Selling Used Stuff vs Negative Description Star

Ebay needs to modify the way sellers of used stuff are judged.  This is a common theme for sg, but maybe a modern restatement would be useful.

Good sellers of used stuff are both cautious and dedicated to avoiding confusing listings, but as defined, the territory includes too much simple bad luck.  We're not talking "as is, not my problem" kind of sellers here.  The bad luck falls into two general zones:

1. Used stuff, particularly stuff with moving parts, sometimes has latent defects, issues which cannot be detected with ordinary testing.  Thus, the unknown defect is not disclosed in the listing.

2. Used stuff varies in quality.  Sometimes, despite a very accurate accounting of deficiencies, the buyer simply creates an overly high level of expectation (even as the price reflects the actual description).

Both of these usually work out just fine when seller is highly responsible with refunds.  I for one expect to refund about 1 transaction in 100.  I don't stress over it. I do study the situation to see if I should be making change. Then, I politely refund and chalk it up to the cost of doing business.  I refund in full, either not expecting a return, or paying return postage.  I don't question buyer's judgement (to buyer).

The really bad luck occurs when buyer posts a negative description star rather than request a refund. The problem is that such buyers, while a small minority, end up dominating seller's relationship with Ebay.  For sellers with under 600 sales per year, TRS, with its discounts,  is lost on the 3rd such event.

This follows from the almost perfect ratings held by most sellers, thus the very small numbers of complaints which end up defining sellers Ebay identifies as needing to make changes.


Unfortunately, for both Ebay and such sellers, sometimes the only change possible is "stop selling categories of stuff", categories which a lot of buyers really want to buy.


Solution:
1. Change the system to count returns rather than negative description stars, as the way ebay detects sellers who need to be making changes.
2. Change to expecting buyer to have some skin in the game, by counting the return in a way which allows sellers to block bids from buyers who return too frequently. 


I think we'll all agree: a seller who is generating 1 return in 50 transactions needs to be making some changes.

We'll also agree: a buyer who is being refunded on 3 items per 50 also needs to be making some changes.

Buyer return postage

Sort of an ongoing series here.

It costs $1.64 to ship a $20,  up to  3 oz package, anywhere in America.

However, it costs buyer $4.65 to return the package, being reimbursed by seller.

Would it buyer choose to pay $4.65 if seller wasn't paying return shipping?  We're not sure, and it's not cost effective to run the experiment.  The cost of a negative star well exceeds that extra $3.

The $3 breaks down into three parts.
1. 31c postage difference between ebay shipping vs over the counter.
2. 85c delivery confirmation vs free from ebay shipping 
3. $1.85 insurance to cover a $20 package.


The latter is especially galling.  In the highly unlikely event that the insurance needs recovering, seller's going to end up on the hook for the refund anyway.  It adds nothing to buyer's protection.


It's tempting to manage this equation.  Ideas:


a. offer "up to $3.00" to cover return postage.
b. request that no insurance be purchased
c. offer to refund regardless of whether buyer purchases delivery confirmation


The problem with any and all such ideas is that they're shown economic nonsense.  Seller is willing to refund $25, but will become confrontational over $27?  


Buyer wouldn't like that, and the resulting neg star could cost seller $hundreds.  


Just not worth it.


The best we can hope for.


-Treat each buyer with great respect
-Hope for Ebay to provide a way to score buyer returns.