| |
Here is my situation
I want a large quantity of a single part type.
I have found the one BrickLink seller who has the part in quantity, in the right
colour. Even worse his price is ridiculously cheap (Especially compared to other
sellers).
But here's my problem.
The store has a ten dollar minimum (I only want a hundred 1 cent parts and
he doesn't have many other parts I need).
He only ships to America and Canada (I live in England).
He doesn't take Paypal (Argghh).
This would be my solution in a perfect world
It basically revolves around trading time (it takes longer to get your parts)
for flexibility and cost savings.
How it would work is thus (and remember this would just be an overlay to the
existing system which would still work as it does now) Each buyer and seller
would become a node in a greater BrickLink network.
Taking my situation for example, I'd me expected to want more than just one
type of part (which in this case is true). I'd submit orders to multiple vendors
in America. The parts I couldn't get hold of (as mentioned above) wouldn't come
to me, instead, the computerised system controlling everything would generate a
seamless seller to seller transfer. Each seller would have access to a method of
securely transferring funds to any other seller.
Therefore my parts would begin their journey, not by coming to me but going
to another seller I was dealing with, therefore this part of the journey would
only cost the price of surface mail (which I would be billed for).
The primary buying node would then add these parts to the parts I bought
from them and send them to me. I would only have to pay one seller and one
set of amalgamated carriage fees.
Now all this is too simple. Further savings could be generated if another buyer
lived near me. Our orders could again be amalgamated (if we shared a seller, and
the computer deemed it efficient) for the sea crossing. When I received the box
I'd break it down into my parts and there parts and they could come round and
pick them up. Shipping costs would be split between us dependant on the value of
the parts ordered and any shipping costs incurred before amalgamation).
As you can see this would be a complex system and could cause a few disputes but
it could lead to huge cost savings in certain circumstances (like mine)
Steve
|
|
| |
This is a pretty interesting idea. Here's a variation that might be slightly
more likely to happen:
A group of sellers could get together and form a company to sell new/used LEGO
parts over the internet, in a network like you describe. Their online store
would show the total inventory owned by the group, and you could order anything
therein. Sellers in the group would work out the best methods of exchanging
money and parts amongst themselves. So when you order, if the parts are
physically located in another country, then they get shipped first to your local
seller (perhaps along with other orders going in the same direction that week),
and then to you.
There may be a lot of devils in the details, but it's certainly an interesting
idea.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Lane wrote:
> Therefore my parts would begin their journey, not by coming to me but going
> to another seller I was dealing with, therefore this part of the journey
> would only cost the price of surface mail (which I would be billed for).
>
> The primary buying node would then add these parts to the parts I bought
> from them and send them to me. I would only have to pay one seller and one
> set of amalgamated carriage fees.
The biggest issue as I see it is probably the fact that it's not worth the
primary seller's time in this example. The point of them instigating a minimum
order is so that they don't have to deal with stuff that's "not worth their
time". But now, they have to deal not only with your order, but also with the
order that they buy and sell from another seller, and they still don't
*actually* get the $10 minimum because they spent it on the secondary seller.
Although-- maybe I'm thinking about that the wrong way. Perhaps the secondary
seller is the one with the parts you want (and the $10 minimum) in this case.
That makes more sense. Essentially, that you can set up sellers as "Network
Sellers", who will buy things from *other* BL stores to complete your orders. If
the secondary sellers have minimum orders, the primary seller can choose to
either simply pay the minimum order for that set one order, or may choose to
include other items that they can add to their own primary inventory.
Effectively, a middleman service.
Issues are probably overhead and time. It's a lot of extra effort to be a
middleman in that case, so there'd probably be an additional cost involved that
the buyer would pay for. And as a buyer, you'd have to wait longer for your
parts, since they'd first have to get to the primary buyer before getting back
to you.
DaveE
|
|
| |
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Lane wrote:
> > Therefore my parts would begin their journey, not by coming to me but going
> > to another seller I was dealing with, therefore this part of the journey
> > would only cost the price of surface mail (which I would be billed for).
> >
> > The primary buying node would then add these parts to the parts I bought
> > from them and send them to me. I would only have to pay one seller and one
> > set of amalgamated carriage fees.
>
> The biggest issue as I see it is probably the fact that it's not worth the
> primary seller's time in this example. The point of them instigating a
> minimum
> order is so that they don't have to deal with stuff that's "not worth their
> time". But now, they have to deal not only with your order, but also with the
> order that they buy and sell from another seller, and they still don't
> *actually* get the $10 minimum because they spent it on the secondary seller.
