Subject:
|
Re: Bricklink frustration
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:20:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1263 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
| (...) Bam. (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
