My latest experience with the horrid Global Shipping which was hiding under a stone (so to speak)

[4channel]

Well, I haven't been here for a while and I wasn't going to come back but sadly a distasteful experience that both the seller and I have tried to rectify, stll lurks.

Prior to bidding, I contacted a U.K. based seller about an item he was selling.  The auction said nothing about Global Shipping and some past bad experiences , plus listening to the many horror stories about Global Shipping / Pitney, makes me stay away from those auctions unless I can get seller to close auction and re-start with normal AirMal postage.

Anyway, seller had item at   GBP 14.56 (approx. AU $23.99 for   Express Postage to Australia. Contacted seller and he got back to me and said he can do it for GBP 4.75, (approx AU $7.82775 for normal AirMal). Well folks, you don't need to be a mathemetician to know that seller can do it for one third. Cool !!!!! I though!!!.  I'll take 4 items and with combined postage, I doubt if I would pay any more than say GBP 9.50 aka AU $16. Most likely less than that.

Well, it wasn't to be. Apparently seller cannot combine postage and system insists that he send each item individually via their Global Shipping programme and says he can't offer combined. Well, he's not happy about it and guess how I feel!

So if they were to be sent individually, would I have to pay 4 x GBP 14.56?. Well that would be GBP 58.24 ???? In Aust dollars that's $95.94.  Surely that can't be right, paying $95 in postage for something that would normally cost me around $14 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even if this wasn't the case and I only paid a 3rd of that, as is uusually the case with small items, I'm paying 3 times too much.

What a damned nightmare!   Anyway, the seller and I are stuck.  He wants to work with me but there are other issues as well.  It never ends.

[*tippy*toes*]

But K, you have to accept that while businesses are allowed to make a profit,  it shouldn't be at his expense. He thinks he should pay wholesale or cost price because he's an avid collector of something. I think that makes him speshul and we need to make allowances.  i say it again. How dare a business have the gaul to make a profit!

Spoiler

Spoiler

I might have to list some of my old 45s. I have lots of genres, including soul. Time to research. I might be sitting on a gold mine!

[4channel]

---

@k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:

---

 wrote:

Rare items go in singular auctions as they can fetch between $5 and $5000

---

if I was selling a rare item that might sell for a lot of money to an international buyer, even up to $5000, I would want every piece of seller protection I could get.  If that meant selling using the GSP I would not hesitate even if tracked USPS was cheaper.

---

Hi k1ooo-slr-sales , of course. I understand that. And if you believe that would be the best way then fine. It could be and you have every right.

---

wrote:

The GSP is the best seller protection a USA seller can get . . . . . and nobody has the right to tell a seller that they should not use a superior shipping method in terms of seller protection it affords.

---

I don't believe that the GSP is the best protection overall for a US seller. There are major issues with it. For a US seller it is an immediate inhibiter for profit as many people are frightened away by the prospect of having to pay $40 postage instead of $17. It's been proven!

And yes, I agree, nobody has the right to tell a seller what to use. I never have!  I have made requests that a seller use a USPS as it's less than half the price. Most sellers agree. Some sellers jhave no idea that they have has GSP puton them and seek to rectify this.

And as for being superior. hardly. Twice pathetic and substandard re-packing have been the cause for my concern. Luckily the once-in-alifetime super mega rare videtapes weren't danmaged. The packing would have been sone by someone who couildn't give a damn. The good packing the seller did was undone by the Pitney Bowes repacking. And as for the fairly rare DVD box, the Pitney repacking damaged the dvd to the tatev where it was unusable!

All the supposed protection in the world means nothing to a buyer who has his / her once-in-a-lifetime item damaged or lost as is the more likely case with GSP/Pitney.

Thanks k1ooo-slr-sales , as usual I apreciate your input but for the most part have to disagree.

[4channel]

---

@*tippy*toes* wrote:

But K, you have to accept that while businesses are allowed to make a profit,  it shouldn't be at his expense. He thinks he should pay wholesale or cost price because he's an avid collector of something. I think that makes him speshul and we need to make allowances.  i say it again. How dare a business have the gaul to make a profit!

