eBay

kalvin@ebay.com · ‎09-26-2013

Feel free to share your thoughts about the Global Shipping Program here.

A few questions to get the ball rolling:

What has worked well for you with the Global Shipping Program?
Any ideas to help improve the experience for Canadian buyers?
What has deterred you from buying items offered using the Global Shipping Program?
How have you managed to search for items outside the program?

Please try & keep the comments constructive 🙂

If you have any questions about the program, please post them here.

~Kalvin
eBay.ca Community Manager

kalvin@ebay.com

pjcdn2005 · ‎05-12-2014

marnotom! wrote:

Some--if not many--US sellers object to eBay being a "nanny" overseeing and interfering with every aspect of a seller's listings. At some point we do have to let go and trust that sellers are going to do right by eBay, just as sellers have to put some trust in their buyers.

Seriously? I doubt that anyone would consider having to add the correct information to their listing in order to use gsp as being nannied. It's pretty simple actually..the seller wants to use the program than they can enter the information needed. If they don't want to enter the information then they don't use the gsp. Easy peasy.

Also, if the info was required, the sellers who did not realize they were enrolled in the program would then have a head's up about it. It's better they know then rather than waiting until an international buyer purchases from them and then they either freak out because they don't ship internationally or have no idea of what to do next.

kxeron · ‎05-12-2014

@marnotom! wrote:
The same could be said about a game of pick-up hockey in a recreation centre gym: The rules largely mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. They're just there to facilitate smoother functioning of the game and it's up to those participating in the game to respect and enforce them.

Thing is, in this game of hockey, the refs aren't calling fouls (e.g. items that PBI won't ship) until the game is over and the teams were celebrating (transaction completed).

The rulebook has been written but the PBI themselves are waiting until it is largely too late to really make calls, so this results in situations where PBI is put into positions where they're "forced" to relieve people of their purchases that they paid for meanwhile if eBay got all of the documentation completed before the purchasse even begun and made at least an automated analysis on that documentation and call timeouts where there are fouls.

@marnotom! wrote:
You forget, though, that eBay considers a GSP item to no longer be the seller's responsibility once it reaches the Global Shipping Center in Kentucky. Technically speaking, the seller is just getting the item to the point of origin on the paperwork.

While this may be true from the "eBay world" perspective, in the grand scheme of things, PBI is not an expert on every item to exist sold on eBay, thus it is soley the seller's responsibility to remit all information pertaining to the item so PBI is able to adequately determine the item's state under the programme. The seller is responsible for this part of the transaction regardless of how much PBI takes responsibility of the transportation. The fact eBay doesn't require the seller to remit this information is defrauding buyers of their time by leading them into a bait and switch situation where the buyer is led to believe that the listing is valid and that they can get the item from the shiny GSP "pay this and you'll get the item" but some days later the package shows up at the GSP centre and PBI disposes of it for being too expensive to ship and while the buyer gets their money back, they cannot get their time back from waiting for an item that'll never arrive.

eBay is in this case like a clerk who has accepted the listing, processed the paperwork and has stamped it with "ACCEPTED" even though vital information has been omitted. In most office environments, a clerk accepting an incomplete form with such incompleteness would result in that clerk being written up or fired. Instead eBay needs to send sellers back to fill out the forms properly because without that information the shipment cannot be properly processed.

walker0017 · ‎05-12-2014

Marnotom! Wrote:

It's a bit like buying a $6.99 salad in the winter and paying the same price for the salad in the summer when veggies are cheaper. You're not likely going to get the restaurant agreeing to give you a price break on the salad if you point out that lettuce is half the price that it was in the winter. You're paying for the salad, not the lettuce, cucumber, tomato, carrot, radishes and green onion separately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you for real, do you actually believe what you are saying or are you doing this to just stir things up for your own amusement? Comparing PBI not supplying any sort detailed receipt to an honest buyer with buying a salad, and not getting a breakdown of the individual salad costs, seriously? By your salad logic does this mean any store merchant can decide on their own to not supply a detailed receipt for items they have sold be it food or merchandise, I don’t think so and neither do you whether you want to admit it or not. It was eBay administered by PBI who unilaterally decided to insert themselves into almost every purchase originating in the US under this GSP and then not supplying any sort of legally recognized documentation to show what exactly these import costs are paying for and covering up for this with a shady blanket T&C which would not hold up in court in any civilized country outside the USA.

