Marketplace
Well, its taken long enough but Ozbargain's favorite gripe is now newsworthy.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/ebay-slammed…
Apparently eBay Price-Jacking Is Now Recognised as a Problem
Almost Banned on 05/09/2018 - 19:50
Related Stores
Comments
pretty sure their journalism degree is written in crayon and only requires a self addressed envelope to procure.
They are retarded
Don't be mean to retards!
I would like to bring attention to everyone this line in the article.
"She said the 20 per cent off referred to the discount on the sellers’ pre-established list price — which cannot change seven days prior to the start of the sale through to the end."
I just copied that to mention it lol gonna be interesting to see how much they follow it up
It’d be interesting to know whether their “pre-established list price” is the price an item is listed on eBay for, or whether the seller is able to designate the list price in the system, but advertise an item for less.
ie the seller establishes the list price of an item as $100, but has it listed for sale at $85 prior to a sale event. When the sale starts, they change the price to $100. This would mean they don’t break the ebay rule, but are still able to do the price jacking we all see them do.
I don't see why they can't. They can have the price as $100, have a perpetual 10% off promotion so it's always sold for $90, and then for any eBay promotions (say, sitewide 15% off), apply that discount to the base, undiscounted price of $100 = $85.
Yeah exactly my point. I'm not saying it's an issue. I just think having a "list price" which is set, but not necessarily the one displayed on the listing is how eBay would explain what sellers are doing. It's all up to the definition of the "pre-established list price". I think most people reading that article will (wrongly) conclude that this is the price that the item was listed at prior to a sale starting - but I suspect that's not actually the case.
As far as sales go, list price is a pretty standard thing which is usually never what is actually paid (with the exception of some brands - Apple, Sonos and AEG are brands who spring to mind)
I think most people reading that article will (wrongly) conclude that this is the price that the item was listed at prior to a sale starting
Agreed, and I'm fairly sure this is deliberate on part of the 'journalist' to drive those outrage clicks.
The loophole here is ebay has been having 20% sales every single week, and allphone has been in there almost every single one of them. The price has been marked up since day 1, Allphone never need to change the price, therefore, not against the sales rules.
Exactly, Why price jack at all when you can keep the price permanently jacked?
news.com.au
laughinggirls.jpg
confiscate the domain name for being misleading
“All sellers who take part in our retail promotions are subject to contractual terms and conditions that prohibit this type of activity and we will continue to enforce these as part of our ongoing commitment to ensuring genuine value is offered by our sellers.”
"We're just going to continue to defraud customers because that way we make more money."
I'm serious, who upvotes this tripe? The difference between "price jacking" and "fraud" is about a Grand Canyon wide.
I'm not even convinced "price jacking" is even an issue - there's no set "price" for any product unless you think RRP is it, and then you need even more help. Always look at what you're actually paying for it. It's really not that hard.
If you click on the 'votes' link you can see exactly who upvotes - they don't show you downvotes.
Whether it is 'fraud' is up for discussion - but it is illegal to advertise that something is x% off if the item was not previously at the claimed price.Whether it is 'fraud' is up for discussion
No it's not. Fraud has a definition. Misleading discounts is not it.
Plus, there's a certain amount of irony in deliberately using a wrong, misleading, term to complain about something else being misleading.
@HighAndDry: You are right - fraud does have a definition. It includes obtaining a benefit by deception. Advertising a misleading price differential is a deception. And a person buying in reliance on that representation has potentially been defrauded.
But that's just my take on it.@blaircam: Why do people put forward opinions in these things that go counter to objectively set out definitions as though their opinions hold any weight?
No, misleading discounting is not fraud in any accepted definition. I don't care what your take on it is, and neither does anyone who matters.
Again, this is like saying "my take is that climate change doesn't exist." Or "my take is that the earth is flat." Good for you, it's still objectively wrong. We're not asking about your favourite flavour of ice-cream, it's not a subjective issue. (By the way - the only objectively correct answer to that question is obviously Rum and Raisins.)
@HighAndDry: The ACCC are not defining it as 'Fraud' but it is enough for them to issue a fine, they have done so in the past. The problem with the ACCC is that they are weak and 'too busy' so unless that particular crime is the ACCC flavour of the month, they wont bother.
From ACCC web site:
Misleading prices may include:
a ‘before’, ‘was’ or ‘strike through’ price that is not the price those items were sold for in a reasonable period immediately before the sale period started
a ‘before’, ‘was’ or ‘strike through’ price where only a limited proportion of sales were at the higher price in a reasonable period immediately before the sale period started…..
The second example makes this very clear, this practice is absolutely against the law in Australia, but they wont do anything about it so business as usual.
@HighAndDry: So far you have offered nothing but your own opinion…
Want to make a point - use facts.fraud
frɔːd/
noun
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.Note the qualifier - so it does not cover all deception, which in turn does not itself even cover all misleading behaviour.
So right now it's either: You don't know what "fraud" means, or you do know, and are deliberately using it in a misleading way. Again, irony.
@HighAndDry: Since we are talking about a legal matter, perhaps we can use something crazy like the law rather than some online dictionary.