Spoiler

Spoiler

I might have to list some of my old 45s. I have lots of genres, including soul. Time to research. I might be sitting on a gold mine!

---

I was tempted not to reply to this as it is silly beyond belief. If you feel the need to say things like that, with ..."while businesses are allowed to make a profit,  it shouldn't be at his expense"   as well as  what you have with  "How dare a business have the gaul to make a profit!"    ... then I greatly pity you.  Is that all you can do?

BTW: What's the name of your prominent ID?

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

@4channel 

once again you have either misread part of my post, misunderstood a central part of my post OR deliberately misrepresented what I have posted.

Let me point out your error

---

@ 4channel wrote:

---

@k1ooo wrote:

The GSP is the best seller protection a USA seller can get . . . . . and nobody has the right to tell a seller that they should not use a superior shipping method in terms of seller protection it affords.

---

And as for being superior. hardly. Twice pathetic and substandard re-packing have been the cause for my concern. Luckily the once-in-alifetime super mega rare videtapes weren't danmaged. The packing would have been sone by someone who couildn't give a damn. The good packing the seller did was undone by the Pitney Bowes repacking. And as for the fairly rare DVD box, the Pitney repacking damaged the dvd to the tatev where it was unusable!

---

I have never said or written that the GSP is a superior shipping method.  What I did write was that the GSP is a superior shipping method in terms of the seller protection it affords. I even prefaced that part of my post with "The GSP is the best seller protection a USA seller can get"

The GSP completely covers a seller if they can show they shipped to Pitney Bowes. It covers them against claims for items damaged in transit, it covers them against negs for shipping cost, it covers them against negs and claims for items arriving after estimated date.

The point I was making is that sellers of rare and highly sought after items using other shipping methods leave themselves open to:

- being out of pocket

- being without their item

- being penalised through negative feedback for shipping related issues

Does shipping by USPS, or any other method, offer the superior level of seller protections for international transactions that the GSP offers? (a 'yes' or 'no' response will suffice)

Thanks k1ooo-slr-sales , as usual I apreciate your input but for the most part have to disagree.

Probably because you have a blinkered view of the GSP and don't understand what I post.

[countessalmirena]

It does indeed offer superior seller protection.

This is why some sellers simply will not opt out. Either they've been burned in the past by fraudulent, unscrupulous or unlucky buyers who opened disputes and cost them money (INR or SNAD), or they risk-manage or de-complicate their business by refusing to send overseas (and are either unaware or uncaring that their items are effectively available for overseas purchasers through the GSP, since they - the sellers - are not personally sending overseas, but to what amounts to a US forwarding address).

What concerns me with the GSP - more so than the cost - is that PB can simply decide not to send something... and in some cases it's an item that it seems ludicrous for them not to send. Wasn't there a guy who purchased a drum or a guitar, who found that PB for some inexplicable reason simply didn't allow it to be sent to Australia?

[padi*0409]

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

Wasn't there a guy who purchased a drum or a guitar, who found that PB for some inexplicable reason simply didn't allow it to be sent to Australia?

---

There was indeed a guitar that PB refused to send and the buyer had an uphill battle to get their money back, to add salt to the wound the buyer found PB's eBay site and there was their guitar up for sale on it.

[4channel]

            ____________________________________________________________________________________

k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:

I have never said or written that the GSP is a superior shipping method.  What I did write was that the GSP is a superior shipping method in terms of the seller protection it affords. I even prefaced that part of my post with "The GSP is the best seller protection a USA seller can get"

               ____________________________________________________________________________________

Fair enough

            ____________________________________________________________________________________

k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:

The GSP completely covers a seller if they can show they shipped to Pitney Bowes. It covers them against claims for items damaged in transit, it covers them against negs for shipping cost, it covers them against negs and claims for items arriving after estimated date.

                  ____________________________________________________________________________________

Supposedly it can do that what you say. However I believe there are isnatnces where Pitney Bowes haven't come to the party when they were supposed to. There was an article about sellers not getting the best from Pitney. I never read it but it was in The Guardian.