This programs own actions has demonstrated repeatedly exactly zero accountability, minimal to very poor reliability for delivery and packaging, PBI customer service that is a joke, packages opened and improperly repackaged causing damage, US sellers are enrolled in it automatically without clearly telling them they are enrolled and absolutely no transparency or breakdown for what this so called import fees are paying or anything else close to what other international operating e-commerce sites supply to their customers which results in this program having no real credibility with buyers. Maybe if you had any experience as a frequent eBay buyer other than your single admitted selected GSP purchase that you appear to use at every chance to justify this ill-conceived, poorly organized and very questionable program you might not be defending this program as much as do, as seen every time without exception when anyone has posted a criticism about the GSP. You continually state that PBI does not have to supply a detailed receipt to any buyer under their T&C, where under Canadian law does it say that they do not, the T&C is an exclusive document drafted by American lawyers IAW American Law but you forget it does not have the legal authority to usurp Canadian Law, CRA or CBSA regulations.

One would think that after over 3119 posts with over 98% of regular frequent eBay buyers and sellers are against this program which has resulted in only the very minimal of changes being implemented in spite of all the constructive ideas given and only canned neutral corporate responses from eBay reps.

Some have called this a money grab or a scam but I believe this is a clear case of eBay thru PBI seeing an opportunity increasing their profit margin at the expense of buyers worldwide because of their clear lack of transparency in the import fees and inaction in addressing the issues involved, the majority of which could be corrected by any competent computer programmer within 48 to 96 hours or less.

Prior to this GSP idiocy eBay was easy to use and buyers knew up front what it was going to cost to purchase or bid on any item with no middleman holding their hand out for a piece of the action. EBay was fun, now because of the GSP it is a disaster for anyone internationally to buy and because of this there are now quite a few eBay clones gaining in popularity because they are using the pre GSP model that made eBay successful.

arlene_v · ‎05-12-2014

Well said, Walker.

I have only bought two items through this program and what arrived in the mail was a joke considering the "premium service" charges

The GSP is an amateurish, slipshod shipping service, and that it can exist in this form on this site is really quite an eye opener.

An overpriced, seriously flawed program that quite justifiably gets a failing grade from most of us, as this thread shows.

Too bad eBay doesn't offer buyers a way of rating and evaluating the GSP for each and every transaction. This site being built on feedback and transparency ....

The mantra on eBay is that sellers must ensure that the buying experience is positive and that customers will want to come back to eBay to shop ...and then it introduces the GSP!

It really is quite funny, but unfortunately, at our expense.

