eBay

pierrelebel · ‎09-16-2014

Old timers may remember three previous programs, the last one being the very popular AdCommerce which was closed four years ago. It was a real money maker for sellers, not so much for eBay!

http://www.ecommercebytes.com/cab/abn/y14/m09/i16/s01

photosalp · ‎09-16-2014

Great to hear about your long time customer Rick. I won't be around long enough to build up that kind of following (wish I had started this earlier), but I can see it happening.

art-in-the-making · ‎09-16-2014

actually we spent a lot on adcommerce and would be very happy to spend it now depending on specifics, of course. It was working for us but seen in the context of those years - that saw dozens of high selling N. American artists throw in the towel with eBay - it was hard to detect the modest adcommerce benefits amid the general decline in our category

***

your example illustrates one reason why search is far from perfect. With all those sellers meeting the criteria and using all the prescribed words compatible for the product... they are all stuck in a log jam. But they can't use words that are off the grid as it will push them back in the results - unless the product is a "known" entity and the obscure word is one that someone will eventually search for

Because of the flaws in search, we are prevented from using keywords that could describe our product better or help to differentiate it from others

rose-dee · ‎09-17-2014

@pierrelebel wrote:
Old timers may remember three previous programs, the last one being the very popular AdCommerce which was closed four years ago. It was a real money maker for sellers, not so much for eBay!

Why would it not have been a money-maker for eBay if it increased sales as you said it did for you? I would think eBay would be winning on both sides (paid ad revenue and FVFs on sales). Why would they start up paid advertising again if it didn't work well for eBay? I have to wonder what the real motive is behind this (see below).

My point earlier was that Cassini (or whatever you prefer to name it), was supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff as well as giving buyers the most relevant results when they search. In other words, it was supposed to create a merit system that would provide the best sellers with the best advertising opportunities -- a level playing field for all, with rules that apply to everybody. I get that.

Listings are, after all, by definition, advertising. Why should sellers who can afford to pay for added exposure jump the line over sellers who are otherwise trying to keep up with being advertised the usual way, at the top of the heap, in search results? Why bother having a merit system at all then? Just let the ad money loose.

I disagree that the two things (listings vs. separately paid advertising) have nothing to do with each other. They have everything in common but access. Each of us who lists items pays for advertising, in one way or another (either listing fees, store fees, or FVFs) .

It used to be that there was a multi-tiered advertising system for eBay sellers, where everybody paid basic listing fees, some paid for listing upgrades, and others used high priced add-ons, like AdCommerce or Featured First, etc. That was when seller status didn't have as much impact on how visible one's listings were. However, at the moment all eBay sellers are more or less on an equal footing based on their performance, which despite its flaws, is a good thing.

My point, or at least something I think sellers should consider before hailing this new concept as a wonderful idea: perhaps the motive behind it is to create a 2-tiered seller system on eBay.

If the free test is well received (and why wouldn't it be - it's initially free!), eBay will in effect create a system where seller performance alone is no longer sufficient to get "top billing" on the site. High volume, commercial sellers with access to advertising budgets will be able to make themselves ubiquitous with never-ending visibility that will eclipse even the best smaller seller.

Perhaps eBay has realized that the merit (defect) system isn't working so well after all for its biggest sellers. Perhaps the 3-month "wipe-the-slate clean" advantage in evaluating larger sellers just wasn't enough. Or perhaps its biggest sellers are complaining that they have no way to get to the top in searches despite their seller performance (or because of it).

No, I think I'd rather have outside car ads that don't directly compete with eBay sellers than have a 2-tier system where small sellers will become 2nd class sellers on eBay. But isn't that what most of the other changes in the last year or two have been signalling?

ricarmic · ‎09-17-2014

This has been an interesting discussion, there are certainly a lot of different views.

I've been selling stuff for over 35 years now, long before there was an internet and eBay etc available to us.

Before and even comparatively today (I still advertise in paper collector magazines/papers that you hold in your hand!) the cost of "advertising" my product on eBay is far far less than what it was as a percentage of sales in the traditional way of advertising!