And here you go, the NSW Crimes Act has a handy definition of fraud:
192E FRAUD
(1) A person who, by any deception, dishonestly:
(a) obtains property belonging to another, or
(b) obtains any financial advantage or causes any financial disadvantage,
is guilty of the offence of fraud.\Perhaps you can tell me:
1) How advertising a misleading price to induce purchase does not fall within this definition, and
2) When you will be handing back your fake law degree from Hollywood Upstairs Legal College?@blaircam: I don't know why you'd do this, but sure. The legal definition is much narrower than the everyday definition.
So uh,
1) The price itself is not misleading, it's the percentage of the discount which is - but even in normal contract, that's a barely relevant consideration next to the actual price.
2) Never said I had a law degree, and I wouldn't trust anyone who in an internet forum says they have one either.
Since you apparently like a Q&A format, I'll make it easy for you: find me a criminal prosecution for fraud - even an unsuccessful prosecution - of anyone or any business due solely to the fact they advertised misleading discounts.
Edit: Just to put it into context - the definition of fraud you have quoted up there is a crime. Now, imagine walking into a police station, and reporting a misleading discount as a crime.
@HighAndDry: not going to waste my time on lexis doing your research but I will say that even if the charge is available - and i suspect it is - prosecutorial discretion would probably mean they charged with the offence specifically designed for this issue.
I deal with people also every day who tell me they have reported crimes to the cops - and the cops don't give a crap. Doesn't make them not crimes.not going to waste my time on lexis
Oh god, I'm arguing with a law student. Could've told me earlier and I would've saved my time and effort.
I deal with people also every day who tell me they have reported crimes to the cops
Let me guess, working in one of those bleeding heart legal clinics getting 'hands on' experience, and so now you think you know both your theory and the practical aspects of the profession?
Go ask your professor, or tutor, or an actual solicitor when/if you get a clerkship: "Would misleading discounting percentages constitute fraud?" And tell me how long it takes them to stop laughing.
Let's charge @ em..
So we just need 8 days notice of a promo so we can add to cart early…
eBay only took action because news.com.au contacted them. I seriously doubt you'll see anything else happen to the others.
Go for the kill. Lets get genuine deals to ozb table
Haha, was just about to post this but saw I was beaten to it. The only way to avoid downvotes is to mention news ltd and ebay price jacking in discussion forum and not attached to a deal.
My view is that I don't care. Price jacking might be an issue if there's ever only one, fixed, universal price for a product. There isn't. Shop A can always be selling product X at cheaper prices than Shop B - do you really want Shop B to benefit in a sale because they can now advertise "20% off!" instead of Shop A's "10% off!" even if the final prices are cheaper at Shop A still?
At the end of the day, I wish eBay didn't do these dodgy sales which practically encourage companies to price-jack
If eBay copped the full discount themselves, rather than expect a company who's working on skinny margins to cop it, we'd see smaller % off sales, but they'd be more transparent.
Yes, companies can opt out but look at all the advertising they get by being in it
While I agree with you that consumers need to compare prices and not assume that x% off automatically makes something the cheapest you can purchase any given item at - I disagree that it is not (or should not be) illegal and misleading to claim that something is x% off when the item was not genuinely priced at the claimed price before discount.
I agree that it's misleading. I still don't care, because again:
Shop A: Sells something at $100, has list price of $110, says "20% off!" and discounts to $88.
Shop B: Sells something at $120, says "20% off!" and discounts to $96.
I don't care about the percentage discount, and neither should anyone else - it's only the final price that matters.
By your logic, Shop A could only advertise "12% off!", and then likely lose sales to Shop B from people who're stupid and getting ripped off by Shop B. Only stupid people are being affected by the 'misleading' discounting anyway, so if you're trying to protect the stupid people, your logic is still failing them.
so you are say people are stupid by not doing price comparison properly?
If it is comparing electricity price and it is not as easy as 20% off like ebay,can you guess how many people just being stupid and get ripped off by the electricity company.
All in all it is just the company purposefully set up complex rules and retail price to make people confuse,
I can 100% sure not all ozbargainer are smart enough to get the best electricity and/or gas deal at the moment and I can say they are stupid and love to get ripped off, it is the system.
so you are say people are stupid by not doing price comparison properly?
Not necessarily. But they're definitely stupid if they compared only by the %-age discount, and not on the final price.
Also I remember you having better English than this - who are you and what did you do to the real LoveBargain15? I'm sorry, as it is your comment is too hard to read past the first few lines and I'm not in the mood to decipher it.
Yeah, I saw that this morning.
If news.com.au bothered to talk to anyone here they would know how rampant this issue is.
This place just feeds the jacking machine. eBay should pay Ozbargain for all the dirty work
If we were not funding the ACCC with money that could be better spent on 1000 other things then this would almost be funny.
Millions of dollars per day in false advertising on EBay goes untouched, but the ACCC issue a small fine to and overseas seller who sold a shirt for a month with a false 'was' price…https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/charles-tyr…
…The shirt was advertised with a "was" price of $160 and a "now" price of $69, however the "was" price had only been advertised for a short period in a section of the Charles Tyrwhitt website which was difficult to locate, and no consumer had ever purchased the shirt at that price.
what a joke, well done ACCC, now go back to sleep, oh, they did.
"news"… Don't judge a book by its cover.