marnotom! · ‎05-12-2014

@walker0017 wrote:
Marnotom! Wrote:
It's a bit like buying a $6.99 salad in the winter and paying the same price for the salad in the summer when veggies are cheaper. You're not likely going to get the restaurant agreeing to give you a price break on the salad if you point out that lettuce is half the price that it was in the winter. You're paying for the salad, not the lettuce, cucumber, tomato, carrot, radishes and green onion separately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you for real, do you actually believe what you are saying or are you doing this to just stir things up for your own amusement? Comparing PBI not supplying any sort detailed receipt to an honest buyer with buying a salad, and not getting a breakdown of the individual salad costs, seriously? By your salad logic does this mean any store merchant can decide on their own to not supply a detailed receipt for items they have sold be it food or merchandise, I don’t think so and neither do you whether you want to admit it or not. It was eBay administered by PBI who unilaterally decided to insert themselves into almost every purchase originating in the US under this GSP and then not supplying any sort of legally recognized documentation to show what exactly these import costs are paying for and covering up for this with a shady blanket T&C which would not hold up in court in any civilized country outside the USA.
This programs own actions has demonstrated repeatedly exactly zero accountability, minimal to very poor reliability for delivery and packaging, PBI customer service that is a joke, packages opened and improperly repackaged causing damage, US sellers are enrolled in it automatically without clearly telling them they are enrolled and absolutely no transparency or breakdown for what this so called import fees are paying or anything else close to what other international operating e-commerce sites supply to their customers which results in this program having no real credibility with buyers. Maybe if you had any experience as a frequent eBay buyer other than your single admitted selected GSP purchase that you appear to use at every chance to justify this ill-conceived, poorly organized and very questionable program you might not be defending this program as much as do, as seen every time without exception when anyone has posted a criticism about the GSP. You continually state that PBI does not have to supply a detailed receipt to any buyer under their T&C, where under Canadian law does it say that they do not, the T&C is an exclusive document drafted by American lawyers IAW American Law but you forget it does not have the legal authority to usurp Canadian Law, CRA or CBSA regulations.
One would think that after over 3119 posts with over 98% of regular frequent eBay buyers and sellers are against this program which has resulted in only the very minimal of changes being implemented in spite of all the constructive ideas given and only canned neutral corporate responses from eBay reps.
Some have called this a money grab or a scam but I believe this is a clear case of eBay thru PBI seeing an opportunity increasing their profit margin at the expense of buyers worldwide because of their clear lack of transparency in the import fees and inaction in addressing the issues involved, the majority of which could be corrected by any competent computer programmer within 48 to 96 hours or less.
Prior to this GSP idiocy eBay was easy to use and buyers knew up front what it was going to cost to purchase or bid on any item with no middleman holding their hand out for a piece of the action. EBay was fun, now because of the GSP it is a disaster for anyone internationally to buy and because of this there are now quite a few eBay clones gaining in popularity because they are using the pre GSP model that made eBay successful.

This is a rather odd response to my post. I'm not trying to cast any judgement on the viability or sensibility of the GSP. All I'm saying is that Pitney Bowes seems to be approaching "import charges" as a salad, rather than individual ingredients of lettuce, cucumber, tomato, et cetera.

Do you agree or disagree with the analogy? If not, why not? I'm not asking for a polemic on the ethics of Pitney Bowes and eBay, just your thoughts on the analogy itself. Does it seem to sum up how "import charges" are treated?

marnotom! · ‎05-12-2014

@kxeron wrote:
@marnotom! wrote:
The same could be said about a game of pick-up hockey in a recreation centre gym: The rules largely mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. They're just there to facilitate smoother functioning of the game and it's up to those participating in the game to respect and enforce them.

Thing is, in this game of hockey, the refs aren't calling fouls (e.g. items that PBI won't ship) until the game is over and the teams were celebrating (transaction completed).

The rulebook has been written but the PBI themselves are waiting until it is largely too late to really make calls, so this results in situations where PBI is put into positions where they're "forced" to relieve people of their purchases that they paid for meanwhile if eBay got all of the documentation completed before the purchasse even begun and made at least an automated analysis on that documentation and call timeouts where there are fouls.
@marnotom! wrote:
You forget, though, that eBay considers a GSP item to no longer be the seller's responsibility once it reaches the Global Shipping Center in Kentucky. Technically speaking, the seller is just getting the item to the point of origin on the paperwork.
While this may be true from the "eBay world" perspective, in the grand scheme of things, PBI is not an expert on every item to exist sold on eBay, thus it is soley the seller's responsibility to remit all information pertaining to the item so PBI is able to adequately determine the item's state under the programme. The seller is responsible for this part of the transaction regardless of how much PBI takes responsibility of the transportation. The fact eBay doesn't require the seller to remit this information is defrauding buyers of their time by leading them into a bait and switch situation where the buyer is led to believe that the listing is valid and that they can get the item from the shiny GSP "pay this and you'll get the item" but some days later the package shows up at the GSP centre and PBI disposes of it for being too expensive to ship and while the buyer gets their money back, they cannot get their time back from waiting for an item that'll never arrive.

eBay is in this case like a clerk who has accepted the listing, processed the paperwork and has stamped it with "ACCEPTED" even though vital information has been omitted. In most office environments, a clerk accepting an incomplete form with such incompleteness would result in that clerk being written up or fired. Instead eBay needs to send sellers back to fill out the forms properly because without that information the shipment cannot be properly processed.

I don't think there's any way to completely eliminate this. There's always going to be cases of human error that can potentially kabosh a GSP sale. For example, a seller may have a faulty set of scales and the Global Shipping Center may find itself with an item of inaccurate weight.

