Put Immediate Payment Required On Listings

[astral276]

seems like an excellent recipe to drive buyers away from ebid.

>>>>>>>>>>w h o o s h
h e a d

[cerealmunkee]

Seems like an excellent recipe to drive buyers away from eBid.

So...would "immediate payment" drive buyers away from the site?.... i guess that it would work by not allowing the buyer to "commit to buy" without making payment.

I'm uncertain that adding the words "immediate payment required" would change anything. After all.... what are the penalties for not complying with such a request?.

i expect at some time in the future the "immediate payment" feature will appear.

[tony41]

So...would "immediate payment" drive buyers away from the site?.... i guess that it would work by not allowing the buyer to "commit to buy" without making payment.

I'm uncertain that adding the words "immediate payment required" would change anything. After all.... what are the penalties for not complying with such a request?.

i expect at some time in the future the "immediate payment" feature will appear.

My comments were specifically directed at the post from Squern not at the idea that Immediate Payment should be an option. This is why I quoted Squern's post at the head of mine.

[squern]

My comments were specifically directed at the post from Squern not at the idea that Immediate Payment should be an option. This is why I quoted Squern's post at the head of mine.

I must admit that I was being a bit facetious, and didn't expect the post to be taken very seriously!

My point was that if a seller is seriously worried about having to wait a day or two for payment, there are (very impractical) steps he or she could take already.

Like a previous poster, I don't see less-than-immediate payment as much of a problem.

Perhaps I have been lucky, and had only a couple of bidders who didn't pay or respond to messages, but those buyers are very much in the minority.

I suppose that if a seller wants an immediate payment option that's reasonable, but it's not on my list of wants.

[scorpioman]

Its on my list and I am still waiting EBID

[Skyhookz]

My quick bit as someone who buys a lot, and a suggested "middle path".

I've been bitten by this in a few ways. Overall while somewhat annoying I think it's got its valid fair uses - especially as someone said, for items that are a "once-off".

I've had ebay not letting me put in 2 overseas orders to the same supplier, unless I paid immediately for both items separately, so I had to pay £12 shipping x 2 and then speak to ebay to ask them to fix it up so the seller wasn't double charged. I've also had times when I wanted to make one payment for several items after buying them all. So it can be hassle. It would need better implementation than EBay's version but as someone said, it would be *optional*.

The big issue where it is needed, is with sellers with one substantial item rather than many items. If you're at college or a single mum and have a £500 computer to sell, to get a bit of needed cash for Christmas or family, or some deadline or financial commitment, it becomes really important that you don't sell only to be kept hanging with excuses, while you worry if they'll pay up or not, and when they'll pay by. Such a seller doesn't have other items of the same kind to sell, they aren't running a business; they can't shrug off so easily the impact of a single substantial sale lost. For those people, above all, an option that it isn't a sale until finally actually paid, is a lifesaver.

Although it's inconvenient to me as a buyer, I'd still cautiously side with those who say it's useful. Amazon works that way; so do most other online stores. It forces a buyer to make an actual decision and not let payment drift. Sellers on an "online auction/market" style site should be able to make the decision to do so, if that's what they choose, and to gain or suffer like with any business choice. It doesn't impact other sellers if a few choose to do so. If it's a good strategy so be it, if a bad one people will quickly figure this out.

I'd like to suggest a "middle road", as a different option that a seller could select if they wanted to. Instead of two choices - "pay whenever you fancy" and "pay or someone else will", I'd add a third, an option to "pay within a short time period of up to 24 hours chosen by the seller":

1. Buyer clicks "Buy Now". Buyer gets usual messages but is also told that the item will be reserved for them, for up to X hours (eg seller can choose 30 mins/1 hr/3 hrs/12 hrs/24 hrs). During this time no-one else can buy the item. If not paid by then, the freeze will be released automatically.
2. Other potential buyers see the item is "reserved" during that time. They know it can't be bought - but that if it isn't paid for very soon, it will become open to buy very quickly, within a few hours. They also know when the reserved status will expire so they can check nearer the time.
3. Optionally, the system might go further and hold other buyers' bids while it's reserved. That way a 2nd or 3rd buyer can tell the system that they will immediately bid or buy it if the 1st one doesn't. They can also walk away and check later if they have won it or the original buyer paid.