The largest issue I've always seen with this was that the amalgamated carriage
fees would very quickly pile up. Not only would the buyer pay for the first
shipping fee to the middleman, but then the buyer would be paying for the
secondary shipping fee to themselves, essentially paying for shipping twice on
any item not carried by the middleman. Also since this would probably be used
(imo) in cases where 20 sellers all had 10 of each of said item, the shipping
(and handling/packaging, whatever) fees are tiered, overall your cost of
transport would be so high that it potentially wouldn't be worth it. The cost
of effort might, I suppose, as time = money and what not, however with the
delays in shipping everything twice, waiting for one or two potentially slower
sellers holding up the *ENTIRE* order. etc, etc etc. I never found a good way
to fix this.
Jennifer Boger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jennifer L. Boger wrote:
> The largest issue I've always seen with this was that the amalgamated carriage
> fees would very quickly pile up.
Bam.
> overall your cost of transport would be so high that it potentially wouldn't be
> worth it. The cost of effort might, I suppose, as time = money and what not,
> however with the delays in shipping everything twice, waiting for one or two
> potentially slower sellers holding up the *ENTIRE* order. etc, etc etc.
Yep. In my experience, AFOLs are generally interested in saving more, not
spending more. There are a bunch out there who *will* pay more, but in general,
I think your average AFOL would much rather spend the time doing it themselves
rather than getting a middleman.
> I never found a good way to fix this.
Only thing I can think of is to have genunine colsolidated sellers. Effectively,
have sellers send their entire inventory to a single seller, who physically
keeps the combined inventory of multiple sellers in stock, and handles them,
reimbursing sellers when their parts are sold. Saves a lot on shipping, and
makes for a lot less legwork. But ultimately it suffers from similar issues,
plus a couple new ones:
- Shipping overhead still costs much money
- "I got consolidated 2x4's from multiple sellers. Whose did I sell?" (probably
solved by proportional reimbursement)
- Sellers no longer have direct access to their inventory
- Middleman now is doing all the sorting, packaging, etc, instead of the actual
sellers, so, overhead still exists (although not as much as doing it on a
per-order basis)
DaveE
|
|
| |
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>:
> In lugnet.general, Jennifer L. Boger wrote:
> > The largest issue I've always seen with this was that the amalgamated • carriage
> > fees would very quickly pile up.
>
> Bam.
>
> > overall your cost of transport would be so high that it potentially • wouldn't be
> > worth it. The cost of effort might, I suppose, as time = money and what • not,
> > however with the delays in shipping everything twice, waiting for one or • two
> > potentially slower sellers holding up the *ENTIRE* order. etc, etc etc.
>
> Yep. In my experience, AFOLs are generally interested in saving more, not
> spending more. There are a bunch out there who *will* pay more, but in
> general,
> I think your average AFOL would much rather spend the time doing it
> themselves
> rather than getting a middleman.
Ok, so now we've also got the issue of near zero demand. *IF* demand was higher,
costs could be split through multiple orders from the same original sellers,
potentially. I would say that your average AFOL working on a project is also
probably pretty eager to receive parts, and wouldn't want to wait at *least*
twice as long to get them.
> > I never found a good way to fix this.
>
> Only thing I can think of is to have genunine colsolidated sellers.
> Effectively,
> have sellers send their entire inventory to a single seller, who physically
> keeps the combined inventory of multiple sellers in stock, and handles them,
> reimbursing sellers when their parts are sold. Saves a lot on shipping, and
> makes for a lot less legwork. But ultimately it suffers from similar issues,
> plus a couple new ones:
>
> - Shipping overhead still costs much money
Bam.
> - "I got consolidated 2x4's from multiple sellers. Whose did I sell?"
> (probably
> solved by proportional reimbursement)
Or by agreement, or by incentives, who knows, this is figureoutable.
> - Sellers no longer have direct access to their inventory
Updating said inventory would become the job of the middleman, after shipping
costs, etc.
> - Middleman now is doing all the sorting, packaging, etc, instead of the
> actual
> sellers, so, overhead still exists (although not as much as doing it on a
> per-order basis)
See above, etc.
