NO LONGER SELLING DUE TO SIMPLE DELIVERY

[rugbyguy1960]

AS OF 15TH APRIL MY DAYS AS A PRIVATE EBAY SELLER WILL STOP AFTER 19 YEARS.

I AM FED UP OF THE GREED OF EBAY AND I HOPE OTHER EBAY SELLERS DECIDE TO NO LONGER LET THE EBAY CONTROL FREAKS HAVE THIS MUCH CONTROL OVER PRIVATE SELLERS.

[goodibags]

I agree with what you say but my point was that the original Buyer Fee rates were unsustainable and quite clearly did not support Ebay's switch to SD. As there's little point in hiking the postage for low value/large letter items when they're no longer appearing on the platform. Likewise with the unsustainable and completely unfair payment retention.

In other words, Ebay is (I hope) more than capable of making changes as and when there may be a strong case for doing so, whether these are driven by strategic business needs or driven by its own users, who cannot always be ignored.

[moonlight-rhapsody]

"However, we like to hang around here to keep abreast of what is going on.

We also want to keep in the loop just in case eBay makes SD optional again"

Indeed, I'm sure many of us would be happy to use ebay again if it returned to a more user-friendly platform.  I can bide my time as I'm not ready to part with most of my stuff yet anyway.  I'll see what options are around when the time comes.

Nobody knows when ebay signed the contracts with RM or Evri, or how long they were for, or whether there was a “break” or “get out”  clause.  It’s not unusual for contracts to contain a “get out” clause, albeit usually with financial penalty, but ebay may consider that a price worth paying in order to get disaffected sellers and buyers back.  It may only happen if there was a change of CEO though.  Also, for all we know, RM may welcome getting out of this arrangement, particularly if ebay are taking it upon themselves to switch people to Evri.  RM may not be doing as well out of it as they thought they would do.  But none of us really know anything about what’s going on in the higher echelons of ebay.  

All we can do is to continue to show our dissatisfaction with Simple Delivery, by not selling with SD and not buying because of SD, and one day...  well, hope springs eternal.

PS.  I also live in hope that one day, ebay will stop deluding itself that Artificial Idiocy is the best way to deal with customer service, search results etc.  Although I suspect that’s even less likely to happen than SD being rolled back because like the allegorical Emperor, ebay thinks its "new clothes” are simply wonderful, even though the masses know otherwise.

[akemp1]

---

@moonlight-rhapsody wrote:

Also, for all we know, RM may welcome getting out of this arrangement, particularly if ebay are taking it upon themselves to switch people to Evri.  RM may not be doing as well out of it as they thought they would do. 

---

I'm unsure if ebay are even on bespoke terms and conditions with RM for SD.

Ebay seem to be using the same Marketplace Seller product that I have seen used by other platforms and I don't know how much commercial discretion that RM have in either pricing or denying ebay access to the product - it may be a product that RM has previously agreed with the regulator to make it generally available at a price with standard terms for averaging out errors on the weights/sizes etc.

I'm guessing that Ebay have conspired with Evri (via a bespoke contract with spend/volume commitments) to take advantage of RM's Marketplace Seller product as part of their broader plan to shift a high proportion of items into Evri's network and only use RM when buyers or sellers are outside of coverage (or for for the small proportion of difficult users like me who both know Evri are worse and are motivated to disable them).

[kath3735_wxmjn]

Well i definitely live in hope that they will sort out SD!  I am on two other platforms now and one i have had two sales in nearly 3 months and the other seems to have a problem every time i actually do make a sale, admittedly the first mailing problem was my fault for not reading it properly!   Latest one is with tracking and unlike on here with our lovely helpful mentors i cannot find the answer to my query.  E bay has a lot of problems but i am finding that at nowhere else has the same kind of help available (and i do not mean the customer service reps!!!!!   I suppose i should just return but principles are principles....

[akemp1]

---

@kath3735_wxmjn wrote:

I suppose i should just return but principles are principles....

---

My position is that SD has cost ebay my loyalty to their platform and I'm now playing the field using whatever platform makes most sense for buying and selling items. That's how it should have been anyway. We just got into a lazy rut of only using one platform which probably suited ebay until they pushed us too far. The platform that leads on clothing is now getting around half my buying activity and I didn't even have an account before SD.

When buying I'm also increasingly going direct to established business sellers' websites as there are often better prices than ebay especially when buying multiple items as the postage is less likely to be bundled into the item price and can then be further avoided if you meet a spend value.

[vinylscot]

I'd like to be more optimistic, but I'm a realist.