Personally these special advertising opportunities allow me to compete with the "big guys" (there are a lot of stamp enterprises a lot bigger than me on ebayland) as long as I am careful and selective regarding how I use it, which is exactly the same principle that applies to traditional advertising - a full page ad in a stamp paper costs about $1,000 for one issue. One has to sell a lot of stamps to cover that. I apply some of the traditional advertising learnings I have to what I do on eBay. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I think of many of the eBay costs like the store and listing fees as "advertising" costs. If the ad program is available to me, I'll see what I can do to take advantage of it. With the earlier versions I was able to get my stuff in front of customers better than some of the big guys probably more because I took the time to understand it, and how to make it work for me. I recall one case where I was one of the first to make use of it and my sales BOOMED for about 6 weeks until the rest started to make use of it....if I get the opportunity for the ad program, I'll manage its cost within my cost model limits.

So I guess that was the long way of saying I'm of the mind that the ad program may allow some of us at least to better compete with the big guys?

Time will tell.....

pierrelebel · ‎09-17-2014

" I would think eBay would be winning on both sides (paid ad revenue and FVFs on sales)."

Not really.

Here is how the online world works: So many buyers have so much money to spend when buying stuff on eBay (and elsewhere)

If a buyer spends $50 purchasing stamps from me for their collection it is $50 he/she will not spend with another seller of stamps. eBay does not gain anything extra. In fact they do not care as long as someone selling "stuff" gets that $50 from the buyer.

So my job as a seller is to so whatever I can to get that willing buyer to come to my eBay store or visit my listings to spend the money. I frankly do not care that the other stamp sellers do not get it. I want it! So, if it means spending a small percentage of my sales on extra advertising to attract more customers, I am quite willing to invest knowing I will get a return on my investment.

The same is largely true with all those "free listings" promotions. Do you really think buyers worldwide spend more money on eBay because some sellers have more listings (at no listing cost to them). I think not. The same money is simply spread differently.

It is the same proposition with search results. Sellers are all complaining because their items are not on near the top of the first search result page. And all sellers think they deserve to be there. Does eBay care? Of course not. It does not matter to eBay who gets the sale. The real limit is how much money all the buyers have to spend on any given hour or day on eBay. They need to maximize that spending the best way they can.

That is why listings offering multiple quantities with some sales already usually find themselves near the top. eBay knows buyers like those items. Buyers buy those items. That is what eBay wants.

I am looking to buy Lego for a grandchild. I go to eBay, enter "Lego" in the search block, click enter and I get 286,000 entries!

Someone is on page 1 while someone else is on page 1,405 and everywhere in between. Why should eBay give the top of the first page to a specific seller? eBay does not care. All they want - and there is nothing wrong with it - is for the potential buyer to find something to spend the money on!

pierrelebel · ‎09-17-2014

Going back to those Lego search results for a minute, assuming these listings are valid for 30 days, and each one will have an opportunity to be on page one - using a ramdom process so it is fair to all - playing with the calculator tells me a seller will see his/her listing on page 1 for exactly nine seconds.

That is on average! If your listing deserves less than average, you blink, you miss!

There is simply no magic here where search results will please all sellers. There are simply too many listings on eBay and not enough qualified buyers.

rose-dee · ‎09-18-2014

I definitely agree that more buyers (in general) are needed at the moment.

However I disagree with the following: '"f a buyer spends $50 purchasing stamps from me for their collection it is $50 he/she will not spend with another seller of stamps. eBay does not gain anything extra." I think this may be a little too simplistic a view; in other words, with good advertising (or listings), individual buyers will often buy more than they might have otherwise.

It's not that they are merely buying an item from Seller X that they might have bought from Seller Y anyway, in other words, a kind of commercial musical chairs, but that they will be encouraged to make more purchases from Seller X as a result of good advertising.

I think we can probably all recall times when we've been attracted by a big sale at a B&M store and ended up going out the door with many items we didn't originally intend to buy (women may be a bit more guilty of this than men, but I think it depends on the type of store!). This, in fact, is the whole thrust of advertising -- create buzz, create more excitement than the everyday, create a need and then fill it, create a desire and then fulfill it.

