Subject:
|
Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:11:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
549 times
|
| |
|
|
<snipped a lot of stuff that has already reached conclusion>
> My e-bay experience (and my rant) are primarily in regards to the Lego
> auctions. I have no doubt that it allows for a much greater market reach than,
> say, a garage sale, and hence a greater chance of reaching either people who
> will pay 'better than value' for things they can't find themselves, or suckers.
> (often both)
I agree. I find that the former appear when selling unusual items, and
the latter appear when selling big items. The rest tends to even out.
> > Evidence suggests that you are wrong. There are tons of people on eBay
> > paying more than people on rtl/lugnet.
>
> I would suggest that most of those fall into one of the following catagories:
> 1) lurking on RTL/Lugnet
> 2) morons who think Lego is a good investment
> 3) AFOL's that are not 'net-aware' - i.e., people who don't understand the
> concept of newsgroups, haven't considered (despite the volume of traffic they
> see on e-bay) that there might be some kind of Lego-oriented group on the net,
> or are just unaware in general (although I have found that most AFOL's are
> pretty darn aware)
I think (2) only occurs when the set is "new in box", or close to it.
People who don't have a clue about lego wouldn't know what to do with a
bunch of lego parts other than put on eBay the whole big cardboard box
they found. Having something "new-in-box" makes life easy for them (more
on this later on down). I also think that (3) is easily the largest
number, and will continue to grow.
<snipped side comments>
> No, economy is about using an artificial, externally-imposed unit to represent
> the exchange of goods and services. It is driven and supported by large
> organizations that exist solely to falicilitate the development of 'economy' to
> their betterment.
>
> <Whack! "Down! Stay!"> Sorry, my anarchistic tendencies got the better of me
> for a minute there. Economy is a necessary evil in modern society (at least, I
> haven't heard anyone come up with a better option), providing a common ground
> for the exhange of goods and services that can't be directly bartered or
<laughing> Agreed on both counts.
> E-bay is designed to target the marks. It encourages non-friendly competition.
> It also tends to push prices higher than they might otherwise reach (this is
> the aformentioned explanation) due to some moderately subtle (but well-known)
> psychological ploys:
> The first, and this is common to all auctions, is competition. If people are
> competing, there is a fairly common instinct(1) to push a little harder or
> higher, to prove superiority.
Assuming there are enough people of that mind for that to happen, yes
(and eBay certainly qualifies).
> The second, and this is also a very common tactic in any kind of marketing is
>
> **********HEY!!!! L@@K HERE!!!!!!! GREAT DEALS!!!! VERY RARE!!!!!************
>
> the attention grabber. That example is a crude (and offensive, in-your-face)
> sort that many individuals on e-bay employ, but e-bay is very skillfully set up
> to use several more subtle grabbers - the 'new' and 'pic' graphics are two of
> the more pervasive.
I don't ever see that tactic in the eBay lego-specific auctions
(thankfully!). The "new" is standard for all entrants, so I see it as an
unnecessary attention getter--those who frequent online auctions know
where to find the new stuff anyway. The "pic" is actually helpful, since
it instantly answers the number one question all bidders want to
know--can I see what I'm bidding on? Now, the "hot" graphic is the
culprit. That one exists exclusively to infuse a sense of "this item's
flying!".
> A third trick that e-bay uses, also common in marketing, is the deadline trick.
<snipped explanation> Agreed on that one.
> The fourth factor that raises prices on e-bay is the 'minimum bid' trick. The
> thought that $21.00 isn't that much more than $20.50 isn't that much more than
> $20 isn't that much...etc. is very seductive, and pulls (I would hazard a
> guess) about 95% of what e-bay sells to a couple of bucks higher, every time.
> This doesn't make a big difference to the individuals involved, but I certainly
> imagine that it adds up to a lot of money for e-bay.
Agreed, though I don't think this to be a negative thing. If there were
no minimum increment, and people were allowed to quibble over pennies,
they certainly would. Better to have a minimum increment to reduce the
quibbling, for the same reason all auctions have minimum increments.
