Fees are too high...

[arman_sch]

I don't know about the rest of you, but as a casual seller/buyer on ebay (I often sell stuff I actually bought on ebay), I find that the max fee for a listing is just too much. I recently sold a lens for about $1000, on which the fees were over $100 (with $0 insertion fee). That left a sour taste in my mouth.

I'm also rather unhappy with the paypal fees, especially now given that we aren't really provided with an alternative; those fees should be transparently displayed as part of the ebay listing fees.

Now I know that ebay is providing a service, and I'm very grateful for it, but I certainly won't be selling anything between $500-$1500 on ebay ever again; I simply don't believe that the price advantage justifies the price. And even if the price after fees were equal to the price I could get on a free listing service, I'd definitely go with the latter just out of principle.

What do you all think? I'd be interested to hear how everyone feels about handing over 11% on every sale (and arguably every purchase, if you're into economics)...

P.S. Wouldn't it be cool if there were an option, as a seller, to see the current bidding price net of all fees that will be deducted, based on that price? Just a thought...

[lyndal1838]

But you are paying paypal for the service of transferring money, no matter what form it takes.  You still have seller protection too, so why is it any different to paying fees for any other type of payment.

[the-kazbar]

PP are not providing me anything different with an echeque than bank deposit does, and in fact it takes over twice as long.

They are providing the buyer the service with an echeque, so I think they should pay.

[lyndal1838]

Doesn't paypal provide Seller Protection no matter what the funding source is?

[the-kazbar]

Yes, but so does bank deposit hence me saying "PP are not providing me anything different with an echeque than bank deposit does"

[lyndal1838]

Do I understand you correctly Kaz....the buyer can whistle for a refund if they do a bank transfer to pay you?

The seller and buyer are both covered if it is an e-cheque but only the seller is protected in the bank deposit scenario.

[digital*ghost]

They are providing the buyer the service with an echeque, so I think they should pay.

But don't buyers essentially pay the fees regardless of funding source, anyway? As a business, I'm sure you factor the cost of using PayPal into your prices and so forth, so when buyer does pay with PayPal, you still get the X amount of profit you want...so wouldn't that just make it more of a case that you want them to be more aware that they're paying those fees if they use an echeque?

[phorum_junkie*]

You know what the fees are going to be before you list so if you don't like them don't use the site to sell.

[the-kazbar]

Do I understand you correctly Kaz....the buyer can whistle for a refund if they do a bank transfer to pay you?

The seller and buyer are both covered if it is an e-cheque but only the seller is protected in the bank deposit scenario.

No. You are not understanding me at all, but I also think that you knew that and are just being a little difficult for the sake of it. 

My customers are covered for missing parcels regardless of the payment method because I am an honest, reliable seller.

If you read what I have actually written you will see that I have said is that the service I am receiving (ie paying for) from PP is no different from what I get from my bank.

This thread was about fees. I think the ebay fees are fair. If I didnt I wouldn't use the service. I would like to have the same choice when it comes to accpeting , or not, echeques, but I can't.

[the-kazbar]

But don't buyers essentially pay the fees regardless of funding source, anyway? As a business, I'm sure you factor the cost of using PayPal into your prices and so forth, so when buyer does pay with PayPal, you still get the X amount of profit you want...so wouldn't that just make it more of a case that you want them to be more aware that they're paying those fees if they use an echeque?

Yes, but I don't know of any business that doesn't want to reduce their costs. Do you?

[digital*ghost]

Yes, but I don't know of any business that doesn't want to reduce their costs. Do you?

That's a slight diversion from the issue, though. If you agree that buyers pay those costs (and those costs are only incurred if they purchase and pay), then it's not really a cost to the business.

I'm not actually trying to be argumentative, even if it seems like it, just offered a different perspective on the issue.