Unless eBay or Pitney Bowes actually have the item in its possession while the item is up for sale, there's no way to verify completely the seller's information at the time of sale.

Again, not trying to defend the GSP here. It's the program's Achilles' heel and what makes it largely unworkable as envisioned as a way for sellers to "sell domestically, ship globally."

00nevermind00 · ‎05-12-2014

@marnotom! wrote:
All I'm saying is that Pitney Bowes seems to be approaching "import charges" as a salad, rather than individual ingredients of lettuce, cucumber, tomato, et cetera.

Do you agree or disagree with the analogy? If not, why not? I'm not asking for a polemic on the ethics of Pitney Bowes and eBay, just your thoughts on the analogy itself. Does it seem to sum up how "import charges" are treated?

I'm not Walker, but I do find the salad analogy more than just a bit strange. Although completely limp lettuce leaves would be a fitting illustration of this lame program.

PB may approach "import charges" that way, but buyers don't have to like it. As a matter of fact, it's obvious that the all-in-one "import charges" are a very sore point with buyers. They want to know how much of their money goes to this or that. A perfectly reasonable request IMO. The program is very expensive for buyers. They should be given the courtesy of being told what the various charges are. This may help curb the accusations of scam/money grab somewhat.

But it's very obvious that the GSP is all about the sellers and for the sellers, and that nobody involved in this lame scheme paid the least bit of attention to the buyers and how they would react.

walker0017 · ‎05-12-2014

Marnotom! Wrote:

Do you agree or disagree with the analogy? If not, why not? I'm not asking for a polemic on the ethics of Pitney Bowes and eBay, just your thoughts on the analogy itself. Does it seem to sum up how "import charges" are treated?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your analogy is not only wrong but if you were any sort of eBay buyer you would not have used it in the first place.

Personally as a frequent buyeron eBay if I have to pay taxes and possibly duty/tariffs when the package arrives at my door fine, I might not like it but I can live with it, the paperwork will show what money went where which is why it is a transparent and fair system. If you don’t agree with the duties or tariffs assessed you can appeal this and if successful the money will be reimbursed to you. With the GSP there is no transparency, and any money you are overcharged is not refunded but goes straight to PBI to improve their bottom line. When the CBSA opens a package they reseal it in exactly the same way where with PBI they open it, remove the protective wrapping to make it lighter and send it on its way not caring that because of their interference the item will probably arrive damaged. That is not the actions of a professional business but the actions of a business that will do anything to increase their profits at the expense of international buyers. I think if the rolls were reversed and US buyers had to go through this the GSP would not have lasted 6 months before the US Buyers demanded it be removed. Again to any frequent buyer this is wrong and all your funny and strange analogies to support PBI will not change that.

pjcdn2005 · ‎05-12-2014

I don't see how the salad anthology relates to what PB is doing.

Some restaurants have an automatic tip/service charge added to your bill. When you receive the bill it will show you the price of each item ordered, the total tax paid and the total service charge paid. If one restaurant decided to lump the tax and service charge together as one charge, I doubt that people (or the gov't) would be happy about it.

That is exactly what PB is doing and the buyer really has no way of figuring out what they paid in each area. Regardless of who is the importer of record yadda yadda most buyers know that a portion of those fees are for taxes and duty and they want to know what that amount is. I think that it is perfectly reasonable that they do want to know. UPS, Fedex and the post office all specify how much is paid towards duty, taxes and a brokerage/service charge so PB should be able to do the same.

pjcdn2005 · ‎05-12-2014

I don't think there's any way to completely eliminate this. There's always going to be cases of human error that can potentially kabosh a GSP sale. For example, a seller may have a faulty set of scales and the Global Shipping Center may find itself with an item of inaccurate weight.

Unless eBay or Pitney Bowes actually have the item in its possession while the item is up for sale, there's no way to verify completely the seller's information at the time of sale.