<snipped intro to main point>
> Running things through e-bay for that extra shred of profit is detrimental,
> because its unlikely to make a huge difference for any one auctioneer (your BSB
> might get 20 more bucks, whoopie. In the long run, that's diddly squat), and
In the long run, it adds up. 5-10% is diddly, I agree. 20% and above
for the lego I sell means "buy (at most) five, get 1 free" with what
I've earned, in relation to RTL/Lugnet. Combine that with the minimal
effort involved in running an auction on eBay, and to me, that's
significant.
> it pulls money out of the AFOL community - how much of that 20 bucks goes to
> e-bay for listing fees and percentage of high bid?
Pulls money out? Whether I buy and sell lego on eBay or RTL/Lugnet,
that does not change my AFOL status. Someone argued a couple of months
back that while commerce isn't the main point of RTL/Lugnet, it does
facilitate the life of them. I think that's true, but I also offer that
the "location" of that commerce is irrelevant to the Lego community--the
community still gathers to talk about stuff in the same place.
> Using e-bay to reach a broader market is a bit silly, because they charge you
> for that market reach, when RTL and Lugnet don't, and the market reach that
> e-bay gives you is a cross-section of the general public, while RTL and Lugnet
> give a focused, pro-active market share (people who actively involve themselves
> in a hobby or activity, rather than people who just wander through an auction
That charge is minimal, and when it comes to buying and selling, it
usually doesn't matter to me with whom I'm doing so. To restrict my
buying and selling practices because someone isn't a supporter of the
lego way of life sounds shortsighted to me. Now, *trading* is a
different matter. That I do *exclusively* with other lego fans. They're
the only ones interested in trading, of course, but more important than
that, our mutual love of lego creates a trusting environment, and
therefore a more facilitative medium by which we can all get the lego we
want.
> E-bay also opens the door for Lego to become (or to be perceived as) an
> opportunity for profiteers - I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of traffic
> in the Lego group is people snapping up 'trendy' or 'popular' sets now to hang
> on to them for a few years, and then re-sell them. These are the same people
<snip> Ahhh--here is what I believe to be the saving grace of lego:
Profiteers will eventually come in and start speculating on the big
stuff. No doubt we'll see a *huge* wave of that when the Star Wars lego
hits. But the *one* thing that lego has above most other toys when it
comes to profiteering is that it's in pieces! For someone who's looking
to make a buck, the set has to be "new in box" or some variation
thereof. Profiteers don't have the time to go through a box of lego and
decide what is complete, what's valuable, what other pieces they need,
etc., and they never will. I believe lego is forever safe from
profiteers because by virtue of being a *building* toy, and not just
some "thing" like TransFormers, G.I.Joe, or model cars, the prerequisite
time involved for any set that is not prepackaged is just too much,
unless you love lego.
In addition, lego commerce happens on two levels: buying/selling, and
trading. No matter how high or how low the "actual" prices for sets may
go, the level of trading will remain the same. Set prices could inflate
to 200%, and the trading field stays level. If people were just
interested in one theme, then things would be unreasonably imbalanced
between themes, but there are way too many people into lego to worry
about theme inbalance. RTL/Lugnet and the Internet as a whole has long
since surpassed the prerequisite critical mass necessary for theme
balance.
Adam
bwappo@ee.net
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| (...) <more snipping> (...) Oh, I'm not arguing against the minimum incriment! My point is that its a very seductive trap that e-bay uses (and most auctions, to be fair) to get more money out of the marks. Most people, everytime they're outbid, they (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| (...) And one that appears, I believe, because the seller agreed to give eBay a bigger cut (someone correct me if I'm wrong). (...) Nope. Profiteers will just claim a set is complete, without having fully verified the contents. Steve (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, bwappo@ee.net (Adam Yulish) writes: [...] (...) I wonder if there are exceptions to this... Certainly if someone has a brand new 6074 Black Falcon's Fortress which typically goes for (say) $100- $150 in auctions, and (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| (...) Ah, a firm, solid agreement! (now, if only I could figure out which part of the sentence he was responding too...) Pet peeve: people who answer 'a or b' questions with yes. (...) been (...) I've noticed that part too, but I'm perfectly willing (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 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
|
|
|
|
