Proper Selling Etiquette ??? OBO abuse???

[Rusty M]

If you don't have the money we don't have a deal unless I REALLY know you and trust you.

 

[QLR1]

Facepalm.

Sent from Q's Note5

 

[OakleyFrankFMJ]

She said that, too...

YUP!!!!

 

[OakleyFreak]

 

[saulsaul]

If I sell an XX for $550 OBO and I receive 6 offers via PM, I'm obviously going to choose the highest offer of the 6...

What's wrong with that ??

If someone DOESN'T do it that way, then they're in the business of losing money...

But not if you agree to sell to someone and before he makes payment a better offer comes in, right? Not gonna quickly pm the earlier lower offer dude and cancel?

I guess in that case the option is to go back to first dude and see if he'll match later dude but that will just seems shady.

 

[saulsaul]

There's obviously an exception to that, especially transaction between very active members who trust eachother...

Key word: trust

Agreed. I often do this with trusted buyers.

I dislike it when first time buyers from me engage me in a lengthy negotiation, get a discount, then tell me to wait a couple days for payment.

I wait but it irritates me. I wish they just told me at the start that whatever happens they need time to make payment.

The funniest is when someone confidently states 'I'll take em. PM incoming' on your sale thread, then ask for a week to pay

 

[QLR1]

I learn something new everyday on the forum.

Sent from Q's Note5

 

[saulsaul]

Alright so back when I first joined this fourm there was some structure and etiquette when it came to selling. It used to be first come (pm) first serve. Now lately it just seems that someone will post something for sale for say for 350.00 "OBO" knowing it's above market price and then proceed to sit there for 24-48 hours and collect offers and say that seller gets 5 offers and the offers come in this order 1st 300.00 2nd 310.00 3rd 290.00 4th 335.00 and 5th 330.00 then 24 hours later after the offers quit rolling in seller then decides to take offer number 4 because it was the most money. Is this good/acceptable selling practices? Or is this frowned upon? I honestly have no idea that is why I'm asking because I've always for as long as I've been on here seen some thing get posted for sale and then someone reply saying something like "pm sent" then someone right after them say "if that falls thought im next in line". It just seems like it's always been a first come first serve system. And say offer 4 comes in 24 hours after offer 1. Shouldnt the seller atleast inform offer 1 they had a better offer and ask, can you match it. But to me at this point the seller already seems pretty grimy for his practices, so most likely I would feel like I'm just being manipulated in order for the seller to squeeze extra money out of me. I understand OBO means or best offer but if that is the case shouldnt everyone list everything as OBO and sit back and try to collect as much as possible ebay style? I would love some constructive feedback on this. Because I'm sure I've lost hundreds by being a strait up legit seller. Saying this is the price first one to pm me/post pmed on my thread and says they want it it's thiers once they post payment.

Also should they're be an OBO section so we can go in there and place bids like ebay? That way you know strait up that's what's going on and not get hustled and jerked around by the OBO seller saying "someone offered me more can you match it" or "im waiting on the first guy to post payment" but in reality is waiting for more offers to take the highest one.

Just to say I've noticed this recent proliferation of OBOs and waiting to assess multiple deals. Also, like you I've generally dealt with contacters in turn and lost money selling at a discount only for a later full offer to come in, many times. Also thought that was the etiquette. Probably used to be.

Kronin's post as so often has made me think differently about the market place.

 

[saulsaul]

First off, the "first come, first served" rule may be a fair practice but it's totally unenforceable and when it comes down to it, the seller always has the right to choose who he sells to.

Second, it only applies to full-asking-price offers. If you make an offer less than asking price, you're not locking up "dibs" on the item, you're entering a negotiation that may or may not be successful, at your own risk of someone else coming along with a better offer.

Whether or not an initial asking price is scalping is a grey area that's been beat to death here - values are subjective and fluid, and some people actually think their shit is worth that much, it takes the market's lack of interest to teach them otherwise. Perhaps it's a deliberate overpricing, perhaps not. But anytime you make a conclusion based merely on assumption, you're limiting yourself.

And that's from the perspective of a buyer, which is pretty much all I do here. But from the perspective of a seller, which I've done more elsewhere...

If a seller gets a better offer, should they go back to the first low-offer and give them a second chance? It's nice, but not necessary. The thing is, buyers can be just as flaky as sellers. People make offers then disappear. They might even negotiate to agreement, then disappear. Similar items in the market can come up and they go that way instead, or they end up buying something else unrelated that eats up their budget. When selling, the more time you spend going back to others giving them a "fair chance" (or trying to play them off each other for a higher price ), the more likely your best offer will disappear and you're back to square one.

Just like a seller may not come back to an earlier offer to say they've got a better one, buyers don't take the time to notify a seller they're no longer interested when they change their mind. It goes both ways.

If you're trying to negotiate a better price, you can't just sit back and wait for the seller to do everything in his power to make sure you get every opportunity, you have to be proactive, follow up, ensure the seller knows you're still in it, work to beat the other buyers. If you lose, it's not the seller's fault.

Bottom line, this isn't K-Mart, it's a dynamic marketplace where sellers are trying to sell their stuff as fast as possible for the best price and buyers are trying to get the best deal they can while still beating out other buyers. When it comes to ethics, what matters is honesty, properly representing the item, following through on obligations, no shilling, etc. Lack of deception. It's caveat emptor, so there's no such thing as deceptive pricing, only sucker buyers who didn't do their homework.

And if you don't like how a seller (or buyer) is operating, you shouldn't do business with them. A similar item will come up sooner or later.

Stellar post. Superb.

Not the first time Kronin has reminded me of the need for a laissez-faire approach where my instincts are usually to regulate, establish process, and exhort best behaviour.

Let it all flow, but with honesty and integrity.

 

[saulsaul]

I'm on a roll.

Kind of related, my biggest seller pet peeve is this buyer question:

'What's your best price?'

I never know how to answer it other than to say my 'best' price is already stated in the advert.

I get that it's a request for a discount. But unless I've stated 'firm' in the sale post, just make a reasonable offer. Don't leave it to me to start making lower offers to you, the buyer! If I wanna do that, I'll just lower the price in the advert for all to see.

Finally, if your offer is more than 10-15% lower than asking price, it's probably better not to PM in the first place. (Unless you know for a fact that the seller is EBay pricing because he's delusional, greedy or stupid. In which case also best not to PM)

I'm done. Phew.