Why do eBay's policies now favour deadbeat buyers?

[andrewjens]

Firstly, let me admit that I'm a minor buyer/seller on eBay, but a recent bad experience while selling has made me wonder why eBay has changed its policies to marginalise honest sellers and at the same time protect deadbeat buyers. When I first bought on eBay (in 2001), it was made clear to me that any bid I made was binding. A recent selling experience has turned that around because it is now apparent that eBay is going out of its way to protect buyers with dishonest bidding practices.

Specifically: a bidder can win an auction and then refuse to pay. When that happens, it now turns out that I (as a seller) have no recourse to leave a negative feedback rating and comment – something that used to be a quintessential part of the eBay feedback system (both to warn other sellers, and to encourage correct bidding practices). Also, as a seller, it now seems that I'm not entitled to see the feedback profile of a bidder who decides to keep their feedback profile "Private". To be honest, that's staggering (compared with how eBay used to be in the early days). At the very least, as a buyer, I should be able to reject a bid from any buyer with a private feedback profile.

TO EBAY: I'm officially finished with selling on eBay – at least until you fix these inequities and return the system to the way it was. Namely, that bidding (by buyers with transparent feedback profiles), is honest and binding. I realise that I'm a minor player, but please understand that I'm going to add my voice to social media outlets, and personal contacts by repeating loudly and often that eBay should now be avoided as a tool for selling.

[andrewjens]

Okay, and thanks for explaining. I've always paid BIN in 8 seconds (not 8 days).

I would still like to be able to tick on a preference of "Block all bids from buyers who are currently undergoing an Unpaid Investigation".

Cheers,
Andrew.

[2106greencat]

Hey padi

Yup, computer had a huge hissy fit, think we have a storm a brewin' over here on the NOT SO Sunshine Coast!

Andrew - I do agree, I would like to see buyers bid retractions and non paid strikes visible to sellers the same way sellers negatives are visible to the buyer.

For some reason, eBay feel differently, and I guess if we want to play in the playground we go by the rules (fair or not).

Best thing we have are the blocks and the strikes, so I use them quite harshly - don't listen to many sob stories, think I have heard them all. LOL

[chameleon54]

---

@andrewjens wrote:

Sorry, but I don't understand your BIN point (in the context of this discussion). By definition, surely the BIN buyer pays immediately, and therefore how can they come under the heading of "deadbeat buyer"? If I've missed something, please let me know.

Cheers,

Andrew.

---

Not all sellers have their BINS set for immediate payment. This is one option that is available and is becoming more popular. I dont use this option as I dont want to turn away buyers who have not got the money in their paypal account right now, or the others who wish to arrange another payment method. Many of my clients are more mature aged men who are not always computer savvy and often dont have Paypal accounts. By giving them some slack I pick up extra sales. I dont have any blocks on my main BIN stores and non payers are not a major problem there. My real non payer problems are on my private account which only does freebie auctions. I have basic, not too stringent blocks in place on this account ( 3 strikes in 12 months ) , but the non paying pests normally average around 7-10 %  and around 40-50 % for the odd classic car or motor cycle I sell. I think buyers attitudes to non payment is worse with private sellers than with proffesional stores. Is this because the stores will almost certianly issue non payment strikes, where private sellers may not be so keen to rock the boat ?

[padi*0409]

GC, it probably wasn't your 'puter, all the boards dropped out for me a while back.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the strikes being shown the same as negs for sellers are, I think it may take a long while for eBay to see the light - they appear to be totally incapable of stopping scam listings, but very able to shut down "highjack hunters" who were exposing those scammers (hi Tazz.....), and restricting accounts of small sellers for little or no reason.

The main problem as I see it is the ease of deadbeat non-paying buyers to be able to open new accounts and the anecdotal stories on the boards of buyers being easily able to get eBay to remove the strikes, and thus (if it's true) bypassing the blocks that sellers put in.

At the moment the only option for sellers is to open and close NPD's, get their fees back and have the deadbeats non-payers issued a strike. False +ves don't and never will work.

As you might be aware Andrew, I'm not a fan of your "deadbeat" tag...................................

[andrewjens]

Yes, I got a hint that you weren't keen on the term "deadbeat". However the more I think about it, the keener I am on the adjective because I believe it's important to separate non-payers who have a genuine reason from those who are trying to abuse the system.

In my case (the one that started all this), if the non-payer had started with a reason of not being able to pay due to hardship, I probably would have acquiesced, however since they only got around to that reason for non-payment after other excuses had been proffered, it became obvious that they were just messing with me because they could.

Sorry, but buyers who cancel their winning bid simply because the $0.99 auction didn't eventuate to be quite the bargain they expected ... are deadbeats who ruin things for the seller and for the other (honest) buyers. And, to labour the point ... eBay protects their tactics.

Cheers,

Andrew.

PS. If you can suggest a milder adjective that differentiates the two types of non-payers – while still conveying a sense of hysterical outrage, I'll consider it.

[thecatspjs]

I prefer personally non-paying pests, with no shortening to an acronym as it diminishes the PEST part of the term.

Think deadbeat is a bit sixties ..but what the heck if the shoe fits ... etc etc

[padi*0409]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

I prefer personally non-paying pests, with no shortening to an acronym as it diminishes the PEST part of the term.

Think deadbeat is a bit sixties ..but what the heck if the shoe fits ... etc etc

---

How about non-paying-ar*eholes (NPA for short)    ? 

Did like that one of yours (I think) where if the buyer is currently in an NPD they can't bid/buy anything,..............and another post that suggested the 2 strikes being spread over 2 years.

Even better, lets have the negs for sellers stay there permanently instead of 12 months........That would maybe open the eyes of both sellers and buyers...............

[thecatspjs]

Negs already stay on your record permanently. 

I don't agree with your suggestion I think it maybe "too hysterical".  But each to their own.  

I have seen far worse remain on sellers and buyers public records.  And some on a sellers record that eBay won't remove, even though it is against their own stated policies of the day.

*Tongue continues to be planted firmly in cheek*