Subject:
|
Re: My unfairness vs. profiteering dilemma
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:35:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
397 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, "Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> writes:
> [...]
> To avoid accusations of unfairness, an auction of some kind (including
> single sealed bid) seems the best method, but this encourages the "maximum
> profit" ethic, accusations of profiteering and potentially inflates the
> value of such items.
>
> Is there alternative, or did I just misjudge the value? I obviously did set
> it too low, becase I got more than one response. Had I set the fixed price
> higher would this method have been more acceptable?
Some alternatives:
- Let a third-party auction the set on your behalf (for some pre-agreed
upon commission, either fixed or a percentage). Let them worry about all
the details of the auction and take all the flak, if any.
- Sell the set outright to someone for a reasonable fixed value that
recovers your cost, then let that other person auction it for maximum
profit, without giving you any kickback which might make you feel guilty.
- Auction it off to the highest bidder using standard techniques, and
dontate a percentage of the proceeds (or anything above some pre-set
value) to charity.
- Auction it off to the highest bidder and take all the money that comes
back and use it to buy new LEGO sets to send to children affected by the
earthquate in Turkey.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | My unfairness vs. profiteering dilemma
|
| I suspect I upset some people with the way I handled the sale of the glued-together 7725 I found. Although I have not seen direct flameage, there has been some innuendo on recent 'what is an auction' threads. So, I apologise if I caused offence, but (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