I guess while I love the *IDEA* the demand isn't high enough, the costs too
exhorbitant, the time probably not worth it, the effort monstrous. Again, I
never was able to figure out a good way of doing it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> There may be a lot of devils in the details, but it's certainly an interesting
> idea.
and that is the understatement of the century. Transport costs are already a
goodly portion of the gross order billing. One year I calculated that 28% of
remittances were for shipping/transport. Parts (unless the part is
rare/desirable/low supply) are a low margin business unless you deal in huge
quantities. Putting anything else in the mix (and expecting the seller to absorb
the costs) is not going to fly.
Keep in mind that transport costs are about to go up. The US Postal Rate
Commission is currently reviewing a request for a rate increase. This should be
effective late '05 or early '06. I suspect that similar rate increases are being
examined in other countries. This is most likely attributable to the steep jump
in fuel costs as of late.
My suggestion (to the original poster) would be to contact the seller directly,
explain the situation and see if they can come to some amicable middle-ground.
No gurantees, but it might be possible. BTW, did this whole thing start over a
$10 minimum ?
Ray
xpost and fut to lugnet.market.theory
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ray Sanders wrote:
> My suggestion (to the original poster) would be to contact the seller directly,
> explain the situation and see if they can come to some amicable middle-ground.
Since I posted I've been thinking about that. I doubt he'd let two rules slide,
but If I could bump up the order to $10 he might consider shipping to England.
At least we speak the same language. I've been scouring his inventory for the
type of parts I generally use and I've found quite a few.
> No gurantees, but it might be possible. BTW, did this whole thing start over a
> $10 minimum ?
A $10 minimum yes, but when you consider thats 10 times the value of the order
then it starts to matter and then theirs the principal.
Steve
|
|
| |
There is another solution that could help you. A system connected buyers who
will order your item from the seller in their home country and then ship to you.
Id like this because many sellers in foreign countries want cash, bank
transfers, etc in their currency. This does not help me corner a BL part (a new
hobby of mine for one piece) if I cant pay the seller. But if I had a friend in
the Netherlands, or whereever, they could order for me. Then I could send
exclusive sets/pieces that they needed back to them.
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> There is another solution that could help you. A system connected buyers who
> will order your item from the seller in their home country and then ship to you.
> Id like this because many sellers in foreign countries want cash, bank
> transfers, etc in their currency. This does not help me corner a BL part (a new
> hobby of mine for one piece) if I cant pay the seller. But if I had a friend in
> the Netherlands, or whereever, they could order for me. Then I could send
> exclusive sets/pieces that they needed back to them.
>
> Ben
Here is a solution that doesn't put any strain on Bricklink.
1. Bricklink adds a field for sellers who will amalgamate/consolidate
their items with parts from other sellers, before shipping an order
to a customer. Perhaps the sellers would even be allowed to charge
a $1/1Euro handling fee for this service.
Now a customer A buys from seller X (a consolidator) and informs X
that more orders will be shipped to X from other sellers.
A buys from sellers Y and Z and has them ship to X
(maybe Bricklink could help facilitate this by providing addresses)
After X has received all the orders (A would have to tell X how many orders)
X has to verify the orders from Y and Z (this is why X gets a handling fee)
then X can ship to A.
This puts minimal strain on Bricklink,
and a little extra on sellers, and a little extra on buyers.
dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> Perhaps the sellers would even be allowed to charge
> a $1/1Euro handling fee for this service.
snip
> X has to verify the orders from Y and Z (this is why X gets a handling fee)
> then X can ship to A.
>
> This puts minimal strain on Bricklink,
> and a little extra on sellers, and a little extra on buyers.
You want X to verify orders from Y, Z, Y', Z', et al for a $1 handling fee ?
What exactly do you mean by 'verify' ? Are you expecting X to open all the bags
and recount the parts to see if the proper quantites are present ? For a $1
handling fee ?
What happens if X finds a discrepency ? Y says they sent the proper quantity,
but X says they are not there. Who does A believe ?
If you are not expecting X to count the parts (and I hope not) then what happens
when A gets the (consolidated) order and finds a shortage ? If the same part
came from multiple sellers, then who does the finger get pointed at ? Likewise,
if the parts are used and one seller supplies substandard quality parts (ABC or
otherwise) how do you sort out the responsibility ?
As someone said yesterday... "There may be a lot of devils in the details".
If you really believe that a $1 handling fee would cover these kind of hassles,
I doubt that I would touch it with a 10-foot pole. Just one sellers opinion tho.
Ray
|
|
|