Benefits:

• Buyer gets all the practical benefits of "buy now pay in a while". They don't have to pay, before the item is theirs.
• Maximum allowed "reservation" period is very short. It's long enough for genuine work/school/emergency/meeting/childcare, but a 2nd or 3rd buyer arriving while it's reserved might not be put off by a wait of hours, where they might be much more likely put off by a wait of days or weeks.
• Seller never really has the item off the market, because even when it's reserved, it can still be in search results and attracting other buyers, who are encouraged to return quickly to check, or to enter their commitment to buy hours later if the 1st buyer fades.
• A sincere buyer who would use the "Buy Now" button and will pay later, has a deadline to do so (extensible by agreement on contact). Their genuine reasons for paying later are not affected, although delay is reduced. A dubious buyer can reserve the item exactly as they'd buy it now, but their scope for harm is far less. The open ended period is now a tightly limited timeframe and will lose the sale. The item is still "out there" in the market. Other sincere buyers can see it and know when it becomes available again which will always be a very short time, encouraging continued interest, and can "line up" with their own commitments to buy while the 1st buyer hasn't paid.

I honestly can't see how this wouldn't be a good idea in the seller's armoury, and indeed all round, in such situations. Any use as an idea?

[johnwash1]

Skyhookz idea seems really good to me. And far better than the way ebay does it.

I've just bought 3 magazines over there from one seller. I would only have taken one if there'd been no combined postage. I contacted the seller and agreed a price for postage. But because of the immediate payment option I couldn't figure out how to buy (and I've been using ebay for 10 years). She couldn't figure it out either. Eventually she decided the mags were sufficiently niche that she'd take the risk of someone else buying meanwhile, and set free postage on one mag so I could buy all 3.

It's a good thing we were both handling messages promptly, else this deal would never have gone through. With an implementation such as Skyhookz is proposing it would have been much easier.

It should be (optionally of course) Buy Now, with Pay Later By Deadline, along with a button to request amended invoice from seller.

[tony41]

I am perfectly happy with the present situation. However, if it must be altered I think that the idea of a basket or shopping cart (call it what you will) should be adopted. When the buyer moves to checkout when they have finished buying then the seller can optionally insist on immediate payment. The shopping cart principle is widely understood by online buyers. An insistence on immediate payment can (and probably will) cause confusion for some buyers. I have had buyers who buy one item, pay for it, buy another, pay for it and so on and so on with postage being paid each time. And this is without any hint of immediate payment being quoted. From other messages on this thread there is apparently confusion on TOS. Why risk it here?

[HaleysComics]

Even though I myself don't use immediate payment, It is not for me to tell someone else that they can not or do not have the right to use it. We all run our business the way we feel is best for us.
Just because there is a feature doesn't mean we all have to use it.

[HaleysComics]

News from Gazza


3,456,143 Live Listings
Welcome to the eBid October Newsletter. A busy month is coming to a close. We've spent it mostly building two new functions that we will be bringing to eBid in the next few days.


Firstly is a pretty useful addition, "eBid Lists". On each listing details page you will see a new "Add to List" button that will allow you to add the listing to an eBid List, you can name the list as you wish and choose to keep it private, for your own information and use, or public. Public lists will be known as "Collections" and will be shown around the site to help promote groups of items, things that interest you or simply items you think others will be interested in. All will be managed via the "My eBid" > "My Favorites & Lists" page.


Secondly we'll be introducing our "Require Immediate Payment" system for the first time. In its initial guise it will be used by first time buyers on eBid to help in the reduction of non-paying bidders. If payment by the brand new buyer isn't received or contact made within a fixed amount of time the sale will be nulled and the listing placed back to its previous state. Sellers can turn the function off or on from within "My eBid" > "My Defaults". We will adapt and tweak the system as required and take all feedback we receive into consideration as normal. In future versions sellers will be able to add it to individual listings for use by already registered buyers.