Is Ebay RIFing Sellers?

What is RIFing? Can you post a link to the video? I can only speak from personal experience, of course, but I certainly haven't seen any indication that they are trying to get rid of me. I sell maybe 10-15 items a month for a few hundred dollars a month. My wife (who has a separate ebay account) probably does less that half that. I don't think ebay would consider either of use big, "professional" sellers. Perhaps ebay is cracking down on scammers or other sellers who treat their buyers poorly?
 

No offense but think about this logically...

Why would they eliminate their source of income? How would it benefit them?
 

Makes sense to me, get rid of sellers to decrease the supply of goods and increase the price of goods and therefore increase the final sale fees.. No?
 

palidin20603 said:
Makes sense to me, get rid of sellers to decrease the supply of goods and increase the price of goods and therefore increase the final sale fees.. No?
Click to expand...

How exactly, does that make sense? What are you are suggesting is that ebay can control/manipulate the economy.

You are thinking about this with your blinders on. There is way more to it than what meets the eye. It just isnt as simple as you are making it, and there are way more factors involved than "eliminate sellers, increase prices".
 

I didn't feel like sitting through the entire 25 minutes of this video but I did watch the first 6 minutes. He starts off by accusing ebay of shutting down small sellers. His evidence for this is a few Facebook posts. I kept waiting for him to elaborate on that. Who made these posts? Why does Cameron trust what these posters said? Does Cameron even know these posters? Maybe he elaborates on this later and I didn't stick around long enough to hear it.

I stopped watching just after he started talking about how ebay is making a big deal out of sellers shipping quickly. Perhaps the sellers ebay is "RIFing" are sellers who can't be bothered to ship in a timely manner. I know how annoying it is for a buyer to be slow making payment. At least I still have my item and if the dude doesn't pay me, I can re-list. But a seller who doesn't deliver really sucks because he already has the buyer's money AND the item so I can see why buyers (and ebay) would be pissed.
 

What am I missing? If ebay culls smaller sellers, who would benefit? Larger sellers of similar goods would replace the supply and the customers would not care that much as long as their needs are met.
 

Debating this is utterly pointless unless someone can convincingly demonstrate that this is actually happening. A few Facebook posts reported by some guy on YouTube does NOT qualify as "fact" in my book.
 

Last edited:
Tallone said:
Debating this utterly pointless unless someone can convincingly demonstrate that this is actually happening. A few Facebook posts reported by some guy on YouTube does NOT qualify as "fact" in my book.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was wondering if anyone here had this happen or knew someone that did. I did not mean to start trouble. HH
 

Tallone said:
Debating this utterly pointless unless someone can convincingly demonstrate that this is actually happening. A few Facebook posts reported by some guy on YouTube does NOT qualify as "fact" in my book.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not only is there zero proof but the premise makes absolutely no sense.
 

palidin20603 said:
Saw a video by Glendon Cameron on Youtube and was wondering if anyone knew someone this has happened to? His take was that Ebay only wants big proffesional sellers and doesn't care about the little guy so Ebay is getting rid of some smallish sellers.
Click to expand...
The only reason I can see for this is that EBay has finally realized they have many crappy sellers. For too long they have tolerated sellers who treat their buyers like thew buyer is the problem. Ebay made money, in the short run, allowing these lousy sellers to stay on the site. Now Ebay's reputation has fallen, and their business is going down, and maybe they're finally trying to clean things up. If so, I'm all in favor of it. The first step they should have taken, years ago, was to require sellers to post feedback as soon as they were paid. Should never have allowed sellers to hold buyers hostage, after the buyer had paid, with the threat of negative feedback if the buyer left negative feedback when treated poorly by the seller. All that did was keep the bad sellers in business. EBay has paid a significant price for that practice, and is now seeing the cost.
Jim
 

Jim in Idaho said:
The only reason I can see for this is that EBay has finally realized they have many crappy sellers. For too long they have tolerated sellers who treat their buyers like thew buyer is the problem. Ebay made money, in the short run, allowing these lousy sellers to stay on the site. Now Ebay's reputation has fallen, and their business is going down, and maybe they're finally trying to clean things up. If so, I'm all in favor of it. The first step they should have taken, years ago, was to require sellers to post feedback as soon as they were paid. Should never have allowed sellers to hold buyers hostage, after the buyer had paid, with the threat of negative feedback if the buyer left negative feedback when treated poorly by the seller. All that did was keep the bad sellers in business. EBay has paid a significant price for that practice, and is now seeing the cost.
Jim
Click to expand...