I spent quite a number of years in product development and marketing in the "real" world, and I agree with 'ricarmic' that a good ad campaign or the right kind of advertisement can translate into a real boost in sales. If there was any doubt about that, advertising would no longer exist.

"Do you really think buyers worldwide spend more money on eBay because some sellers have more listings (at no listing cost to them)." -- My response would be that having more listings is not the same as creating good listings (or good, targeted, sophisticated advertising). Listing promotions are akin to loading up the store window with so much stuff that any impact on buyers is lost.

"It is the same proposition with search results. Sellers are all complaining because their items are not on near the top of the first search result page. And all sellers think they deserve to be there. Does eBay care? Of course not. It does not matter to eBay who gets the sale. The real limit is how much money all the buyers have to spend on any given hour or day on eBay. They need to maximize that spending the best way they can."

Again, I have to respectfully disagree.

Marketing research has proven that most people don't shop in such a logical, deliberate fashion (unless perhaps they're shopping for a big ticket item). They tend to browse and meander, be drawn in by sales (discounts), attracted by good advertising or seduced by things they hadn't thought of buying, or make impulse purchases. They also pull money from sources they might not have intended to use (credit cards, etc.), or spend more than they originally planned because they find something particularly attractive.

So, again, I don't think the straightforward, X or Y, theorem is the way things work when it comes to marketing. Extraneous factors do drive consumers to spend, such as the availability of money, perception of a good bargain and/or attractive product, and a general perception of the state of the world (or, in our case perhaps, the state [security] of eBay).

Lastly, I think eBay does care who gets to, or near, the top of the search list. I also think it matters very much to eBay who gets the sale. Why? If you were running a site where 20% of your sellers were top producers, knew how to attract buyers (and keep them coming back), were able to give the best pricing, selection, quality of items, and customer service to encourage buyers to return, wouldn't you prefer to highlight those? On the other hand, consider the 80% who may be troublemakers in one way or another, costing you upset buyers who will never come back, or money in customer service time, or lower revenue because they really don't know how to sell well and keep buyers returning -- would you want to give them top billing and create a whole host of buyers who will purchase once and perhaps never return? I think this is precisely the reason eBay came up with performance-based seller ratings.

Returning to the Lego analogy, I think there is a flaw in the assumption that everybody will sooner or later get a crack at or near page 1. That just isn't my experience, and I think for good reason -- eBay doesn't want it to be simply random and evenly fair to everybody, not anymore. You have to earn the privilege. Not to blow my own horn, but my items consistently float to, or near the top of searches in my categories (as you saw earlier). They rarely if ever rotate beyond about page 3 or 4. It's not random luck, but a huge amount of hard work that I've put into remaining on top. Now, the fact that I don't have thousands of competitors helps of course. But in some categories I have hundreds, and many of those stay stuck near the bottom (for obvious reasons when I look at some of their listings and feedback).

However, my real issue with this announcement by eBay is that sellers who have the biggest advertising budgets will come to dominate the site regardless of their seller performance. As 'ricarmic' says, the little guys who get in on this at the beginning may see an initial bang for their buck, but I think we'll find ourselves swamped and out of the race pretty quickly.

So, participate if you can, while you can, but it will be interesting to see who ends up benefiting the most. I simply feel that this will result in making performance-based search placement almost meaningless.

reallynicestamps · ‎09-20-2014

Why would it not have been a money-maker for eBay if it increased sales as you said it did for you?

Because the future sales go to pierre and not necessarily through eBay.

Once a buyer and a seller have contacted each other through eBay, there is nothing to prevent the seller from converting the eBay buyer to his own customer, by including advertising of similar products or making special offers packed in with the eBay purchase. And of course the seller can also harvest email/Paypal addresses for future campaigns.(or could until recent Canadian legislation prohibited the practice.)

I think this is also what pierre means when he says he advertised his name rather than his product. The buzzword is branding. If I'm looking for a good deal on a Scott #158 Mint VFNH, I would search for that specifically, but if I were just looking to add some more items to my collection, or for a birthday present to my father's collection , then finding a reliable dealer would be helpful.