Making a profit on eBay

[thomfra]

The seller on eBay can get more money for a good than a store selling the good directly can. The difference is convenience. It is much more convenient to purchase something on eBay and have it shipped to you than it is to visit a store and buy something. That extra convenience is reflected in the price (that’s how Wal-Mart works). By doing the buyer’s research for him, you are removing that convenience (part of your product, if you want to think of it that way). That’s why you might be out of a deal; not because you were taking advantage of someone.

Then the OP should have no problem quoting the cost of the item at the store in his advert. That way only those who are not “ignorant” would buy.

Lets face it. The OP is selling at that price because he KNOWS that people who buy are ignorant of the price. It’s not a big sin IMHO. But it is certainly taking advantage.

 

[Caesar517]

There is reason to believe that the buyer is ignorant of its market value. What rational person would buy an item for above market value price if he was aware of the market value price?

Am I irrational because I go to Wal-Mart to buy vegetables instead of looking for the people who sell vegetables out of their pick-up trucks?

 

[Caesar517]

Then the OP should have no problem quoting the cost of the item at the store in his advert. That way only those who are not “ignorant” would buy.

Lets face it. The OP is selling at that price because he KNOWS that people who buy are ignorant of the price. It’s not a big sin IMHO. But it is certainly taking advantage.

He could quote the lower price. He could even provide a link to Best Buy’s website. Doing so, however, reduces the relative value of his product. “Buy low, sell high” is how a middleman makes money. Why are people willing to pay more to buy it from the middleman? Increased convenience, and sometimes a deal with the source not to sell to anyone else.

 

[PeteZaHut]

Am I irrational because I go to Wal-Mart to buy vegetables instead of looking for the people who sell vegetables out of their pick-up trucks?

I think that is an unfair comparison. I assume you are comparing eBay to Walmart and Gamestop to pick-up truck vendors. If anything, it is the opposite. eBay is more of a personal seller, and Gamestop is a nationally known video game store. Wouldn’t that be the first place you check for a video game system?

 

[Caesar517]

I think that is an unfair comparison. I assume you are comparing eBay to Walmart and Gamestop to pick-up truck vendors. If anything, it is the opposite. eBay is more of a personal seller, and Gamestop is a nationally known video game store. Wouldn’t that be the first place you check for a video game system?

I meant it in the way that e-Bay is the one-stop-shop kind of thing. e-Bay is a place you can go to find just about anything, new or used, at widely varying prices, without even leaving your house. It is a much more convenient way to buy things than to go to the specific stores for those items.

 

[newbetx]

Tell me if you think there is anything wrong with doing this.

The Nintendo Wii is a video game system that is somewhat hard to find. A circuit city near my house has them in stock for $250. The going price on eBay for a Wii is about $350. My idea was to buy a Wii and list it on eBay. I wouldn’t think there is anything wrong in that by itself, but…

Gamestop.com sells a Wii Bundle where the buyer can buy it with a few extra perks for $350.

My dilemma is whether or not it is wrong for me to try to make a profit when I would probably sell a Wii for about $350 to a person who could buy the Wii Bundle for the same price and get more items.

Well there are two ways to look at this. One is you would be providing a service to those who want it and can’t be bothered to stand in line all night at the local Wal-mart to get one.

The second is you are keeping someone else who was in line and can’t afford to pay the $100 premium from paying the going rate and receiving one for their efforts.

In the entertainment business, these people are called scalpers and there are many laws against it.

 

[The_Otaku]

Tell me if you think there is anything wrong with doing this.

The Nintendo Wii is a video game system that is somewhat hard to find. A circuit city near my house has them in stock for $250. The going price on eBay for a Wii is about $350. My idea was to buy a Wii and list it on eBay. I wouldn’t think there is anything wrong in that by itself, but…

Gamestop.com sells a Wii Bundle where the buyer can buy it with a few extra perks for $350.

My dilemma is whether or not it is wrong for me to try to make a profit when I would probably sell a Wii for about $350 to a person who could buy the Wii Bundle for the same price and get more items.

A seller’s ignorance is not your responsibility. If they are not budget conscious, shop for deals, don’t utilize coupons, promotional offers and the like, then thats their choice to miss out.

I feel you are only obligated morally to tell them something if they ask a direct question that requires you to be honest. If they ask if you’re selling the Bundle Pack, and you say no, then you’ve done your part. If someone buys your item assuming that it is the Bundle Pack, then thats their fault for not asking any questions.