You're pointing out that the program will never be 100% accurate. I agree but if we are stuck with the program, the least that ebay can do is to minimize the problems. One way to do that is to require sellers to put the weight, dimensions and manufacturing country in their listings.

afantiques · ‎05-12-2014

When the CBSA opens a package they reseal it in exactly the same way where with PBI they open it, remove the protective wrapping to make it lighter and send it on its way not caring that because of their interference the item will probably arrive damaged

Since the GSP shippers are responsible for the safe arrival of the item, making this less likely, just to save a few ounces of weight seems a very bad business plan. As it is refunds for damaged items seem to be quite straightforward and as a bonus for the buyer, do not involve the return of the damaged item.

This charge of 'removing packing materials' is one that may be more myth than reality. It simply does not make any sense for a shipper to do this, and usually, things that don't make sense don't happen; certainly the happening needs to be substantiated in some way.

mwc1942 · ‎05-12-2014

"The way Pitney Bowes seems to see it, the "import charges" are treated as one big service fee and there's no breaking it down. The buyer isn't paying duty, PBI is, but out of this "service fee.""

Regardless of how "import charges" are treated, I'll standby by my previous claim, that everything is paid by the buyer including tax and duty.

As for the salad ...... why not just let it wilt and die.

walker0017 · ‎05-12-2014

afantiques wrote:

This charge of 'removing packing materials' is one that may be more myth than reality. It simply does not make any sense for a shipper to do this, and usually, things that don't make sense don't happen; certainly the happening needs to be substantiated in some way.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I disagree, there have been numerous posts made by buyers who when using this program received their items damaged and after checking with the seller discovered that the internal packaging was removed by PBI and resealed with tape indicating it was opened. Who has more credibility about this, a company such as PBI with their management and ownership of the GSP or these buyers? No brainer there since any business that shows a lack of accountability and transparency cannot be trusted. As for the refund for a damaged item, for most buyers we are collectors and if a much sought after item arrives damaged due to PBI's repackaging getting your money back is a very poor substitute for the disappointment of having that item damaged.

kxeron · ‎05-12-2014

@marnotom! wrote:
This is a rather odd response to my post. I'm not trying to cast any judgement on the viability or sensibility of the GSP. All I'm saying is that Pitney Bowes seems to be approaching "import charges" as a salad, rather than individual ingredients of lettuce, cucumber, tomato, et cetera.

Do you agree or disagree with the analogy? If not, why not? I'm not asking for a polemic on the ethics of Pitney Bowes and eBay, just your thoughts on the analogy itself. Does it seem to sum up how "import charges" are treated?

Thing is, on store bought salads it is required by law that the ingredients be listed clearly on the packaging, the GSP does not clearly list anything and instead resorts to referring to the T&C's to illustrate how the programme fees work. There are no plain english ingredent listing of the GSP.

Trying to compare a service (GSP) to a product (Salad) will never work because there are differing laws and business norms governing each.

@marnotom! wrote:

I don't think there's any way to completely eliminate this. There's always going to be cases of human error that can potentially kabosh a GSP sale. For example, a seller may have a faulty set of scales and the Global Shipping Center may find itself with an item of inaccurate weight.

Unless eBay or Pitney Bowes actually have the item in its possession while the item is up for sale, there's no way to verify completely the seller's information at the time of sale.

Again, not trying to defend the GSP here. It's the program's Achilles' heel and what makes it largely unworkable as envisioned as a way for sellers to "sell domestically, ship globally."

This is exactly why there are checks and balances put into many processes, so that the human error can be caught before it reeks havoc and causes resources (Effort, money, time) to be wasted.

eBay as the desk clerk of the programme is accepting any and every form handed to it without scrutiny in regards to the GSP. What would go a far way would be to at least require due diligence from the seller. Sure if the seller made an error in entry it could still damage the transaction but eBay currently makes no effort to ensure the seller perform due diligence while listing under the programme. eBay doesn't tell sellers "If PBI's going to be reshipping this on your behalf, we're going to need more information than that".

A photo, title and item description are required fields because a process dictates that they make a sale possible, they make a buyer able to determine whether they'll buy the item. These fields are required by both policy and process because it makes a sale possible. To not require fields so PBI's processes can more accurately determine if an item can be shipped is a lack of accountability and do not make sense because they help answer if shipping is possible under the GSP.

To have a more visible form of accountability where sellers and buyers are notified on the shippability of an item through the GSP would also go a far far far FAR way in instilling more confidence in the GSP. as it would illustrate that PBI has solid processes and procedures that are objective and able to be procedurally handled instead of the current model where it appears PBI is flying by the seat of their pants on the programme.

