eBay UK considers default returns policy for CSA
10/02/2010 at 11:56
eBay UK is consulting sellers on the possibility of imposing a minimum returns policy on all sellers in the Clothing, Shoes and Accessories category. In a post on the PowerSeller board (PS login required), Pink Elisabeth says
we are in the process of exploring whether to establish a default minimum standard return policy (that reflects the minimum legal standard) for all Business sellers in the CSA category (with a view to roll out to other categories). In addition to the minimum standard, we are also considering offering additional flexibility to sellers to enhance select return policy components by adjusting set variables (e.g. – # days of cancellation, seller pays return costs when buyers change their mind). This would allow sellers who choose to go further than the minimum requirement to keep offering this type of service to their customers.
She then asks for feedback from sellers on this: do we like the idea, do we like the idea of a policy slightly more generous than the legal minimum, do we want to be able to specify who pays returns costs, and – bizarrely – how should eBay roll out this change?
Having argued myself that eBay should enforce the law on returns, I start off being in favour of this change – but when I see them even considering not allowing sellers to specify who pays returns, and how many days cancellation buyers can have, my heart sinks. I’ve lost count of the number of times over the past decade I’ve thought “this was almost a great policy, but eBay screwed it up”.
Please, Elisabeth, don’t let this be another case of that. Enforce the law, but beyond that, let sellers run their businesses. Put a couple of radio buttons in to choose between “buyer pays return shipping” and “seller pays return shipping”. Put a “how many days” box in that can’t be set to fewer than 7 days. It’s not complicated.
But more than anything, do something about the sellers who are ignoring both the law, and the existing eBay policy. We barely need more rules – what we need is eBay to enforce the ones they’ve got.
If you have a PS login, please go over to the thread and leave your thoughts – and, PS or not, leave us a comment here too.
Image credit: Ale Paiva on Stock Xchng
whirly says
12:02 pm on 10/02/2010
“how should eBay roll out this change?”
Once it has been tested it to see if it works might make a nice change.
Dom says
12:12 pm on 10/02/2010
Yes enforce the law but don’t force us to pay return P&P unless it is faulty.
Also yesterday I completed an eBay survey on proposed changes to the item condition specifics with the stated aim of reducing disagree between buyers and sellers leading to returns.
The new item conditions were:
New; New: with minor defects; Used; Damaged/for parts.
I was concerned that the proposed definition of new was, “A new, unused, unopened item with absolutely no signs of wear. The item may not be in its original packaging, and/ or may be packaged in non retail or non-standard packaging”
If I received an item described as new but was not in its original packaging I would be disappointed.
whirly says
12:19 pm on 10/02/2010
I hope some allowance is included for bespoke goods, we make lots of baths to order and put jets in *all* kinds of places.
David Brackin says
12:45 pm on 10/02/2010
Oh Lord.
The last thing we need is eBay getting in the way of giving customers with problems great customer service.
By all means enforce the law by examining our published returns procedures and customer experiences of them (I thought this was already a requirement — for business sellers to accept returns within 14 days).
Until eBay have an 0800 number and a person who answers it and deals with a buyer’s problem live, their proposed solution isn’t as good as letting my staff get on with it. They don’t want to get involved in this level of granularity and detail: “there are just too many of you” and so resort to progammatic solution (imagine a “menu” of returns options, I can hear being said at the meeting).
Buyers *hate* “having to use eBay” to get a refund and leave feedback accordingly. It’s bad enough persuading them to use the resolution centre to cancel a transaction once we’ve given them a full and immediate refund (around 50% of our returns customers can/will/are bothered).
Incidentally there was a focus group run for eBay on this topic two weeks ago which I was invited to, but disinvited from since I had in my life met a person who worked at eBay. Representative focus group, then.
ebuyerfb says
3:32 pm on 10/02/2010
And just like I speculated weeks ago. Exciting things coming to Clothing is a returns policy. I was specifically referring to .com but this indicates I’m probably right or close to it.
BigPoppa says
5:29 pm on 10/02/2010
Yes enforce the law but don’t force us to pay return P&P unless it is faulty.
Now there’s a can of worms…
Dom says
9:53 am on February 11th, 2010
Yes that is the risk, if eBay highlight the ‘if faulty’ part it is bound to increase the number of ‘dropped’ items. How to enforce a time limit on returns though will be a problem.
justjohny says
12:01 am on 11/02/2010
Enforce the law only.
99% of the probs on ebay would not be there, if it was policed properly in the first place.
sellers are getting abused as it is.
Chris Dawson says
12:16 am on 11/02/2010
I can’t help but agree it’s a good idea for eBay to guide sellers to comply with the law. However I think it unfair for eBay to insist that sellers go further than the absolute minimum that the law proscribes.
Personally I don’t give a stuff what the law says (although I comply) because my customer service by far exceeds the minimum requirements. However I want the choice to implement the minimum if I so wish (e.g. if a buyer negs me they’ll get the absolute minimum that the law demands).
If eBay concentrated on removing illegal T’s and C’s from the site (especially the “I’m not responsible for lost in post”) then eBay would be a much happier place for buying from.
JD says
9:09 am on February 11th, 2010
@ Chris:
‘(especially the “I’m not responsible for lost in post”)’
A search on the UK site in descriptions for :
‘not responsible lost’
gives over 150,000 results from TRS sellers only!
It isn’t really rocket science. For eBay to be continually bleating on about seller standards whilst nothing is done on issues such as this just beggars belief.
If eBay want an improvement in the buyer experience it isn’t tinkering with DSR’s and TSR’s et al that will bring it about.
The further they go down the current route the more difficult and complicated it gets simply to be present and list on eBay, let alone sell.
eBay should approach buyer confidence issues from a totally different angle.
Jimbo says
8:14 am on 11/02/2010
That sellers comply with the law should be a given.
eBay has been talking about sorting out 99p/private sellers/overseas sellers for months now but still nothing has been done.
You have whole categories which a swamped with items which do not comply with UK legislation (silver which is not hallmarked for example) but still nothing is done.
You have sellers blatantly abusing eBay rules (call this number for bulk order, URL’s in listing) and nothing is done.
eBay needs to start taking on some of the responsibility for providing a good customer experience.
whirly says
9:10 am on February 11th, 2010
Hear hear.
I tried to tidy up my categories, what a monumental waste of time and effort it was.
I was made to feel like a trouble maker, gave up in the end.
No idea why my AM’s sig has Key Account Manager in the emails, unless the definition of key has changed lately.
mildlyirritated says
11:07 pm on 11/02/2010
The trouble with systems i.e like a return system is the assumption you have covered every angle, the trouble occurs when messy non-conforming humans get involved, eBays track record of ‘improvements’ is pretty poor.
Regarding the wider issue:
eBay are like the current government, endless legislation and no enforcement. As Jimbo, Whirly et al point out there are a lot of issues out there that are not being enforced by eBay.
Currently I have been absolutely staggered at the amount of ‘private’ sellers with hundreds or thousands of listings the majority of which are below £0.99 (Free listing as a private seller is no incentive to register as a business). Putting yet more pressure on existing properly registered business sellers will also be counter productive.
Dom says
9:51 am on February 12th, 2010
Duplicate listings are my pet hate, cluttering up search results. It can’t be that hard to have a system where when a title already exists it will not let the item be listed. If they have a duplicate listing policy it should be enforced. Reporting is pointless and I think they go straight to spam anyway as they don’t show in sent items in my eBay messages.