As long as you are willing to answer business questions, I see no problem with this. I don’t feel there is anything inherently wrong with not disclosing that you do not offer a better deal, so long as you are open to being asked questions and are receptive and truthfully answer them. On the contrary, if you were to advertise that this was a great deal and a great price, and you intentionally mislead a potential customer when you don’t, in fact, offer a better deal or better price, then you’ve practiced deception, and that’s a sin, especially if you go through with the transaction.

 

[Just_Lurking]

A seller’s ignorance is not your responsibility.

It is if you are consciously and deliberately taking advantage of that ignorance.

So far, the only magisterial text presented on this issue has been the Catechism, which seems to be quite clearly against this way of making a profit. Is your soul really worth $100?

 

[Caesar517]

So far, the only magisterial text presented on this issue has been the Catechism, which seems to be quite clearly against this way of making a profit. Is your soul really worth $100?

Can you post that CCC quote? I can’t seem to find it here.

 

[The_Otaku]

It is if you are consciously and deliberately taking advantage of that ignorance.

So far, the only magisterial text presented on this issue has been the Catechism, which seems to be quite clearly against this way of making a profit. Is your soul really worth $100?

I’ll admit, I’m conflicted on this issue, and it was hard for me to say the things I did to the point that I’d be willing to retract it (and in so doing, eating some humble pie).

Personally, I would tell them what they’re getting, what I’m selling, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to tell them it’s not the best deal in town. They could just assume that on a hunch and be either right or wrong. If they seem gullible, and it’s a housewife asking about this as a present for her son, and she obviously knows nothing about electronics let alone video game consoles, I personally would feel compelled to tell her where she could get a better deal, that there is a better deal, and even so far as to state how long this deal lasts.

I have to admit, the situation might play out differently if I’m approached by a customer who seems to be a video game expert since I cannot readily see or gauge the depth of his ignorance.

Also, under my examples, I’m talking about face to face transactions in a business setting (like a shop that I would own). In regards to the anonymity of e-bay, I’m more inclined to maintain my first post, since especially online people have at their fingertips a wealth of information and theres little to no excuse for not making use of that, if the point of the customer is to save money. If the point of the customer is to simply buy a product, at any cost, then I don’t feel it relevant anymore whether you tell him there’s a better deal elsewhere. Even if you were to tell him that, he might not care, and convenience may take priority, for him, over price. Since you’d be making more money, and he gets what he wants immediately, the transaction is mutually beneficial.

If the topic here boils down to whether we are morally obligated to offer reduced prices and deals, I say the answer is no. It’s ok to attempt to make a profit, but not when practicing deception. It’s not deception if the customer doesn’t ask questions or moreover, doesn’t care whether they’re getting a deal or not.

People want to believe EVERYONE is looking for a deal, but everyone’s economical, financial status is different. Some can afford to throw their money away for the sake of convenience, and others cannot. For those that cannot afford it, I think we should show compassion towards these people and take the initiative in answering their questions. For those who can throw their money around, this deliberation isn’t necessary since it wouldn’t affect him either way.

This is a simple, but difficult question to ask, since it requires us to assume the level of competence or ignorance as well as the financial situation of the customer. Since it’s wrong to assume and make decisions based soleu on that (as it leads to bias and truthful and untruthful situations).

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can you post that CCC quote? I can’t seem to find it here.

Post #20. CCC 2409.

 

[Caesar517]

Post #20. CCC 2409.

Ok, thanks.

I think you are interpreting this in too broad a sense. Do you think all middleman activity is immoral when the middleman doesn’t do the customer’s research for him?

Personally, I would tell them what they’re getting, what I’m selling, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to tell them it’s not the best deal in town. They could just assume that on a hunch and be either right or wrong. If they seem gullible, and it’s a housewife asking about this as a present for her son, and she obviously knows nothing about electronics let alone video game consoles, I personally would feel compelled to tell her where she could get a better deal, that there is a better deal, and even so far as to state how long this deal lasts.

I have to admit, the situation might play out differently if I’m approached by a customer who seems to be a video game expert since I cannot readily see or gauge the depth of his ignorance.

I agree with this.

 

[The_Otaku]

I agree with this.

Thank you. May I ask why you agree? You may agree with me from a different perspective I didn’t think of.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’ll admit, I’m conflicted on this issue

From a personal perspective, the following points affect my analysis:

• The grocery store is serving a useful purpose as a middleman between the producer and the consumer. By buying in bulk, it helps the producer, and the scale can help with quality control. By selling individually, and collecting different items in the same place, it helps the consumer.
• The eBay profiteer is serving no useful purpose. By reselling a single unit at a higher price, the new buyer is losing the ability to return defective units to the store, and is losing any warranty that doesn’t transfer.
• When I buy 1 tomato at $1, and then find out that the store bought 1000 tomatoes at $500, I don’t feel ripped off, because I didn’t want that many tomatoes anyway.
• When I buy a Wii at $350, and then find out that the person who sold it to me just bought it from Circuit City for $250, I do feel ripped off.

