on 15-03-2011 03:56 PM
on 21-12-2011 07:01 PM
Look Ferris can be pushing up the daisy’s somewhere for all I care but his short sightedness continues on through the posts of like minded punters. This site is full of ‘em. To me if you got a problem address it don’t whinge over it……
on 21-12-2011 09:23 PM
Look Ferris can be pushing up the daisy’s somewhere for all I care but his short sightedness continues on through the posts of like minded punters. This site is full of ‘em. To me if you got a problem address it don’t whinge over it……
Totally agree. I'm glad you're not. Whinging that is, though you don't seem to be addressing the issue either, just packing up shop.
I can send a 500g book anywhere in the country for $6.00, which includes tracking and packaging.
So your minimum cost isn't.
on 21-12-2011 10:51 PM
John - Try selling books which are worth more as a bigger profit means you can afford to give a bit on the postage - selling best-sellers and cheap fiction is generally not worth your time listing. For instance I may have only sold 19 books so far this month but its added up to over $800 in sales. Your books average about $4 which means you'd have to sell 200 books to get the same figures. Thats a hell of a lot of photographing, listing and wrapping (and postage).
Obviously with bigger profits you can afford to give postage discounts which makes you more competitive. Buyers know they are getting a bargain when they only pay $6.50 for up to 3kg of books anywhere in Australia and you get more repeat customers.
on 24-12-2011 07:50 PM
what should happen is that it be compulsory to split the costs ie
when you post any auction your need to state your postage costs plus your handling costs ! that way buyers can see exactly what they are paying for and if the item is received will less postage cost then stated then the buyer should have the wright to apply for the difference to be refunded ! this way you bid with open eyes and if you do bid and win you cant argue about the handling chargers as they are clearly listed !! has anyone got a problem with this??
on 24-12-2011 09:16 PM
what should happen is that it be compulsory to split the costs ie
when you post any auction your need to state your postage costs plus your handling costs ! that way buyers can see exactly what they are paying for and if the item is received will less postage cost then stated then the buyer should have the wright to apply for the difference to be refunded ! this way you bid with open eyes and if you do bid and win you cant argue about the handling chargers as they are clearly listed !! has anyone got a problem with this??
You need to state your postage costs now, unless you're really old and are happy with having your listings at the bottom of the best match and price + postage searches.
You already buy with your eyes open - price + postage = total price.
Would you also advocate that a seller who underquotes postage should have the right to get more money from the buyer?
Cuts both ways.
on 25-12-2011 03:25 AM
what should happen is that it be compulsory to split the costs ie
when you post any auction your need to state your postage costs plus your handling costs ! that way buyers can see exactly what they are paying for and if the item is received will less postage cost then stated then the buyer should have the wright to apply for the difference to be refunded ! this way you bid with open eyes and if you do bid and win you cant argue about the handling chargers as they are clearly listed !! has anyone got a problem with this??
I'd say everyone who uses a service where the postage prices aren't clearly indicated on the parcel might.
Pre-Paid satchels - standard / express / eBay C&S... Not to mention all the sellers who have AP accounts (and therefore all that will appear on a parcel is a Postage Paid stamp) or use couriers, plus all the extra services that have a cost not reflected anywhere on a parcel - registered, insurance, signature on delivery...none of them will show the buyer how much postage was paid in total, through - granted - it's generally easy enough to find out in most of those instances.
But then, that's true now, isn't it? In other words, unless the Freight option is selected, sellers not only have to state their postage costs, they have to state the service they are using. Any buyer who wants to have their eyes "wide open", can open them on their own with a little initiative and research - it kinda bugs me when I see "solutions" like this, where the first thought is to put the responsibility with the seller, then (of course) penalise them if something doesn't live up to expectation. >_>
If you bid, you've agreed to a total price - though I in no way advocate postage piracy, how the seller distributes the revenue of that total price doesn't actually make a difference to the customer at all, ever.
on 25-12-2011 01:51 PM
Buyers know they are getting a bargain when they only pay $6.50 for up to 3kg of books anywhere in Australia
I would love to know how I can send 3kg anywhere in Australia for $6.50. Please tell me so I can use this method.
on 25-12-2011 06:05 PM
I have no idea what eparcel rates are nor do I know what courier rates some sellers will get if they use a contractor but although I know it costs me $9.35 to send a 3kg satchel with tracking I do sometimes absorb some of that costr into the item price and quote less than that for postage, I also offer free post on some books.
However I couch the charge I am asking the same cost in total and if buyers are blinded by that ihnto buying from me because my postage appears cheaper then good for me, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else doing the same.
on 28-12-2011 05:03 PM
Nah not pushing up daisy's yet... just spent a relaxing week in Margaret River thanks...someone sent me an email saying to check this thread out again...I thought I had explained myself better in several posts made months ago, by saying that my main grevience back then was with sellers that could send items in a cheaper way or in a cheaper pre paid bag but choose to send them in the more expensive ones. Call that short sightedness then so be it... I think the shortsigtedness might really belong to those that don't read all the posts properly...maybe LOL Merry Xmas 😛
on 28-12-2011 05:09 PM
Oopps I left the H out of shortsightedness...better get that stated cause I JUST know some digit will pick me up on that cause they have nothing better to do LOL...I apologise for any punctuation mistakes as well.