| |
In lugnet.market.auction, Ben Gatelle writes:
> I'm not sure where I come in on this whole issue. On the one hand, let the
> buyer beware is true and if someone is content to pay $120 for a $170 retail
> set, they are "saving" $50 regardless of how much more they could have saved
> buying it from elsewhere. If these people are willing to pay $10 for the
> information on how to get something and save a lot more than the $10
> investment, why prevent them. If buyers are not web savvy enough (or too
> lazy) to find the best deal on their own, what's wrong with them paying
> someone to find the best deal for them.
I'm in an interesting place on this one... On the one hand, I don't like
people acting as 'outrageous' middlemen. Marking up the price from what you
got it? Fine. Marking it up a LOT? When it's not worth that much? Yeah, I've
got a moral issue. It just makes me think of the seller as being greedy. And
in this case, the seller wasn't ACTUALLY the middleman-- he wasn't offering
a marked up price, but in effect, he was. It was almost everything you don't
like in a middleman (raised prices and an extra step), without actually
offering something tangible. But also, it shouldn't have been his profit.
It's a way of making money off of Walmart's sale without actually offering
anything. And I doubt Walmart would approve... sure they'd be happy he's
promoting THIER sale, but I'm sure they'd ten times rather have it be free.
So anyway, I have a personal moral problem with it.
On the other hand, the seller has every right to do it. If I bought out the
world's supply of Stormtrooper minifigs then sold them for $50 bucks a pop,
sure I'm being pretty unreasonable, but I have every right to do it
(actually, in that extreme case I'm sure TLC would have something to say,
but let's say I arranged the deal with them first). And if you're so
desperate as to want to buy them from me (or you think that's the best price
you're going to get), then you get what you deserve. I mean hey, if you paid
for it, you obviously did it for a REASON, regardless of what you might
think after the fact, you at one point felt that it was worth the risk in
buying it from me, so you get what you deserve.
But on some fictitious third hand (call me Zaphod), it's important that
those two 1st hands don't conflict. I may have a moral issue, but I'm not
about to do anything illegal or equally immoral (by my standards obviously)
to try and stop something like this. BUT, if there is some legal and moral
action to take, I'm all for taking it. Doesn't mean I WILL, just means I'm
all for it. Certainly I see lots of auctions/sales that I don't comment on
when I might very well be able to by my rules-- they just don't mean enough
to me at the time. Do I REALLY care that much? No... not really. But enough
to occasionally make a stand. Other people, however, who have been burned on
Ebay MANY more times than me, might feel differently, and might want to take
EVERY action possible.
> What I do not like is people who put incorrect or misleading information in
> the auction listings.
Hear hear!
> The example of the person selling the battledroids for
> $20 is misleading because buyers can get the item from several stores
> including all LICs, and the LEGOLAND store, IIRC.
Hmm... I guess I don't see it as all that misleading-- That's just something
where I'd say 'Let the buyer beware'...
> Look at an auction I
> currently have running for the McD catalog promo from last year.
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=536355278>
> As far as I know these are still available from S@H for $9.99 which was my
> starting bid. (It is currently up to $15.50). Looking at it now I see where
> I said this is an exclusive "S@H" set which an uneducated LEGO buyer
> wouldn't understand. Next time I will say "LEGO Shop at Home Service" but I
> will not list their web address or phone number.
Hmm... From your example, I'd assume that you think it's ok to START an
auction at its retail cost (or maybe *slightly* above?), but just so long as
that initial bid is within reason of the retail cost it's ok, whereas if the
starting bid is too high, it misleads people into thinking they're getting
more value than they actually are?
> If the buyer is willing to pay for it I have no problem selling it.
I guess the real question is do you have a problem with OTHER people selling
it if the buyer is still willing to pay the price? If not, maybe I'm
misunderstanding your example...
> But on the other hand, I don't like the militant anti-profit attitude of
> some LUGNETers who want to sabotage sellers because they're trying to sell
> something that a buyer can get elsewhere for less.
Agreed to some extent. I don't mind BEING anti-profit, but ACTING
anti-profit (purposefully telling buyers where they can get it for cheaper,
etc) is too extreme in my opinion... especially if it's against Ebay's rules
or is actually illegal.
> BEN GATRELLE
> (My 2 cents worth, if it's worth that.)
What was the original retail price? :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This makes me SICK!
|
| (...) It is misleading in that the seller said this is not sold in stores, or something to that effect which is clearly no true. (...) I have had auctions run 1 or 2 weeks in a row with no one meeting the minimum bid, and then the third time around (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This makes me SICK!
|
| (...) I'm not sure where I come in on this whole issue. On the one hand, let the buyer beware is true and if someone is content to pay $120 for a $170 retail set, they are "saving" $50 regardless of how much more they could have saved buying it from (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
41 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
|
|
|
|