The post office is able to tell you if an item can be accepted before it is shipped along with giving you a final price tag without a transaction, the CBSA is able to tell you on details on an item's legality and what duty/tax would entail over the phone with a degree of certainty, the only anomaly is PBI where they don't seem to have any information until an item shows up at their Center in Kentucky because again the programme is grossly over-simplified and there is zero accountability so the buyer is left holding the ball at the end of the day.

marnotom! · ‎05-12-2014

@kxeron wrote:
@marnotom! wrote:

This is a rather odd response to my post. I'm not trying to cast any judgement on the viability or sensibility of the GSP. All I'm saying is that Pitney Bowes seems to be approaching "import charges" as a salad, rather than individual ingredients of lettuce, cucumber, tomato, et cetera.

Do you agree or disagree with the analogy? If not, why not? I'm not asking for a polemic on the ethics of Pitney Bowes and eBay, just your thoughts on the analogy itself. Does it seem to sum up how "import charges" are treated?

Thing is, on store bought salads it is required by law that the ingredients be listed clearly on the packaging, the GSP does not clearly list anything and instead resorts to referring to the T&C's to illustrate how the programme fees work. There are no plain english ingredent listing of the GSP.

Trying to compare a service (GSP) to a product (Salad) will never work because there are differing laws and business norms governing each.

Seems to me that people are overthinking this. I could have just as easily have referred to a hamburger or a Subway sandwich rather than a salad. These are foods that are made up of separate ingredients, but people are charged for the entire shebang, not each ingredient individually. In fact, the Subway comparison is rather interesting as the buyer of a footlong tuna sandwich on white who just has a dollop of mustard on the sandwich is charged exactly the same as one who has the sandwich on flatbread but has eight different fillings added to the sandwich. Why aren't people demanding accounting for that, I wonder? 😉

Some of these responses have been pretty amusing, to say the least.

As I hope I've suggested earlier or at least elsewhere, I'm not suggesting that people have to like the way Pitney Bowes handles what they term "import charges". I'm just trying to get inside its corporate head and figure out why it works the way it does.

And as I keep saying, as long as Pitney Bowes regards itself as the one paying the taxman rather than the ultimate owner of the merchandise, I don't think anybody's going to get a "proper" tax receipt out of the deal. As I've mused earlier, I wonder if people would have this expectation if the GSP were more properly marketed as a forwarding service?

marnotom! · ‎05-12-2014

@pjcdn2005 wrote:

You're pointing out that the program will never be 100% accurate. I agree but if we are stuck with the program, the least that ebay can do is to minimize the problems. One way to do that is to require sellers to put the weight, dimensions and manufacturing country in their listings.

Which is a requirement in the "program rules," ergo it is already required. It's just not enforced as things currently stand.

Another problem that hasn't been mentioned is the possible misapplication of taxes and duty when an item is listed in an incorrect or less than appropriate category, and I'm not sure if there's any way around that, period. One would hope that buyers would have the sense to sidestep a listing that they feel has import charges improperly calculated. Is that hoping too much?

kxeron · ‎05-12-2014

@marnotom! wrote:
Seems to me that people are overthinking this. I could have just as easily have referred to a hamburger or a Subway sandwich rather than a salad. These are foods that are made up of separate ingredients, but people are charged for the entire shebang, not each ingredient individually. In fact, the Subway comparison is rather interesting as the buyer of a footlong tuna sandwich on white who just has a dollop of mustard on the sandwich is charged exactly the same as one who has the sandwich on flatbread but has eight different fillings added to the sandwich. Why aren't people demanding accounting for that, I wonder? 😉

This is exactly why it is against eBay rules to place listings for services or other non-tangible items, because it is impossible to determine if a service has been correctly tendered, the value of a service, determining if a service is appropriate, or if the service has all of its bases covered adequately. Let's hold PBI to that standard for a moment, how can a buyer adequately determine if PBI has delivered on the GSP for the value that has been calculated or hold it to delivering on a legal transaction?

Answer: You can't.

