Simple Delivery & BPF - outstanding issues?

[suelel1968]

I've used Simple Delivery when the price makes sense, and while it has its advantages, it also comes with its drawbacks. Sellers face different challenges and benefits depending on what they sell, where they are located, their physical abilities, and how comfortable they are with using smartphones and printers.

It's clear that BPF and SD have negatively impacted sales, with enthusiasm for selling hitting an all-time low and buyers left feeling confused.

There have been some changes over the past six months, and while some improvements have been made, there's still a lot to address—if eBay is willing. What do you believe are the remaining issues with SD and BPF, and how would you suggest eBay adjust these features to make them more user-friendly and reduce the difficulties?

[porte2425]

I'll just copy my reply from another topic (and highlight the pertinent parts):

Simple Delivery should be optional, full stop.

There are actually quite a few benefits to using Simple Delivery, for both buyers and sellers. And I know many private and business sellers would use it in a lot of cases anyway. But it is just not a viable option for some sellers.

Make things simple, sure – but give people freedom of choice if they want it.

As both a buyer and seller, some items I don’t want EVRi delivering, as they are more likely to damage it. So a choice to limit a Simple Delivery courier per listing should be available; and the buyer should be able to choose Royal Mail at checkout if both are made available by the seller.

---

And I'll just add...

Automatic combined postage needs improving. Most of the time it is still overcharging.

This has put me off buying several items already. (It has certainly stopped me from bidding on some items, as then you don't know until it is too late that the postage will be overcharged.)

If you can't get it right, eBay, then let the seller override - again, give people freedom of choice if they want it.

Oh, and as a bonus...

Allow Simple Delivery and Custom Postage in a single listing.

So, where postage only needs to be £1.55 for a large letter (100g), it is nice still to add a second option of a tracked service, if the buyer wants to pay the extra – so being able to add Simple Delivery for that second option would be handy to all (seller, buyer, and eBay).

[suelel1968]

@porte2425  Allow Simple Deliver and Custom Postage in a single listing..

I thought about something like this the other day when a buyer wanted quicker delivery, but the only way to do it was to cancel and relist with a different service. 

Why not just ask the seller to state the  weight and smallest size it can be posted as and then let the buyer choose from all options? 

[suelel1968]

@porte2425 a choice to limit a Simple Delivery courier per listing should be available; and the buyer should be able to choose Royal Mail at checkout if both are made available by the seller.

I think this would solve the problem for those that  require collection of some items. It certainly shouldn't be the case that those requiring collections through disability or lack of transport have to pay more or charge more than if both couriers are selected.

[porte2425]

That has to be the most absurd issue with Simple Delivery – if you need home collection on just one item, then you have to disable Evri as a courier (to force Royal Mail, which has a collection option), which affects all your items.

Both being able to select/restrict courier or being able to turn off SD per listing would solve this. But we get neither option.

[suelel1968]

Does anyone think that BPF should have an option to select  "paid for by seller"? I think that the most sellers are reducing the cost of items to cover the cost anyway and in the same way buyers like free postage they would probably like to see that the BPF is zero, even if in reality the price is the same.

It's all about perception and Ebay could still claim free to sell, but its the sellers choice. 

[porte2425]

I preferred the old way of the seller paying fees (from both a buyer and seller perspective). It’s what we got used to, and it made more sense. Fees should be for sellers, not buyers.

When I went to the US (some years ago now) I was surprised to find the price listed is not the price you pay. In stores, sales tax was added afterwards. In restaurants, tipping was not really optional. And don’t get me started on mobile phones – paying to receive calls and texts! Crazy.

I guess we will get used to buyer fees. I just don’t know why it was ever changed that way. The old way seemed to work fine.

[pegr-834437]

Just makes it confusing then though, as in the backend. Really eBay shouldnt have went chasing vinted and instead just went right we are better than vinted lets not try and drop to their level. Do 30 listings a year for free so we can say you can sell for free* and then anything above the 30 sold items you pay a standard % fee across all categories whatever the price and make it the same for business or private accounts. What they currently have is an absolute mess, promotes people to trade illegally and makes nobody happy.

[jonatjonatjonat]

I guarantee all you’d end up with there is a decent chunk of sellers opening account after account after account to get 30 free listings.

The customer base wil eventually get used to it.  Clearly Vinted buyers understand the concept and I’m selling enough there. I’d say eBay have a longer list of issue like fakes, clunky app, search results that suffer from TMI and more. I don’t think BPF is the biggest of their problems.

[pegr-834437]

eBay are pretty good (when they want to be) at closing down linked accounts though. If they actually policed their own site better that would be a fine start, I just think the whole free to sell (but do a switcharoo on who pays) was a really stupid slogan and idea, least if they gave 30 listings for free they could 100% claim its free unlike now and vinted when its not really free. 

Fully agree there are 101 other things that need fixing, we will probably get a new designed seller hub next month though, they should have everything working as planned before making huge changes, but hey those in HQ clearly know better as they use the site daily and run businesses on here right? 

[porte2425]

---

@jonatjonatjonat wrote:

I guarantee all you’d end up with there is a decent chunk of sellers opening account after account after account to get 30 free listings.

---

From my experience, I don't know that is possible (without multiple bank accounts).

I had two selling accounts, I closed one of them, and opened this. But when I tried to add my bank account it wouldn’t validate. After my old account had completely closed (60 days later), then I was able to validate my bank on this account. So it appears a bank can only be linked to two selling accounts. (I vaguely recall a post where someone on here, Marco, I think, confirmed that to someone else having similar issues.)

[papso22]

---

@suelel1968 wrote:

Does anyone think that BPF should have an option to select  "paid for by seller"? I think that the most sellers are reducing the cost of items to cover the cost anyway and in the same way buyers like free postage they would probably like to see that the BPF is zero, even if in reality the price is the same.