You say:

eBay rolled back on the BPF rate - there was no other party involved, so they could do so

eBay caved in on payment retention - there was no other party involved, so they could do so

However, with SD, there ARE other parties involved, and these parties are not going to just walk away from it. They will have contracts guaranteeing them an enormous amount of revenue, and will be keen to keep eBay to their side of the bargain. For their part, even if volume isn't as high as they thought, eBay will still be making huge profits, well over £1.00 per transaction, and won't be keen to walk away from that.

As another poster pointed out, there will be a break clause, but it will be extremely punitive. If eBay decided to break the contracts, not only would they have the huge costs of doing so to bear, they would also lose all the profits referred to above. So it's not going to happen.

Your final paragraph is simple muddled thinking. It's not the concept itself, it's the mess which eBay has made in implementing SD which would drive users away if it was to be made optional. It really doesn't matter how good SD is in, say a year's time, because those who are against it now are not going to change their minds. 

SD is a mess, but it is here to stay. I don't like it, but I'm prepared to work with it. That doesn't mean I'm right. If you refuse to go along with it, that is your prerogative, but it also doesn't mean you are right.. 

[rugbyguy1960]

I totally agree. Especially regarding this site should return to being more user-friendly and needs to stop being so reliant on Artificial Idiocy. 

Being better at implementing the compulsory changes would definitely be a big help too.

[rugbyguy1960]

I agree. Plus no Company or Organisation would enter into any agreements without making sure there were some safety nets in place or opt-outs available.

If anyone entered into Agreements without safety nets in place then they would deserve all the problems they would create for themselves.

[moonlight-rhapsody]

"even if volume isn't as high as they thought, eBay will still be making huge profits, well over £1.00 per transaction, and won't be keen to walk away from that.

As another poster pointed out, there will be a break clause, but it will be extremely punitive. If eBay decided to break the contracts, not only would they have the huge costs of doing so to bear, they would also lose all the profits referred to above. So it's not going to happen."

I don't understand how you can state these things as if they were "facts".  Unless you've got insider knowledge, you can't know how much profit ebay is making from SD, or how it balances out what they've lost from disaffected sellers and buyers, or how punitive the "get out" clause would be, or whether it would be worth ebay's while.  And it wouldn't be a 100% get-out anyway - if they made SD optional, a proportion of sellers would still use it, so it would only be a reduction in volume.  And as I said, we don't know the length of the contract, and SD started with clothing in May 2024, so for all we know, the contract may be already nearly 18 months old.  In any event, Ebay themselves couldn't have known exactly what the volume of SD would be, so it wouldn't have made commercial sense to tie themselves up for a long period without review, or to accept unpalatable penalties for a get-out. 

It's not the concept itself

It IS the concept itself for me, and I believe for a great many other people.

[rugbyguy1960]

I'm actually buying more things directly and buying more things now from elswhere than I ever did before the compulsory SD was introduced.

So not only has it caused me to stop selling it's also affected me buying things on here.

The other really annoying thing here now is getting ridiculous notifications regarding how important leaving feedback is.

Sellers cannot always meet the ridiculous time scales that they are given.

For 19 out of the 20 years I've used ebay they were never bothered about feedback being left for sellers. Now all of a sudden feedback being left is important since SD was introduced.

I leave feedback when I receive a item but because of the ridiculous time scales I've received reminders to leave feedback before a purchase has been received. 

That is not something a buyer will be happy with.

[sml192]

---

@gmij1961 wrote:

The biggest change is changing the delay in payment as that was simply wrong as the seller can not be held responsible for delivery , the sellers  responsibility quite clearly ends when the item is dispatched  and given the implementation of "AI" listing tools the seller has reduced responsibility for description issues .

---

Sellers are always responsible for the accuracy of the description and photos in their listings.  Choosing to use AI tools definitely doesn't reduce that responsibility.

---

@gmij1961 wrote:

BPF is still a scam as anything  sold  on line and posted  is already covered to a large degree by distance selling laws  ( which they fail to make clear !)and whilst we all may be happy if Ebay made SD optional there perhaps is far more compelling case to make BPF optional . 

---

Distance Selling Regulations (now Consumer Contracts Regulations)  and the Consumer Rights Act do not apply to purchases from private sellers.  Buyers have very few statutory rights when purchasing from private sellers.

The Buyer Protection Fee is mainly intended to cover the costs of secure payment processing so cannot be made optional. 

[goodibags]

We don't know the nature of Ebay's agreements with their couriers but if they have anything to do with pushing higher volumes of post their way then why shouldn't Ebay do so? And if SD is threatening these targets wouldn't it make sense to make it optional, at least so that sale volumes can recover? What wouldn't make sense is for Ebay to continue suppressing sales for no good reason.