The GSP is non-tangible and there is nothing provided to prove you purchased the service. At least at a subway, you'd receive a receipt that if you get food poisoning you can use for a complaint.

Some of these responses have been pretty amusing, to say the least.

I'm glad someone is amused through all of this. Frankly I'm not. I hate seeing innocent people being taken advantage of by process set up with inadequate safeguards. People trust eBay and whenever something is advertised under an eBay banner people trust that. People trust that the GSP is completely fine, people trust that eBay has experience in legal matters, but that trust is being abused by the GSP with its inadequate safeguards.

As I hope I've suggested earlier or at least elsewhere, I'm not suggesting that people have to like the way Pitney Bowes handles what they term "import charges". I'm just trying to get inside its corporate head and figure out why it works the way it does.

What PBI does is what PBI does. Their goal is to reduce liability ergo they eliminate as much accountability as possible. They want to make money ergo they make it as convenient for sellers to use sell the service as possible through. Each GSP seller is like a franchiser for PBI and the programme fees are like franchiser fees. They don't make sellers fill out the ultimately required information as because if they did it'd potentially scare sellers away from the programme and thus PBI would lose the ability to sell their non-tangible service.

But that speculation is irrelevant to the effect.

And as I keep saying, as long as Pitney Bowes regards itself as the one paying the taxman rather than the ultimate owner of the merchandise, I don't think anybody's going to get a "proper" tax receipt out of the deal. As I've mused earlier, I wonder if people would have this expectation if the GSP were more properly marketed as a forwarding service?

The GSP is a service, the GSP isn't providing a product of any kind, but even the post office will provide you a receipt that you use their services, even your Internet provider provides you a proper invoice, even your credit card company provides you an invoice, your insurance company does too, all of which are valid in a court room or other fora to prove that you have a relationship with the company. With the GSP there is no legal proof you even paid them outside of an entry in your paypal account, which at the end of the day you may as well have paid PBI in cash on a street corner at 1-2 AM for how the service is paid for and rendered.

If I'm paying a company for a service, I want a receipt regardless of where in the world they are or how big or small, even if it is just scrawled in a handwritten receipt book.

If PBI were to accept my money, I expect them to hold them up to the service, if they aren't ensuring that the paperwork is completed for the service or if the service is appropriate for what it is being used for — that's their problem, not mine. If I went to a post office and wanted to use lettermail to send a fridge, I'd fully expect them to refuse before the transaction took place. PBI is refusing nothing and accepting everything entry into their process and there's all kind of wonder why this huge boondoggle, WOMBAT or whatever you want to call it is going on.

If PBI were to request my money for something that has no tax or duty, that defeats the purpose of their service and again, illustrates the programme is grossly over-simplified. The reason that it is is irrelevant to the effect.

I don't care why they are doing this, there's a laundry list of reasons in corporate most likely but I don't care for it, I want them to fix their process to be more vigilant and to comply with Canadian norms if they want to do business with Canadians — but of course, they're doing the street corner kind of transaction where nobody can prove they paid for anything.

marnotom! · ‎05-13-2014

@kxeron wrote:

This is exactly why it is against eBay rules to place listings for services or other non-tangible items, because it is impossible to determine if a service has been correctly tendered, the value of a service, determining if a service is appropriate, or if the service has all of its bases covered adequately. Let's hold PBI to that standard for a moment, how can a buyer adequately determine if PBI has delivered on the GSP for the value that has been calculated or hold it to delivering on a legal transaction?

Last I checked (two minutes ago, in fact), there was an eBay category called "Speciality Services". Among the many services in that category is mail forwarding services.

I also believe that eBay offers insurance to sellers (through a third party). Isn't that also non-tangible?

@kxeron wrote:
The GSP is non-tangible and there is nothing provided to prove you purchased the service. At least at a subway, you'd receive a receipt that if you get food poisoning you can use for a complaint.

But you wouldn't be able to use that receipt to complain that you'd purchased a sandwich with roast beef and mustard on it and were charged the same as someone who got lettuce, tomato, green pepper, olives, pickles, cheese, mustard, mayo, salt and black pepper.