While I AGREE with what you are saying...

Please dont forget that "for every 1 bad seller there are 10 bad buyers". Of course these figures are totally made up by me but I think my point is clear.
 

Jim in Idaho said:
The only reason I can see for this is that EBay has finally realized they have many crappy sellers. For too long they have tolerated sellers who treat their buyers like thew buyer is the problem. Ebay made money, in the short run, allowing these lousy sellers to stay on the site. Now Ebay's reputation has fallen, and their business is going down, and maybe they're finally trying to clean things up. If so, I'm all in favor of it. The first step they should have taken, years ago, was to require sellers to post feedback as soon as they were paid. Should never have allowed sellers to hold buyers hostage, after the buyer had paid, with the threat of negative feedback if the buyer left negative feedback when treated poorly by the seller. All that did was keep the bad sellers in business. EBay has paid a significant price for that practice, and is now seeing the cost.
Jim
Click to expand...
ebay doesn't allow sellers to leave negative feedback for a buyer. That being said, I agree with your basic point that ebay needs to police their business and takes steps to minimize the number of irresponsible (or worse, dishonest) sellers and buyers. If this is actually happening, I'm all for it also.
 

jerseyben said:
While I AGREE with what you are saying...

Please dont forget that "for every 1 bad seller there are 10 bad buyers". Of course these figures are totally made up by me but I think my point is clear.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what a "bad" buyer is. I guess that needs to be defined. To me, the risk is mostly on the buyer, as he has to send payment first. That requirement puts the greatest burden on the buyer. You know the old saying "the guy with the gold sets the rules"....so once the seller has the gold, the seller sets the rules. That gives the advantage to the seller.
Jim
 

A bad buyer is the guy who wins the auction (or clicks Buy It Now) and then doesn't pay. You send and invoice - after several days, no payment. You send another invoice or a message, wait several days - no payment. You try to call the buyer. No answer. You open a case with ebay and wait a couple of weeks for ebay to agree you can relist the item. By that time, maybe other buyers have purchased from somebody else while you were trying to get paid. Much wasted time, effort, and lost opportunity. Not good.
 

Jim in Idaho said:
I'm not sure what a "bad" buyer is. I guess that needs to be defined. To me, the risk is mostly on the buyer, as he has to send payment first. That requirement puts the greatest burden on the buyer. You know the old saying "the guy with the gold sets the rules"....so once the seller has the gold, the seller sets the rules. That gives the advantage to the seller.
Jim
Click to expand...

You have obviously never sold anything on ebay before if you have to ask what a bad buyer is.
 

Tallone said:
A bad buyer is the guy who wins the auction (or clicks Buy It Now) and then doesn't pay. You send and invoice - after several days, no payment. You send another invoice or a message, wait several days - no payment. You try to call the buyer. No answer. You open a case with ebay and wait a couple of weeks for ebay to agree you can relist the item. By that time, maybe other buyers have purchased from somebody else while you were trying to get paid. Much wasted time, effort, and lost opportunity. Not good.
Click to expand...
So, the seller, who is basically a merchant, has been inconenienced. He hasn't lost anything but some time and trouble. On the other hand, a bad seller screws the buyer because he sent the money, and got less than he thought he would, or nothing at all. Big difference in outcomes.
Jim
 

jerseyben said:
You have obviously never sold anything on ebay before if you have to ask what a bad buyer is.
Click to expand...
Not true...I have both bought and sold on EBay, and have 100% positive feedback on both. And, that goes back many years. Made my last purchase 3 days ago. And, I've never had a bad buyer....maybe because I'm a good seller...LOL
Jim
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Some good finds last weekend

⬅️ Previous Thread

its that time of year again...

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top