eBay "make an offer" now requiring payment info up front?

[HRderby22]

The next thing Ebay needs to do is post a seller's BO response rate. I'd love to see it posted that "This seller responds to 10% of BO's". Very well then, hard pass.

With this new format, funds are locked for 24 hours while you wait for the guy on the other end that thinks he's flexing by ignoring an offer that's perfectly in line with comps.

If my funds are going to be locked up, I'd much prefer it be done with sellers with a solid history of responding to offers.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by HRderby22

The next thing Ebay needs to do is post a seller's BO response rate. I'd love to see it posted that "This seller responds to 10% of BO's". Very well then, hard pass.

With this new format, funds are locked for 24 hours while you wait for the guy on the other end that thinks he's flexing by ignoring an offer that's perfectly in line with comps.

If my funds are going to be locked up, I'd much prefer it be done with sellers with a solid history of responding to offers.

I wouldn’t mind having that feature.

Playing devils advocate, the card isn’t actually charged until the seller accepts, so in theory it shouldn’t be different than how it was without the auto pay, right? In other words, in the old system, your funds were still sort of ‘locked in’ to that best offer because if the seller did eventually accept, you would have to pay for it (unless you were a non paying bidder). So it’s kind of the same either way.

[cholodolo]

Originally Posted by Cactuspies

Nope, has to be a debit or credit card. What I have found is you can switch cards before the auction ends if you have multiple on file and are still the high bidder. But no you cannot use gift cards, you cannot use your selling balance (all counter productive since they just recently made selling balances available for purchases)

I have a gift card and balances I'd like to use, but as of this change I've made 2 purchases for under $10. I'm not even adding items to my watch list or bidding or really looking at the items I have now. just listing things to sell instead.

I've now saved at least $300-$500 by not making purchases

They really need to let the sellers know they are being opted in automatically and most likely are losing money or not getting what is expected. there has to be a lot of lower sales and selling prices on items as of the last few weeks.

The only loophole I've found is if the seller counters your offer. Made an offer of $75 and was locked in to pay if accepted, the seller countered to $90 and when I accepted it was the usual PayPal checkout with balances, credit, pay in 4, split payment, and all cards available to select.

[glen87]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

I wouldn’t mind having that feature.

Playing devils advocate, the card isn’t actually charged until the seller accepts, so in theory it shouldn’t be different than how it was without the auto pay, right? In other words, in the old system, your funds were still sort of ‘locked in’ to that best offer because if the seller did eventually accept, you would have to pay for it (unless you were a non paying bidder). So it’s kind of the same either way.

true - except you have to essentially count that money "gone" or risk overspending if you start making other offers while you wait. so in that sense it can be tied up for as long as the seller takes.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by glen87

true - except you have to essentially count that money "gone" or risk overspending if you start making other offers while you wait. so in that sense it can be tied up for as long as the seller takes.

Right but that wouldn’t be different than before though…as long as you aren’t a non-paying bidder.

It’s always been that you have to consider the money tied up as long as the seller takes, this new auto-pay doesn’t change it.

Also an offer can be retracted basically at will on eBay (just as with COMC)…not from the app but on desktop, if a seller hasn’t responded in like 10 hours a buyer could just retract the offer using whatever reason, like entered wrong amount. This can be done at any time.

[tdbaseballcards]

Is anyone noticing this not working today? I accepted 2 offers from different buyers that said auto payment and neither of them are marked as paid and the funds are not in my account.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by tdbaseballcards

Is anyone noticing this not working today? I accepted 2 offers from different buyers that said auto payment and neither of them are marked as paid and the funds are not in my account.

I dont know about today, but a couple days ago I accepted an offer and didnt get paid until almost a day later....and I have the box checked that requires immediate pay with offers.

When you accepted the offers...was it a straight-up offer sent from a buyer, or was it a counteroffer on a general offer you sent out first on a watched item, which you accepted?

[ToastGhost47]

Maybe the auto payment won't go through if the buyer uses an expired card or an account/prepaid card without enough funds.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by ToastGhost47

Maybe the auto payment won't go through if the buyer uses an expired card or an account/prepaid card without enough funds.

This is a great point, if something wrong with the card and payment cant get through, I imagine they would allow the buyer to still purchase with another card...hard to imagine they would then just remove the buyer from winning the auction or a purchase (what would even happen to it then).

[HRderby22]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

I wouldn’t mind having that feature.

