site could well survive if it had the deep pockets and the will to do so. I am amazed that neither amazon nor yahoo ever seriously promoted their auctions. They did promote their auctions. At the time they did it, there were serious questions about whether eBay could survive the competition from what were at the time much larger and better financed companies, with a huge web presence. The problem wasn't that they didn't promote them, the problem was that they didn't attract the buyers. I don't think any serious tinkering is needed with the auction formats, in fact even if the rules were the same, just having competition is a good thing, and would tend to keep fees down. But there can't be any competition if they don't do something seriously different. They need to create a reason for buyers to go to their auction sites rather than to eBay. Copying eBay has been tried by big, well financed companies. It didn't work. The only way for a site to compete with eBay is to distinguish itself from eBay in some dramatically different way, and in a way that is attractive to buyers. People do this all the time, it's how eBay got started. They had the advantage then of no competition, so they didn't have to have huge sums of money to get started. Anyone trying it today will need huge sums of money, along with the original idea. The problem I see is that how do you get people - both buyeres and sellers - to come to your auction site? There has to be some reason people would want to go there, and the drama and/or innovation issue should probably be applied to that problem rather than tinkering with the rules a bit. I doubt any serious player is going to have any significant difference in their rules versus what ebay's rules are. ebay's rules are pretty reasonable for the most part, with a few minor annoyances, but it works pretty well. the big problem is their continually increasing fees. I'm not talking about tinkering with the rules, I'm not complaining that eBay's rules aren't generally reasonable. I think that for someone to effectively compete with a well funded company that dominates the market, they will have to have a new concept, different from eBay's concept, that can be used to sell the same type of merchandise. When eBay started, the concept of online auctions was a new idea, people generally sold off of news groups, or sold off of their own web pages with fixed price sales. Some of those web pages are still successful despite eBay, because they're different from eBay. To compete against eBay, someone is going to have to come up with a totally different way for people to sell their merchandise to end users, that will allow them to sell the same type of merchandise people sell on eBay. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Ward wrote:
Bob Peterson wrote: snip The only thing that will reduce fees to sellers is some kind of competition and what little there is right now is pretty pathetic. The reason that current competition is pretty pathetic is that most of it is run by someone who thinks that if they open up a site on a shoe string, and promote it by spamming a bunch of newsgroups, they can suddenly become real competition for a multibillion dollar company with a huge advertising budget. Yahoo and Amazon are the exceptions, but they failed in their bids to become legitimate competitors to eBay years ago, and the huge losses they incurred on their auction sites have deterred most big companies from trying to take on eBay. Amazon is still a major player in the used book market, but their selling method that's successful, i.e., the marketplace, wouldn't really be workable for most eBay merchandise. The real competition to eBay, when it comes, is going to require two things, a big company with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, and a new idea. Amazon and Yahoo auctions were big companies with a well known name and a huge advertising budget, but the only idea they had was to copy eBay and tinker with the minor details. To take on eBay, someone's going to have to do something dramatic and innovative, something that buyers like better than eBay. For a big company to pour a bunch of money into something like that, investors have to forget about all the money that Yahoo and Amazon lost in online auctions. A successful challenger, of course, would have to have HIGHER fees than eBay. Getting rid of all the nuisance crap would be their major advantage. -- Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 voice: (928)428-4073 email: fax 847-574-1462 Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
"bob peterson" wrote in message om... The problem I see is that how do you get people - both buyeres and sellers - to come to your auction site? There has to be some reason people would want to go there, and the drama and/or innovation issue should probably be applied to that problem rather than tinkering with the rules a bit. I doubt any serious player is going to have any significant difference in their rules versus what ebay's rules are. ebay's rules are pretty reasonable for the most part, with a few minor annoyances, but it works pretty well. the big problem is their continually increasing fees. For many people, eBay's low fees are the best part of the deal. A newspaper ad gets limited coverage, and costs much more per day. An antique/trade show costs about $3 a square foot per day, for a weekend ($200 and up), with exposure limited to whoever walks in the door. An antique mall will cost about $200 a month per booth, plus 10% of the selling price. I can list an item on eBay for 60 cents, expose it to an audience of millions, know that some will actually click on the ad, and sell a higher percentage of my items. I don't have to travel (vehicle, motel, food expenses), I don't have to set up (and break down) a display .... and I have the flexibility to sell pretty much whatever I want to. My monthly eBay fees have never approached 25% of what it cost to sell in other venues. My only complaint now is competition -- not in selling, but in finding items. But that's a factor in eBay's success, and probably a failure on my part. My daughter's sales yesterday were higher than mine have been all month Kris |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
These people on here have no realization that real world consumers
require constant reminders to buy - it's called advertising and promotion. Everyone claims thay don't want advertising, but if its the right kind -targeted to their needs, they DO want it. Do you people spend all your time complaining to the post office about every piece of unsolictied junk mail you receive in your mailbox? Do you refuse to read an ad because you didn't "request" it? Do you refuse to buy from any vendor who advertises because you are smart enough to look for someting you want on your own? I think not!!!! |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:09:33 GMT, "a. linklurker" stay.in.your.
wrote: Why don't you stick your nose in Frank Provasek's asshole? Isn't it odd that these people who believe in following all of the rules that they have made a "solemn promise" to observe don't mind violating their ISP's rules against profane, vulgar, hurtful posts? |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
"Israel Bick" wrote in message news:1103_1067013859@frank... These people on here have no realization that real world consumers require constant reminders to buy - it's called advertising and promotion. Everyone claims thay don't want advertising, but if its the right kind -targeted to their needs, they DO want it. No one here has said otherwise. The OP sent spam to people who **do not** want it, NOT to those who indicated that they did. The OP refuses to set up an opt-in system, wherein the customers who wanted the spam would happily receive and respond to it. Do you people spend all your time complaining to the post office about every piece of unsolictied junk mail you receive in your mailbox? No. I don't have to pay to receive it, it doesn't clutter up my mailbox and prevent me from getting my wanted mail, and it goes straight in the trash can, unopened, without entering the house. Do you refuse to read an ad because you didn't "request" it? Actually, yes. I don't read or respond to unsolicited advertisements of any form. Do you refuse to buy from any vendor who advertises because you are smart enough to look for someting you want on your own? I think not!!!! I think so!!!!! I do not buy from ANY company that has spammed me, or used a telemarketer -- even if I've done business with them before. Kris |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
"Israel Bick" wrote "a. linklurker" wrote: Why don't you stick your nose in Frank Provasek's asshole? Isn't it odd that these people who believe in following all of the rules that they have made a "solemn promise" to observe don't mind violating their ISP's rules against profane, vulgar, hurtful posts? Aw, gee. Actually, you don't know the rules well, or, at all. link |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ebay Email Scams.........Letter and Ebay response | CalRima | Autographs | 2 | August 23rd 04 02:43 AM |
Ebay autograph policy | Gummby3 | Autographs | 0 | April 16th 04 01:29 AM |
do not forward OFF this group that Xlist | dahoov2 | Autographs | 4 | March 9th 04 03:45 AM |
eBay spoofs | John Yamamoto-Wilson | Books | 0 | January 23rd 04 12:46 AM |
Ebay FRAUD alert | ThomasTeeter | Juke Boxes | 6 | January 22nd 04 04:34 AM |