Anyway, what sort of receipt do you get from USPS or Canada Post do you get for an item purchased from a US or Canadian seller shipping directly to you by mail? The shipper charges for the service of shipping and handling of the item to you, yet the seller gets the receipt for the postage from the post office and keeps it! And if the seller uses "stealth postage," you're not able to tell how much you paid towards the actual shipping of the item and how much went towards "handling" services.

Or do you consider this a "Canadian norm?"

kxeron · ‎05-13-2014

@marnotom! wrote:

Last I checked (two minutes ago, in fact), there was an eBay category called "Speciality Services". Among the many services in that category is mail forwarding services.

I also believe that eBay offers insurance to sellers (through a third party). Isn't that also non-tangible?

But there has to be a result of those services and you can complain for non-performance via paypal, with the GSP there's no real way to hold PBI to those same standards. PBI only "makes whole" to avoid being sued for theft but according to the eBay main terms' Idemnity section and related sections, they're not accountable to you and since PBI is an eBay partner, eBay won't hang PBI like they would a bad seller.

PBI doesn't have DSRs as they piggyback on sellers and the selers' DSRs to maintain success and thus why eBay removes any GSP disputes from sellers' DSRs because it damages PBI's success of the GSP if a seller that's essentially a GSP franchise drops below the limit and can't sell anymore.

But you wouldn't be able to use that receipt to complain that you'd purchased a sandwich with roast beef and mustard on it and were charged the same as someone who got lettuce, tomato, green pepper, olives, pickles, cheese, mustard, mayo, salt and black pepper.

But the receipt would state that you purchased a soda, got a 12 inch sandwich and a bag of chips, not just providing a total.

Anyway, what sort of receipt do you get from USPS or Canada Post do you get for an item purchased from a US or Canadian seller shipping directly to you by mail? The shipper charges for the service of shipping and handling of the item to you, yet the seller gets the receipt for the postage from the post office and keeps it! And if the seller uses "stealth postage," you're not able to tell how much you paid towards the actual shipping of the item and how much went towards "handling" services.

Or do you consider this a "Canadian norm?"

In those cases, the shipping company can be held to account by the seller since the shipping company is hired by the seller, the seller can launch a complaint to investigate where a package got lost or how the package ended up getting mis-routed.

With the GSP neither the buyer nor seller can hold PBI to account directly since the GSP is an "eBay service" where neither the buyer nor seller are PBI's customer so any issues you have with the GSP are up against "The System" as cliché as it is. PBI's only answer for any failures is to simply refund and send people on their way, not ever saying "We failed to require this information from the seller — It's our fault — we're sorry, we'll get eBay to make this information compulsory". Sellers don't know most of this information is required to make a commercial shipment process work properly and its PBI's responsibility as the programme administrator to lean on eBay to make more information compulsory and the accuracy therein. Sellers only know that they just ship stuff to another place instead of the buyer directly. Too, it's PBI's responsibility to ensure that its service is used appropriately and not implemented as a cover-all if it can't cover it all properly. If the eBay website claims that PBI can ship a fridge, it should ship that fridge or it is a failure on PBI AND eBay's part to not put in place checking to ensure information is at least vaguely accurate. If the seller provides routinely inaccurate information to PBI, then that should be a strike against the seller to encourage at least vague accuracy.

Disputing an error of the GSP's processing of a shipment is not like disputing an error for a seller's shipment of an item. PBI can't lose its status on eBay and can't lose ability to sell its service if it under-performs or has a flawed process while a seller can if their shipments habitually are lost or "can't be made".

eBay and PBI are business partners in the GSP, the lack of planning on their part does not constitute an error on mine if I were to purchase through the GSP and the transaction were to fail.

marnotom! · ‎05-13-2014

@kxeron wrote:

But there has to be a result of those services and you can complain for non-performance via paypal, with the GSP there's no real way to hold PBI to those same standards. PBI only "makes whole" to avoid being sued for theft but according to the eBay main terms' Idemnity section and related sections, they're not accountable to you and since PBI is an eBay partner, eBay won't hang PBI like they would a bad seller.

No, but given enough rope, PBI would likely hang itself. All these refunds for fouled-up shipments can't be costing the company absolutely nothing.

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool rabid free enterpriser by any means, but I feel that at some point you've got to let the somewhat-regulated market work its magic on companies that aren't doing their jobs.