Playing devils advocate, the card isn’t actually charged until the seller accepts, so in theory it shouldn’t be different than how it was without the auto pay, right? In other words, in the old system, your funds were still sort of ‘locked in’ to that best offer because if the seller did eventually accept, you would have to pay for it (unless you were a non paying bidder). So it’s kind of the same either way.

What I'm referring to is just the fact that the new rule transacts the funds immediately when the BO is accepted. The old way you still had the 72 hours to pay, or whatever it was.

I personally always pay right away anyway, so not a big deal - but the bigger point is just that someone knows your money is sitting in "escrow" so to speak, but chooses to ignore the BO as a flex.

AirBNB has the feature that shows how quickly the owner responds to messages. I always start with those showing "less than one hour" and largely ignore those with slow response rates. If they can't check their messages in a timely manner, what makes me think they'll change the sheets on the bed

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by HRderby22

What I'm referring to is just the fact that the new rule transacts the funds immediately when the BO is accepted. The old way you still had the 72 hours to pay, or whatever it was.

I personally always pay right away anyway, so not a big deal - but the bigger point is just that someone knows your money is sitting in "escrow" so to speak, but chooses to ignore the BO as a flex.

AirBNB has the feature that shows how quickly the owner responds to messages. I always start with those showing "less than one hour" and largely ignore those with slow response rates. If they can't check their messages in a timely manner, what makes me think they'll change the sheets on the bed

My response was more geared towards your previous post about funds being locked up in an offer. My point that it's really not different in that respect, as long as the buyer in question is not a non-paying buyer. That amount of the offer is locked up either way whether auto-pay or not, because if the seller accepts the offer, the amount is paid to the seller either way. (based on responses Im getting to that post, not sure if the point is being understood or if Im conveying it the best).

Now if someone was a non-paying buyer (not you, just some random buyer), it's a different story. Say they offer a seller $100. Seller doesnt respond. After a few hours they then find one for sale for $50. In the old system, their $100 isnt really locked in anything *if* they plan on just not paying for the original $100 item in the case the seller accepts- not that they should be doing that of course*. Whereas in the new system it is locked in still. But this difference only exists because the buyer was a non-paying buyer. If the buyer intends to always pay for items they win, there is no difference 'locked-in' wise between the old and new system of auto-pay..either way that money is locked-in for the duration of the 24 hours of the offer in the case the seller doesnt respond at all- because once the the seller accepts, buyer is on the hook for it (regardless if payment is made immediately after accepting or up to 72+ hours later).

*: this should never happen anyway, a buyer who sends a $100 offer which goes without a response, and happening to come across one for $50, would rationally retract their first offer before buying the latter...but Im not sure everyone knows how to do that.

I agree with your point about sellers not responding though...turns me off as a buyer. A decline at least would be helpful, if not a counter. When no response at all, I usually lose interest in making further offers.

[ToastGhost47]

ebay could use a multi-offer function, like on COMC. I just had 5 offers accepted from a single seller today but was charged upon acceptance for individual shipping rather than combined. It's such a weird monkey wrench to throw into this whole process. Not very well thought out.

[paparoke]

I don't like the automatic payments, as it doesn't allow for multiple purchases with combined shipping. I've had to manually refund shipping costs so that I can combine shipping for multiple cards. It might not seem like a big deal, but I am eating 30 cents for the fixed fee for every refund I do since it is multiple orders. I get Ebay's intent, but it was doing more harm that good. I was automatically opted in and didn't even realize it, until I found out I was unable to invoice buyers anymore to combine shipping. Glad I was able to turn off the setting.

[Jolten Joe]

They need to require all wins regardless if it's Auction, BIN, or BO to be paid immediately. Force people to put a credit card on file problem solved. Yes people will throw their tantrums and declare they will never use ebay again but in the end what other proven and better known platform are they going to go to ? Just like Paypal and any other number of sites people will eventually just comply and move on.

[shrevecity]

Originally Posted by Jolten Joe

They need to require all wins regardless if it's Auction, BIN, or BO to be paid immediately. Force people to put a credit card on file problem solved. Yes people will throw their tantrums and declare they will never use ebay again but in the end what other proven and better known platform are they going to go to ? Just like Paypal and any other number of sites people will eventually just comply and move on.

As a buyer and seller I say no. No reason to force payment. If a bidder bids and changes their mind I would much rather them not pay than be forced to pay. A non paying bidder is just that they just waste your time. They cannot actually harm your account like a buyer forced to pay can.

