Autumn 2018 Seller Update

[tomai_oz]

Hi everyone,

This is the place to post your questions and comments about our Autumn 2018 Seller Update.

Regards,

The eBay for business team

[digital*ghost]

Hold my beer, I'm diving in....

eBay now removing the free text field for returns, so now not only do I have to either go to no returns or minimum 30 days, I am unable to have any stated terms for change of mind returns, and they're auto-accepted by ebay on my behalf. Not cool, dictating terms on behalf of all sellers, and not allowing discretion to be used - I know ebay has a hard time with the concept of discretion, but most sellers do not. 

No more restocking fees (I never used them, but they were necessary for some sellers), and while ebay are introducing the ability for a seller to offer partial refunds if the buyer uses a COM request and sends back something used etc, it sounds like it will be subject to eBay's approval, and only if the seller offers free returns (meaning they pay for the postage to get it back)... just  Yeah, stuff all the sellers who won't provide a free hire service and they get back a used dress that was once BNWT. 

2% extra in fees is for the buyer's protection  -- I get it, ebay giving themselves an incentive to profit more from the sellers who in turn don't care about their buyers. Again I say  (not to mention the fact it adds a larger "blackmail" layer to the request system, where a seller risks account closure and now higher fees if they disagree with a buyer about SNAD - or, like my latest case, I asked the buyer immediately to check with their PO since there was a 80% chance the package was awaiting collection, and to let me know either way, only to be met with dead silence for 5 days, even after a follow-up enquiry with them, leaving me in the position where I have no idea if they retreived the package or not, and at risk of having the case escalated before I could determine what was the best course of action  ). 

No more third party website distribution is interesting (I'm guessing this is because a bunch of sellers starting listing K Mart stuff at higher prices and dropshipping it, but also includes the A site etc, from what I understand). Quite a few businesses destroyed overnight, perhaps? I personally never thought these were viable, long term business practices, but can't help but feel empathy for anyone who has the rug pulled out from under them, especially if they've been doing it for years and didn't see this coming. 

I mighta hit my head on the diving board, but the things ebay prioritise almost never fail to stun me.... 

[melbourneclearance]

Personally, I think the 2% won't hit established sellers as it is very hard to get Below Standard. But startups are screwed and they'd better lick some fraudulent boots to not get negs.

As for the third party thingie. I often send a note with my parcels directing the buyers to my own website and giving them a 10% discount for their next purchase there. The way I read it, this is now illegal by ebay. I want to know how they plan to regulate this. After all, my contract with ebay ends the moment I pay them their fees for the transaction they solicited for me.

[everard6920]

---

@melbourneclearancewrote:

Personally, I think the 2% won't hit established sellers as it is very hard to get Below Standard. But startups are screwed and they'd better lick some fraudulent boots to not get negs.

As for the third party thingie. I often send a note with my parcels directing the buyers to my own website and giving them a 10% discount for their next purchase there. The way I read it, this is now illegal by ebay. I want to know how they plan to regulate this. After all, my contract with ebay ends the moment I pay them their fees for the transaction they solicited for me.

---

There are only two ways they could enforce this:

1. an eBay employee buys something from you to see if you put anything in the package - obviously, not going to happen.

2. they ask buyers to report sellers who put something in the package (the same way they put that message on sold item emails asking buyers to report sellers who offer to sell outside of eBay).

However,  if a seller was excluded from eBay because a buyer claimed this, and the seller took it further, the seller would win. Why? Because even if they have the paper advertisement as "evidence", eBay still has to prove that the seller put it in, and that the buyer didn't fabricate it. Good luck with that, eBay.

(Not to mention, as you say, the implications of your obligations ending after you pay the fees, etc.)

This is simply scare tactics. They can't do anything about this and they know it, but they think that by saying it, they might stop some sellers from doing it.

There's absolutely nothing they can do about it.

[brerrabbit585]

---

@melbourneclearancewrote:

Personally, I think the 2% won't hit established sellers as it is very hard to get Below Standard. But startups are screwed and they'd better lick some fraudulent boots to not get negs.

As for the third party thingie. I often send a note with my parcels directing the buyers to my own website and giving them a 10% discount for their next purchase there. The way I read it, this is now illegal by ebay. I want to know how they plan to regulate this. After all, my contract with ebay ends the moment I pay them their fees for the transaction they solicited for me.

---

I don't think that's what they mean by third party transactions at all.  I don't totally understand what they mean by it but in that section they've said that dropshipping is okay so it appears that there's an extra layer to third party transactions.  I'd say it's where they have to buy the item after they've sold it, which is more like short selling than dropshipping where you already have someone lined up to supply the item.  I'd say this policy is because of all the people who list items they don't even have in stock, which is disappointing for buyers who purchase in good faith.

I don't believe ebay could legally stop us sending anything extra in the envelope but a referral isn't a third party transaction.

[twyngwyn]

https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy/third-party-fulfilme...

[everard6920]

---

@twyngwynwrote:

https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/selling-policies/selling-practices-policy/third-party-fulfilme...

---

Yes, two different things.

Admittedly, I wrote my response without being able to read the Seller Centre, because it's been timing out for me all day.

So, my post was written under the assumption that it's an amendment separate to that of the third party fulfilment.

Sorry for any confusion.

(Still can't access . . . zzz)

[brerrabbit585]

I didn't see that bit but I didn't go looking for it because it doesn't apply to me. I knew it wasn't anything to do with us referring our customers to other sites.

[melbourneclearance]

Ah, yes. So advertisement is the parcel is fine.

But then we come to another problem. I have several ebay shops, but all my return info has a generic name which is not any of the shop handles. If someone reports me to ebay for breaching this rule, in theory I may be in trouble.

I would guess ebay can quickly check and clear me, but then again...

[digital*ghost]

---

@melbourneclearancewrote:

But then we come to another problem. I have several ebay shops, but all my return info has a generic name which is not any of the shop handles. If someone reports me to ebay for breaching this rule, in theory I may be in trouble.

---

I wouldn't worry, this policy is to try and prevent sellers from buying items from "A", K Mart etc and having it shipped directly to the buyer, which means the buyer will get an invoice from those companies rather than from the seller they bought from. If you don't include invoices, or they're printed directly from the eBay order details, or created with your own name (business or registered name), it's doubtful you'll have any issues. 

[melbourneclearance]

I agree.

I don't automatically include an invoice, it's only the name for the return address that is sometimes not the same as my ebay handle. Most spiteful buyers probably won't even know about the new third party rule to think of being spiteful anyway.