However, I think the more difficult teaching to understand is the other half of what the Catechism says, about not taking advantage of the buyer’s hardship. So, if it is the night before Christmas, and a parent is desperate to buy a Wii for his or her child, and is willing to pay $350, or even $1000 for that matter, it is not permitted to take advantage of the buyer’s situation. The only moral options for the seller are to sell it at the ordinary market value, or to not sell it at all.

Capitalism and Catholicism are very different ways of dealing with economic issues.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I think you are interpreting this in too broad a sense. Do you think all middleman activity is immoral when the middleman doesn’t do the customer’s research for him?

I gave an example in my previous post of the grocery store being a moral middleman.

The middleman isn’t required to do any research. He just isn’t allowed to take advantage of the buyer’s ignorance, regardless of the reason for that ignorance, or whether the buyers should have known better on their own.

And selling a Wii for $350 that anyone could buy at Circuit City for $250 to someone who doesn’t know that Circuit City is offering the Wii at the lower price is definitely taking advantage of the buyer’s ignorance. This is so despite any analogies to other types of middlemen, and despite any attempts to spin the price markup as a “convenience fee” or “research fee”.

 

[Caesar517]

Thank you. May I ask why you agree? You may agree with me from a different perspective I didn’t think of.

I think a seller has an obligation to inform a buyer about his product – not someone else’s product. At the same time, a seller should not scam a buyer or talk them into anything they will regret. If the buyer asks how your prices compare to other sellers, tell them the truth. Then tell them why – what ever those reasons may be. I think that is honest business.

I think the main question here is this: Is is reasonable to believe that an omniscient customer would buy your product?

If the answer is ‘no’, then you may be taking advantage of people. If the answer is ‘yes’, then you are not taking advantage of people so long as you are honest in your dealings.

 

[Caesar517]

The eBay profiteer is serving no useful purpose. By reselling a single unit at a higher price, the new buyer is losing the ability to return defective units to the store, and is losing any warranty that doesn’t transfer.

The eBay seller is adding convenience. It is a trade-off that the buyer must make his own decision about, relative to his own situation.

However, I think the more difficult teaching to understand is the other half of what the Catechism says, about not taking advantage of the buyer’s hardship. So, if it is the night before Christmas, and a parent is desperate to buy a Wii for his or her child, and is willing to pay $350, or even $1000 for that matter, it is not permitted to take advantage of the buyer’s situation.

I agree with what you said here, but I think that is the easier half to understand.

Capitalism and Catholicism are very different ways of dealing with economic issues.

:ehh:
Capitalism is an economic system. Catholicism is a moral system. The two have little to do with one another except that one must follow the teachings of Catholicism while in a capitalist environment – no different than any other situation. I’m not sure what you were trying to say here. Do you believe the two to be mutually exclusive?

 

[Caesar517]

The middleman isn’t required to do any research. He just isn’t allowed to take advantage of the buyer’s ignorance, regardless of the reason for that ignorance, or whether the buyers should have known better on their own.

Do you think the seller has a moral obligation to make 100% certain that the buyer knows as much as the seller does about other sellers? That’s what I’m getting from your posts.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Do you think the seller has a moral obligation to make 100% certain that the buyer knows as much as the seller does about other sellers? That’s what I’m getting from your posts.

I believe the seller has the obligation to provide to the buyer any information that he has which would otherwise give him an unfair advantage in the transaction.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Even if he were not a minor, if you fradulently sold him something claiming it to be worth 2 grand then you would still be in violation of the law.

but there is still the chance the seller will be taking more money from someone than it’s actually worth…yes the demand might be that great, but the going rate for said football ticket I could’ve sold was well over 400 bucks to this game. 350 would’ve been a “good” deal for some…But I don’t see how that makes it just to sell for 350, regardless of how high some buyers will go. If anything in this situation, it’s taking advantage of a person who is clueless that they could go to the store or order one online for less than what they’d pay on ebay. That in itself is un-Christian I think to deceive people. It’s shady business-man tactics.

Something is “worth” whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.

Do you think that something is worth a certain amount because of the price tag on it? Where did that number come from? The company selling the item decides on a price based on what they think most people will be willing to pay for it.

Some items have a 50% mark-up. Other items have a 100% mark-up. Still others, have a 200% mark-up.

Is it wrong for one company to mark-up their product by 200% when another company marks up their’s by only 50%? Hardly!