For buyers it would create issues with multi item purchases similar to what it doing now.

[JeffG1954]

Originally Posted by Jolten Joe

They need to require all wins regardless if it's Auction, BIN, or BO to be paid immediately. Force people to put a credit card on file problem solved. Yes people will throw their tantrums and declare they will never use ebay again but in the end what other proven and better known platform are they going to go to ? Just like Paypal and any other number of sites people will eventually just comply and move on.

Originally Posted by shrevecity

As a buyer and seller I say no. No reason to force payment. If a bidder bids and changes their mind I would much rather them not pay than be forced to pay. A non paying bidder is just that they just waste your time. They cannot actually harm your account like a buyer forced to pay can.

For buyers it would create issues with multi item purchases similar to what it doing now.

I agree with Shreve.....forcing payment is not the answer for all of the reasons he gave....plus the amount of returns would skyrocket.

[Jolten Joe]

Originally Posted by shrevecity

As a buyer and seller I say no. No reason to force payment. If a bidder bids and changes their mind I would much rather them not pay than be forced to pay. A non paying bidder is just that they just waste your time. They cannot actually harm your account like a buyer forced to pay can.

For buyers it would create issues with multi item purchases similar to what it doing now.

Disagree it can/does hurt a seller from the point that said player may get hurt or no longer be hot by the time the 4 day window passes and they can relist. Sometimes the difference in amounts can be quite large.

If they want to make it count for time sensitive items like Trading cards that's fine. But flipper bois looking to make a quick buck then not paying because they can't make the profit they intended should not be allowed to get off scott free. Another idea would be 3 no pays you are automatically banned and anyone with less than 100 feedback automatically have to pay immediately and once you are over that mark then business as usual. After 100 feedback you also must maintain a rating of 90% or more.

[JeffG1954]

Originally Posted by Jolten Joe

Disagree it can/does hurt a seller from the point that said player may get hurt or no longer be hot by the time the 4 day window passes and they can relist. Sometimes the difference in amounts can be quite large.

If they want to make it count for time sensitive items like Trading cards that's fine. But flipper bois looking to make a quick buck then not paying because they can't make the profit they intended should not be allowed to get off scott free. Another idea would be 3 no pays you are automatically banned and anyone with less than 100 feedback automatically have to pay immediately and once you are over that mark then business as usual. After 100 feedback you also must maintain a rating of 90% or more.

I can get on board with the 3 no pay strikes and you are out as a buyer, but not with the 100 feedback part.....forcing a buyer with any amount of feedback to pay is not a good idea....forced payment of any buyer would lead to more returns and fewer multi-item purchases.

[shrevecity]

Originally Posted by JeffG1954

I can get on board with the 3 no pay strikes and you are out as a buyer, but not with the 100 feedback part.....forcing a buyer with any amount of feedback to pay is not a good idea....forced payment of any buyer would lead to more returns and fewer multi-item purchases.

There have been reports on YouTube and Facebook recently that ebay is blocking buyers for unpaid items. The best defense is still your selling preferences.

[rwperu34]

Another simple solution would be to make a buyer's non pays public, either by issuing a negative on their feedback or in a separate area on the feedback page.

I agree that force pay is not the way to go. The return issue is the biggie for me.

[glen87]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Another simple solution would be to make a buyer's non pays public, either by issuing a negative on their feedback or in a separate area on the feedback page.

I agree that force pay is not the way to go. The return issue is the biggie for me.

agreed.

forced pay will possibly start to result in more "damaged" returns. if a scam buyer wants to return something, they are going to find a way. would not be surprised to start seeing more "envelopes damaged in transit." when in reality buyer simply folds it in half to get the INAD return since they could not cancel the purchase.

[jamcas997]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Another simple solution would be to make a buyer's non pays public, either by issuing a negative on their feedback or in a separate area on the feedback page.

I agree that force pay is not the way to go. The return issue is the biggie for me.

Almost like when you could see how many bid retractions a buyer had.

[SteigerWRX]

I do a ton of buying/selling. Truly probably 50/50 so I feel like I have a opinion on both sides of the coin.

I'm still hoping they fix the auto pay thing to allow buyers to use their spendable funds, otherwise that feature is useless to a lot of dual buyer/sellers.

With eBay implementing the "funds on hold" thing with best offer options now, I wish they would allow the buyer to set how long the offer is good for. I remember a few years ago eBay tested that feature and it was nice to be able to reduce the 2 day time frame (I believe it was 48 hours, 24 hours and possibly 12 hours). I don't want to put in an offer on a Friday night and have the seller sit and wait until Sunday night to see how a player did before deciding to accept or decline my offer (or even worse, not respond at all).

