Subject:
|
Re: Bricklink frustration
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:40:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1478 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
| Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>: (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
| Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>: (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