It's entirely possible that sellers may come back to SD as long as it is fair, reasonably priced and usable, but digging in your heels and getting even bigger stick to beat them with won't help anyone.

And I don't understand why you think anyone presented with a bargain or great offer in a year's time would be dead against it? You like to assume other people are completely irrational. That's being neither optimistic nor realistic. 😉

[crn303]

Spot on comments from you moonlight-rhapsody …. Stating things as facts and they think they are realistic, really.

[crn303]

Once again you are spot on, goodibags.

For someone to think they are realistic but obviously are not in the real world.

[sml192]

---

@akemp1 wrote:

---

@gmij1961 wrote:

The biggest change is changing the delay in payment as that was simply wrong.

I sold an item yesterday, printed the label and the money was available later that evening - before I even posted it this morning. I've already re-spent it on something that was on my wishlist.

Everyone wins and common sense has prevailed on that issue.

---

You have just highlighted there one of the main risks to eBay in providing sales proceeds to private sellers straight away.  If the item is lost or damaged in transit then that will be now be covered by Simply Delivery, provided the item was sent that way, but what if the buyer claims the item is not as described?  Do you have backup funds to cover the refund?  Unfortunately, there will be many sellers who won't have backup funds leaving eBay to refund the buyer themselves and then chase the seller for reimbursement. 

[vinylscot]

Perhaps I do have some inside info - someone must have. Perhaps I don't.

What I will say is that a number of years ago, when I worked with a Plc, we negotiated a rate with RM, which saved us over 40% on our postage costs, and the size of that contract wouldn't even have been 10% the size of the eBay/RM contract. eBay will have negotiated something at least as lucrative.

In addition, any break clauses will be extremely onerous for eBay. These other companies (RM/Evri) have put a lot of work into this, and will be expecting the volume of business they have contracted for. Incompetence on the part of one party (eBay in this instance) is not a reasonable reason for termination of the contract. 

And, again you've kept your best for the last paragraph. How many of the regular posters on this thread do you honestly think will ever come around to using SD, no matter how much it improves? Many people (including myself sometimes) are often completely irrational.

[akemp1]

---

@sml192 wrote:

---

---

You have just highlighted there one of the main risks to eBay in providing sales proceeds to private sellers straight away.  If the item is lost or damaged in transit then that will be now be covered by Simply Delivery, provided the item was sent that way, but what if the buyer claims the item is not as described?  Do you have backup funds to cover the refund?  Unfortunately, there will be many sellers who won't have backup funds leaving eBay to refund the buyer themselves and then chase the seller for reimbursement. 

---

It was £7 and I've bought and sold thousands of items on ebay over 24 years. Without wanting to gloat about my enviable financial position in having a full £7 of spare money in my possession then I think ebay can trust I have the money if needed - even if they are unsure it's worth risking £7 for the fees they get on my activity.

I have no problems with ebay implementing sensible payment controls on new users and unusual high value transactions but the 14 days on everything approach was beyond ridiculous.

[rugbyguy1960]

You have also just highlighted problems that could arise.

Sellers and buyers in a majority of situations can resolve things when communicating with each other directly. That also applies to sellers dealing with their courier of choice directly.

Yes there are a few dodgy sellers and buyers on here but taking things out of a users hands isn't always the best move.

The platform should only really get involved when it is asked to intervene.

[akemp1]

---

@vinylscot wrote:

As another poster pointed out, there will be a break clause, but it will be extremely punitive. If eBay decided to break the contracts, not only would they have the huge costs of doing so to bear, they would also lose all the profits referred to above. So it's not going to happen.

---

Yes break clauses tend to be pre-drafted to be punitive but what I have seen happen in a commercial relationship, where both parties still want to do long term business together, is that such spend/volume commitments could be phased over a longer time period via contract change control perhaps combined with a further spend/volume commitment for a later period in order that the difficulties can be smoothed over and the sales guy at Evri can still claim a new order despite partially undermining the value of the existing order.

That would take the pressure of Ebay to push such a high proportion of orders into Evri and may have already happened to enable to concessions so far.

[goodibags]

If you DO have some insider info then perhaps you can provide help with advising Ebay? As suggested, IF sales volumes are down and threatening targets then Ebay can and should take remedial action to stop the apparent downward spiral. Unless there is no spiral and everything is ticking along hunky-dory?

And I wouldn't like to guess at how many sellers that have discovered at cost that they cannot work with SD in its present form may or may not be able to work with it in an improved guise. I'm pretty sure it'll depend on the 'improvements'. Either a tool is fit for purpose or not.