Someone else in the thread mentioned "there is no difference" to someone else saying the funds are tied up because they'd always be tied up if your making an offer. While that's correct, there are times when something might pop up that you've been looking for, yet you don't have the funds fully yet as you are waiting to get paid, waiting for payment on a card you're selling, etc... Sellers often state "payment due within 3 days, 4 days, etc..). So maybe the buyer wants to snag it on a Wednesday, so they don't lose it, and pay on Friday. Still falls within the sellers acceptable payment time frame, buyer still gets the card, etc... It feels, to me, like the better option would have been to enforce non-payment strikes with buying restrictions VS now forcing everyone to pay immediately.

[shrevecity]

Originally Posted by glen87

agreed.

forced pay will possibly start to result in more "damaged" returns. if a scam buyer wants to return something, they are going to find a way. would not be surprised to start seeing more "envelopes damaged in transit." when in reality buyer simply folds it in half to get the INAD return since they could not cancel the purchase.

Exactly why they do not need to force payment. If the buyer does not pay the only thing is time they have wasted. The possible price difference is really irrelevant and I would rather be able to sell it for something than the item be destroyed intentionally by the buyer forcing the return. Then add in the defects for returns and the harm it could do to multi item sales it's not worth it.

There are also the cases where like mentioned a buyer may see the item ending Wednesday and they don't get paid til Friday. 2 days is still reasonable.

A happy nonpayer is always better than an angry buyer who pays.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by SteigerWRX

I do a ton of buying/selling. Truly probably 50/50 so I feel like I have a opinion on both sides of the coin.

I'm still hoping they fix the auto pay thing to allow buyers to use their spendable funds, otherwise that feature is useless to a lot of dual buyer/sellers.

With eBay implementing the "funds on hold" thing with best offer options now, I wish they would allow the buyer to set how long the offer is good for. I remember a few years ago eBay tested that feature and it was nice to be able to reduce the 2 day time frame (I believe it was 48 hours, 24 hours and possibly 12 hours). I don't want to put in an offer on a Friday night and have the seller sit and wait until Sunday night to see how a player did before deciding to accept or decline my offer (or even worse, not respond at all).

Someone else in the thread mentioned "there is no difference" to someone else saying the funds are tied up because they'd always be tied up if your making an offer. While that's correct, there are times when something might pop up that you've been looking for, yet you don't have the funds fully yet as you are waiting to get paid, waiting for payment on a card you're selling, etc... Sellers often state "payment due within 3 days, 4 days, etc..). So maybe the buyer wants to snag it on a Wednesday, so they don't lose it, and pay on Friday. Still falls within the sellers acceptable payment time frame, buyer still gets the card, etc... It feels, to me, like the better option would have been to enforce non-payment strikes with buying restrictions VS now forcing everyone to pay immediately.

The no difference point I was making was in response to others saying in one system your money is tied up during the time the seller is considering the offer, and not in the other. But that is not true, as there is no difference at all in the tied up aspect either way....as long as the buyer isnt a non-paying buyer. Money is considered tied up either way. I was not speaking to what happens after the offer is accepted or timeframe of payment.

Personally, when it comes to best offers, I have no problem with the immediate payment. As a seller, I always thought it was kinda bad taste for a buyer to send an offer on a buy it now item, then crickets for 3 days. Yes it's perfectly within ebay rules. But if there are questions, wait to make the offer, or wait for payday etc. I mean with strict buy it nows they are basically all immediate payment....the idea a strict purchase (which you can do at any time, vs say an auction which has to end at a certain time) should just be paid for to take it off the market. There isnt a huge fundamental difference between strict buy it now and making an offer to buy. But people dont complain as much that they cant wait 3 days to pay on a strict buy it now.

As for sending offer on Fri and waiting until Sun night....offers are only 24 hours now. You'd be waiting until Sat night. Also as mentioned upthread, as a buyer if you really had to, you could cancel the offer at anytime (buyers on ebay basically have that right up until the point the seller accepts the offer- not unlike COMC- and Im fine with that. If a seller hasnt responded in 4 hours, and you dont want to wait the 24, you dont have to).

On the using available funds, I dont see what the fundamental difference between that and say a debit card is, outside of someone just not wanting transactions to show up on the bank statement for some reason.