Posts filed under 'Other Venues'
The Internet Merchants Association has announced their conference agenda for 2009 in Las Vegas, NV in conjunction with the ASD/AMD Trade Show. There is still plenty of time to register, so be sure to go to www.imalasvegas.com right now and get signed up. You do not want to miss this conference packed full of information for increasing your online sales!
AGENDA: Updated 3/11/09
NOTE – The IMA is still adding more speakers, so times and speakers are subject to change. In addition to the agenda below, there will be a Networking Suite open at Bally’s on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights where you can meet the speakers and ask more questions!
March 16-18 Internet Merchants Assn. Las Vegas register @ , www.imamerchant.org & www.imalasvegas.com Don’t miss out – Register TODAY!
Continue Reading March 5th, 2009
Written by Cyn
I applaud eBay management for taking steps to “fix” feedback on the site. The changes are in the right direction, but there are still some things that could be fixed to make feedback more fair for both buyers and sellers. After much thought, I agree with the proposal that sellers should not be able to leave negative feedback for buyers, IF the following changes are also implemented.
First, I propose that eBay do away with “neutral” feedback as it doesn’t do anyone any good. It is unfair to call something “neutral” that really doesn’t have a neutral effect. I understand that eBay feedback percentage is “Positive Percentage” which is why neutrals now effect the score. However, many neutrals are left as a form of communication rather than showing dissatisfaction on the part of the buyer, and therefore should not be used to penalize the seller.
Second, I propose that non-paying buyers be banned from leaving feedback at all. Isn’t feedback supposed to be only for members involved in a transaction? If an item is not paid for, that is NOT a transaction and therefore that buyer has no right to leave feedback. I understand that eBay cannot tell if a buyer has paid unless that buyer pays via Paypal. However, I propose that sellers be on the honor system to mark an item Paid in their My eBay when a buyer pays with a payment form other than Paypal. If an item is not marked as paid, the buyer would be unable to leave feedback. Should a buyer choose to pay with a method other than paypal, they will risk not being able to leave feedback if the seller does not mark the item paid. However, this would just be another risk a buyer takes when paying with other methods. In addition, it would encourage more buyers to use Paypal – and isn’t that what eBay wants anyway?
Third, I propose that for purposes of Seller Performance, feedback be based on all SALES rather than on all feedback left. This is how Amazon uses feedback. For Seller Performance, Amazon uses a negative feedback percentage that is based on ALL ORDERS. So a seller may show 96% on their feedback profile on the site, but for Seller Performance purposes, their negative feedback percentage may only be .08%. Amazon does not include neutrals at all in their Seller Performance figures.
Many happy buyers do not leave feedback at all and a seller should not be penalized because of this choice.
Fourth, a buyer should be given the ability to remove negative feedback. Amazon allows this and makes it very easy for the buyer to do so. When I receive a negative feedback on Amazon, I contact the buyer and work it out with them. Once the buyer is satisfied they then remove their negative feedback. Most buyers who leave negative feedback never contact me first. This gives me a way to resolve an issue and make the buyer happy. The way eBay has now implemented the feedback process leaves me with no incentive to help a customer who leaves a negative with no contact.
eBay – Great start – Now finish the job!
May 28th, 2008
When eBay reviews your account – that’s when. At least that’s what was told to sellers recently on an Ebay forum by an eBay employee:
“If more than 5% of a seller’s buyers are dissatisfied, as measured by negative and neutral Feedback left or Item Not Received complaints during a 90 day period, the seller is in violation of the Seller Non-Performance policy.”
It has always been thought that Neutral Feedback was just that – the buyer was neither happy nor unhappy. Now eBay is using Neutral Feedback against sellers. <--more-->
For most sellers, receiving a neutral feedback is almost as bad as receiving a negative feedback. However, many buyers feel that a neutral feedback is akin to leaving no comment – it doesn’t count towards the seller’s positive feedback, and it doesn’t count toward the seller’s negative feedback. Additionally, some buyers use neutral feedback as a means of communication.
In the past sellers have been wary to request mutual withdrawal for neutral feedback as they feel it will look like they received a negative when buyer’s review their “mutually withdrawn” totals. So sellers advised each other to leave neutral feedback alone.
Is that advice no longer relevant?
Just exactly how is eBay determining that a seller falls into the bottom 1%? Is there some kind of rating system for negative feedback, neutral feedback and INR’s? Say you have two sellers, both with 2500 total feedback. One has 50 negs and 25 neutrals, and the other has 25 negs and 50 neutrals. Are they rated equally? Or are more demerits given to the seller with the 50 neg/25 neutral ratio?
And how are INR’s determined now that eBay no longer offers any protection to buyers? Most buyers filing INR are going straight to Paypal since filing an INR with eBay will forward them directly to Paypal anyway. Is Paypal forwarding these records to eBay?
Should sellers now go through the mutual withdrawal system for neutral feedback? From other posts I’ve read on eBay discussion boards, eBay phone reps are encouraging sellers to go through the mutual withdrawal system – leaving me to believe that eBay feels a bad transaction is wiped clean upon a successful withdrawal.
It would be nice if eBay would publish specific standards, so sellers know where they stand. There have been reports of sellers with FB above 99% receiving the dreaded “Poor Seller Performance” emails. These sellers thought they were doing a good job, but eBay didn’t. Ebay – why such secrecy? Why don’t you publish the standards so all eBay sellers can monitor their ratings the same way you do?
Cyn
July 22nd, 2007
There have been a rash of reports from sellers stating they have received a “Poor Seller Performance” notice from Ebay and their accounts have been restricted. This email basically tells them they are in the bottom 1% of sellers. It seems like Ebay is doing some spring cleaning, and about time.
It was about a year ago that I sent an email to Bill Cobb asking why Ebay didn’t use their own feedback system to monitor sellers’ performance. I received a reply giving me a complete history of the feedback system and how to use it properly. Not exactly what I was after. But now it seems that eBay IS actually using their own feedback system to monitor sellers and place restrictions if they see there is a problem.
According to an eBay employee posting on an Ebay forum:
“Sellers receiving this notification have been identified as part of this bottom 1% of sellers as measured by Feedback and Item Not Received complaints over the past 90 days. If more than 5% of a seller’s buyers are dissatisfied, as measured by negative and neutral Feedback left or Item Not Received complaints during a 90 day period, the seller is in violation of the Seller Non-Performance policy. In such case, eBay may take a range of actions intended to incent performance improvement — or, if the situation warrants, may remove the seller from the community.”
This is good – for the most part. However, from the posts I have read, the sellers being restricted are low to medium volume sellers, while sellers with 1000’s of listings a month, and 100’s of negs, continue on their merry way. Any seller with a feedback rating below 98% should be reviewed by eBay and action taken. How many high volume sellers have feedback below 95%? 90% or less? And yet they continue to be allowed to list thousands of auctions a month.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to start with the huge sellers who put up 5000 listings a month, and receive 500 negatives a month? Think about it – get just one of those sellers cleaned up and next month you will have 500 more happy buyers. Compare that to restricting 100 smaller sellers who have on average 4 negatives in a month. Much easier and faster to start with the large volume sellers and work your way down, right?
Good start eBay, but let’s do this on a “level playing field” just as you charge fees on a “level playing field.”
Cyn
July 22nd, 2007