It's all about perception and Ebay could still claim free to sell, but its the sellers choice. 

---

Contractually that would be extremely complicated. The service would be supplied to the buyer by ebay but a third party payment made by the seller, but only in specific  circumstances.   The  normal rule is that the consideration is paid by the recipient of the supply.

[suelel1968]

All good points! 

@porte2425 I hated the US way of adding sales tax at the till and BPF is very like that from a seller perspective. But for a buyer they are happy with the price, until they see the BPF and then try to get a discount not realising you already discounted it.

@papso22 I will take your word for it. Although in layman's terms BPF just collects money to pay for that which the sellers fees used to pay for. I like to think my transactions are secure as a seller and they are paid by eBay presumably via the BPF.

@jonatjonatjonat You have a point! Mind you I do have a lot of bank accounts. I agree there are so many issues to address and when you compare Ebay to Vted, Vted does feel like a much slicker, operation. Less faffing with categories and postage, but I still dislike it as a buyer. 

My thought is that if sellers still want the recent changes amended we are going to have to offer solutions to specific problems faced by specific groups of sellers. The time is gone for just saying we hate it. 

[papso22]

I agree that the BPF is Ebay's way of generating revenue to cover costs and the obvious reason for needing to do that is 'free selling' for private sellers.  Losing one revenue stream usually means looking for a replacement!

Without getting in to what they say it's for, how it's presented, what impact it has on prices, etc, the basic contractual position is that it is ebay providing a buyer with services for which there is a fee charged to the buyer calculated as a percentage of the item value.  The coding and software changes have all been made to put that contractual position  into effect so adding variations, such as a contractual term that makes it optional for sellers to pay the buyer's fee would be extremely difficult.

Contracts are tricky, while I obviously have no actual knowledge of the terms of the contracts ebay has with couriers under Simple Delivery I can guarantee that these contracts do not allow for making SD optional for private sellers.  There will be clauses that allow for tweaking at the margins, as we have seen with the exemptions, but the couriers will have entered into these contracts on the basis of a level of volume guaranteed by ebay.  Making SD optional would affect that volume and break the terms under which the couriers entered into the contracts.

I think many members, and I don't mean you, don't understand, or take into account, the commercial and legal structure behind what ebay does, which is why they want changes that simply can't happen.

[suelel1968]

@papso22  hi, i think we are basically on the same page.

SD is here to stay, is basically a good way of generating revenue from couriers who have done very well out of Ebay over the years.

But, the more Ebay sellers sell, the more of that revenue they get and with it, more BPF.

Small tweaks is probably all we will now get. I think sellers have more of a clue what those tweaks need to be.

[suelel1968]

What about just changing the name of BPF? The perception of Buyer Protection fees is both terrible and widely misunderstood by buyers and sellers alike. A name change to stop buyers pulling out or asking for a last minute discount seems like a no brainer.

There is no doubt in my mind that when the fee was hidden in the price as seller fees it was never considered by buyers. The price they paid was the same, the way they feel about it is putting them off. 

Transaction protection fee? Platform fees? Facility fees?

[papso22]

Definitely poorly named, and explains why so many think it gives them the protection that the money back guarantee actually gives.

[jonatjonatjonat]

It’s literally ripped from Vinted. I think the confusion lies in the fact there has always been a Money Back Guarantee which buyers (and sellers) accepted as a more tangible protection. The BPF does offer protection (fraud protection services and the upkeep of the security of the eBay platform ARE a protection) but it’s just not tangible enough for people. People in general don’t understand all the things that go on in the background to keep eBay going.

On Vinted their MBG is essentially rolled into the BPF because it was always like that. 

But you can’t call it a Payment Processing Fee because those aren’t allowed and you could call it a platform fee or an eBay fee but then you get into situations like Ticketmaster where again people can’t work out what they are paying for (because again most people don’t understand a website takes people and money to keep the website up)

[suelel1968]

@jonatjonatjonat Vtd hs a lot to answer for. The fact remins BPF is not what buyers think it is and is badly named, badly understood and off putting to Ebay buyers and sellers like. I did come up with Mickey Mouse fee but.... 

[porte2425]

---

@jonatjonatjonat wrote:

It’s literally ripped from Vinted. I think the confusion lies in the fact there has always been a Money Back Guarantee which buyers (and sellers) accepted as a more tangible protection. The BPF does offer protection (fraud protection services and the upkeep of the security of the eBay platform ARE a protection) but it’s just not tangible enough for people. People in general don’t understand all the things that go on in the background to keep eBay going.

On Vinted their MBG is essentially rolled into the BPF because it was always like that. 

But you can’t call it a Payment Processing Fee because those aren’t allowed and you could call it a platform fee or an eBay fee but then you get into situations like Ticketmaster where again people can’t work out what they are paying for (because again most people don’t understand a website takes people and money to keep the website up)

---

Well that basically just brings me back to my point that selling fees on eBay should be for the seller, not buyer.

Ticketmaster should get their income from (commissions from) businesses that are offering the tickets, not from the buyers. (As well as all the other perks that big businesses can get.)

But I honestly don’t know how anyone can defend any of them.

“According to Live Nation's 2024 earnings report, Ticketmaster's revenue for 2024 was $3 billion.”

People know companies have overheads. But they also know that big businesses, the people that own them, hold high positions, and invest in them, are all laughing their way to the bank. If a big business goes bust, then it’s usually because of the greed of those at the top, who have already squeezed everything out of the business, and who walk away fine. It’s the rest of the people – the ones who do the real work – who get hurt by it; and, which is more to the point, are the people who often have little real say in the changes that are made (seemingly on a whim of someone who figures it will bring in more money) that will negatively affect them.