              ____________________________________________________________________________________

k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:

The point I was making is that sellers of rare and highly sought after items using other shipping methods leave themselves open to:

- being out of pocket

- being without their item

- being penalised through negative feedback for shipping related issues

               ____________________________________________________________________________________

Time is money and time to list and deal with missing items, questions relating to that by a customer are consuming as well as draining. With the triple handling done by Pitney Powes re-packing, the risk of damage and theft is increased greatly. I can give 2 examples of that personally. That gives a risk to the seller as they haver to take time to reply to the buyer.

I agree with the taking away of the negative part. That would be the only part that Pitney / GSP can be of benefit. OK, maybe being covered for being out of pocket. But, if the seller is going to be one of those unlucky people that Pitney doesn't rise to the occasion to when it should (as it happens some times) , then they will be out of pocket.

As a seller, if I used Pitney Bowes ( I would never on principal anyway) and if an item got lost and I was protected from repaying a seller and not getting a negative, I would still feel  a loss as  .. .. ..

* The client is unsatisfied and upset.

* I hate to see people paying through the nose.

* I have a srong belief in job satisfaction (When a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well etc.)

* The time and headache to deal with the emails and questions etc.

                 ____________________________________________________________________________________     

k1ooo-slr-sales wrote: 

Does shipping by USPS, or any other method, offer the superior level of seller protections for international transactions that the GSP offers? (a 'yes' or 'no' response will suffice)

                      ____________________________________________________________________________________

In the long run, USPS with insurance makes everyone happy. But in adressing what you have said here, the only long term befefit for busy sellers, GSP may offer protection against negatives.

Yeah I did say ... ..  "Thanks k1ooo-slr-sales , as usual I apreciate your input but for the most part have to disagree."

            ____________________________________________________________________________________

                     Probably because you have a blinkered view of the GSP and don't understand what I post.

              ____________________________________________________________________________________

I was rushed and probably did miss a slight bit of the gist of what you said, my apologies.   But, I don't have a blinkered view of GSP. I have a wide-view of it with what it does at the moment and what it's doing to ebay and it's members long term.  

I said it previously that this is a self-inserted middle-man, between a seller and buyer where none was needed. It's an inhibiter to the enjoyment of the buyer by making items more out of reach and unaffordable. It's profit crippler for the seller.

It's insertion is rude and arrogant. It's doing what a protection rakateerer is doing by taking money from people who shouldn't be fleeced.  It's also a privacy invasion. It's not good!

[4channel]

---

@padi*0409 wrote:

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

Wasn't there a guy who purchased a drum or a guitar, who found that PB for some inexplicable reason simply didn't allow it to be sent to Australia?

---

There was indeed a guitar that PB refused to send and the buyer had an uphill battle to get their money back, to add salt to the wound the buyer found PB's eBay site and there was their guitar up for sale on it.

---

So Pitney Bowes is now playing God padi. Deciding what people can or cannot have. That's just great. A great tragedy.  

[lyndal1838]

I don't know about Pitney Bowes NOW playing God.....they have been doing that since day one.

The guitar incident was a long time ago as was the drum kit incident.  And don't even think about knives....although most knives are perfectly OK to send to Australia PB will not even send a butter knife here now.

Just as a matter of interest, how is PB's handling of items an invasion of privacy?

[4channel]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

I don't know about Pitney Bowes NOW playing God.....they have been doing that since day one.

The guitar incident was a long time ago as was the drum kit incident.  And don't even think about knives....although most knives are perfectly OK to send to Australia PB will not even send a butter knife here now.

Just as a matter of interest, how is PB's handling of items an invasion of privacy?

---

What a buyer purchases from a seller should be between the seller and the buyer if it's legal.no problem. Anyway what I was getting at was when the items get repacked (And in my 2 cases badly / shoddy packing) , people know what's on there and the items are at risk of being pilfered. Also then when the items get fedexxed on the last leg, we have to give out our personal details. Information can at some stage get sold to marketing companies. I don't have time now but sometime I'l discuss this. An organisation that you would never believe gave my personal details to marketing company and I was pestered non-stop.

That dear woman is an example of invasion. And with Pitney, the potential is there.