@mjwl2006 wrote:
I am listening to Ms. Stairs testimony at the moment. [...] She is very well spoken.
I've just spent the time to slog through the whole of Ms. Stairs' testimony before the Committee. I'm sorry to say so, but I found her presentation disappointing at best, disgustingly predictable as the "eBay line" at worst, for several reasons. I apologize in advance for what is going to be a lengthy post, but I'm rather outraged at Ms. Stair's performance, not unlike my reaction to her CBC "interview" recently.
Firstly, she needs some serious coaching in elocution and delivery. A person in her position should be able to read a prepared statement publicly without racing through it with hardly a breath between sentences, garbling words, nervously tripping over key points, and slurring consonants. I found it very hard to follow. This however is a minor criticism in comparison to the actual content, and to her answers to the various Committee members.
To summarize my reaction:
1) Most concerning, to my mind, was Ms. Stairs' repetition of the need for "tiered" Canada Post services, saying that what is needed is a "slower" CPC parcel service level with tracking, that could be offered at a lower price than the faster tracked services. She even implied that CPC should make this "slower tracked" service a ground-only service. There was an audible "OMG" from someone on the Committee at these suggestions.
We should look critically at this disingenuous suggestion:
Nowhere during the presentation did Ms. Stairs happen to mention that it eBay itself created the tracking crisis for Canadian sellers, particularly for those of us who ship mainly to the U.S. The fact is that, prior to eBay's introduction of its on-time delivery policy, we already had an extremely reliable, reasonably-priced and adaptable air parcel services in Canada Post's Light and Small Packet USA.
What has changed? EBay rules, that's what. Most of us using were happily using CPC's Light/Small Packet to the U.S. before eBay altered the game. Sadly (for all of us), Ms. Stairs chose not to educate the Committee on this critical point, and it appeared, from their questions, that none of the Committee members were aware enough of this issue to ask the question: why doesn't eBay alter its rules for Canadian sellers rather than asking Canada Post to solve a problem that eBay created?
2) Stairs bungled an attempt at replying to a question about the use of private delivery services during the postal dispute, revealing a hint of eBay's real agenda. She stated that the use of such private services affected Canadian eBay sellers' conversion rates, not sellers' margins.
A Committee member then pointed out, quite rightly, that the rational conclusion from this statement was that eBay's income would be affected if sellers were forced to use private delivery services. In other words, eBay is worried about its bottom line, and not primarily concerned about its sellers' viability when it makes this argument. She had no decent response to this fair question, but fumbled around until she managed to change the subject. An illuminating moment, I'd say, in which Stairs got caught in her own double-speak.
3) Last but not least, Ms. Stairs was no doubt tasked by San Jose to push the ask for a rise in the de minimus (allowed ceiling for personal imports into Canada). She brought it up several times. Her statements on this topic have never made any coherent sense, and once again reveal that eBay's main concern is for their American operation, not primarily for Canadian sellers or Canada Post's viability in serving that cohort.
She was asked directly how raising the de minimus would help Canadian sellers. She replied that it was a "huge pain point" for sellers in terms of inputs, and on paying duties and taxes on eBay returns. Both of these arguments are weak smokescreens for an entirely different agenda. In truth, the most predictable result of our government raising the Canadian de minimus would be an enormous increase in purchases by Canadian buyers from U.S. sellers, i.e. a direct increase in revenue for eBay.com. She didn't mention this, nor how this would mainly benefit Canadian eBay sellers (aside from those who purchase goods directly from the U.S. to re-sell from within Canada).
Later she claimed that raising the Canadian de minimus would have the effect of increasing Canada Post parcel business. On this point, when a Committee member asked her the logical question of whether the recent rise in the U.S. de minimus (it was raised from US$200 to US$800) had increased parcel levels for USPS, she was caught off guard, protesting her lack of knowledge about USPS, until the matter was out of time.
If she was going to make this argument, she should have realized someone might draw the analogy. Arguing for an increase in the Canadian de minimus, ostensibly as a reason for Canada Post to support it, is completely disingenuous on the part of eBay, and she likely knows it. EBay HQ isn't pushing this for Canada Post's benefit, nor for the benefit of Canadian eBay sellers, but for the benefit of eBay's bottom line through U.S. eBay sellers (who provide the larger part of eBay's revenue stream).
Finally, faute de mieux I suppose, the earlier arguments having made no impact, Ms. Stairs stated that, well, the mere fact the de minimus was over 20 years old meant it should be changed. We Canadian sellers should remember that this low de minimus was put in place for a reason -- to protect Canadian retailers from being put out of business by losing their Canadian customers to the gigantic U.S. market.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, is this eBay representing us to Canada Post in good faith as Canadian sellers? Or is it eBay hoping to use our government and services (CPC) to clean up eBay's own mess and accommodate sellers for whom eBay, practically overnight, made business here more difficult? It certainly looked like the latter to me.
Andrea Stairs is speaking for her big bosses in San Jose, not as an advocate for Canadian eBay sellers.
