Hello!
To use the forum, login or register above.
(If you are already logged in above, please click here)
Please allow for exclusions to refine search results in "WishList"
@Admin - Since you have made the decision (a bad one IMO) to allow lot limits in.
Would you kindly create an "exclude stores with lot limits from search results" button in wish list.
Also a facility to allow customers to create a favourite/least favorite list and then the ability to "exclude least favorite stores" from search results, and also to be able to search and show results for "favorite stores" only and/or first
Maybe also an "exclude stores with "$n" minimum purchase.
As a customer there is absolutely nothing worse than spending, sometimes, hours creating a wish list, juggling stores, start the check out at the various stores and then come across one right at the end that prevents you checking out (lot limits) - because you have already completed purchases at various stores only to find your self screwed at the end
- very "BrickLinkish" - and why I started buying 95% of my parts direct from TLG
Thank You
Would you kindly create an "exclude stores with lot limits from search results" button in wish list.
Also a facility to allow customers to create a favourite/least favorite list and then the ability to "exclude least favorite stores" from search results, and also to be able to search and show results for "favorite stores" only and/or first
Maybe also an "exclude stores with "$n" minimum purchase.
As a customer there is absolutely nothing worse than spending, sometimes, hours creating a wish list, juggling stores, start the check out at the various stores and then come across one right at the end that prevents you checking out (lot limits) - because you have already completed purchases at various stores only to find your self screwed at the end
- very "BrickLinkish" - and why I started buying 95% of my parts direct from TLG
Thank You
This discussion has been closed.
Powered by Vanilla
Comments
From a seller's point of view, I think it's just unfair competition to allow for these things. I worked hard and did a lot of research to keep my shipping prices as low as possible, so I think I should be able to reap the rewards for that.
The same goes for lot limits... I'm more than happy to put some extra time in for my customer and we all know time is money, so it should reflect in the prices and bulk prices not in lot limits.
And some of those niggly orders turned to very decent BIG repeat orders - maybe they wanted to see how I handled it before making a big order?
I also looked at how to streamline things - it's only me, and I found simple ways to make things more efficient…
Now when I receive one of those 100+ lot orders I grab my sorting trays and go to it - NOW the funny thing is it takes hardly any longer to pick one of those than a small lot # Large order.
We have been going like this for a year - the "Big Guys" up top seem to be OK with the BrickOwl way.
It's a shame, but there ya go it's not my website!
There are a huge number of customers who come here looking for LEGO for the first time, and there are a large number who are very regular purchasers - I don't think they will appreciate this, when it hurts them, and it will.
… the slippery slope? next will there will be an "additional charges" box? and "discounts" for IBAN or cash/check? (which is the same as a charge for PayPal when you look at it)
to conclude then 1% of orders would be considered a "nuisance" to stores vs what % of miffed customers that hit the lot limit hurdle?
@Admin I urge you to consider carefully the implications, as more mega-sellers move over their demands will be strong (due to the inflow of $$ in commission).
Writing " It does not provide a good customer experience and should only rarely be used" is pointless - if it's there no one will "use it rarely" they either will or won't !
If the feature is abused, for example to provide artificially low prices, this will be reflected in catalogue ranking.
I do actually intend to provide discounts for using certain payment methods, I feel that is beneficial as it is a legitimate discount.
For example:-
IBAN -5% discount
PayPal - no discount
...would be illegal.
IBAN - free
PayPal - 35p +2.1% charge (or whatever the seller is charged on a per-sale basis)
...would be legal, though I would argue extremely counter-productive.
BO already fails to allow EU sellers to meet many aspects of consumer regulations. I'm not sure that adding another method would send the right signal.
Could you also clarify "BO already fails to allow EU sellers to meet many aspects of consumer regulations."?
New legislation came into effect exactly one week ago that requires traders to comply with various things, not least of which is the necessity to provide details of a consumer's right to cancel prior to them completing a purchase. There are a few other things which I've mentioned in another thread recently, but the responsibility to ensure compliance lies with each individual seller. I'm reluctant to give details to the nth degree because I don't want anyone to rely on what I say in case I get something wrong. However, two improvements would allow all sellers to ensure they comply with most of the new rules. (1) Allow them to require a ticked 'I have read terms and conditions' box before a customer can proceed with payment. (2) Allow a seller to include a custom message within the order confirmation email.
As I say, this is from a UK point of view but the rules apply EU wide. The finer details may differ from country to country however.
I would love to offer a 3% discount to customers paying by E-Interac (a Canadian thing).
This legislation has been brought in, in part to stop companies like Ryan Air from being able to advertise a price - say 99p for a flight - but then being able to charge you £25 for paying by anything other than a Ryan Air Pre-Paid Credit Card, available only from their desk in Kusadasi, Turkey every 29th of February
I think from reading the whole point is to be fair to customers at checkout, so they don't get charged too much and have clarity of final price for comparison.
If when looking to check out in my store, the prices never go further upwards, but can only come down, it fulfills the spirit of the regulations.
Do we also have to rework the coupon system to make it impossible to give discounts that may cross a strict reading and personal interpretation of this?
My thought is focused on prices of the parts themselves as this is where the conversation often has context. "are fees in the price of parts or added on afterwards" most often discussed.
I am a bit stuck there, looking at the whole invoice at once it is a bit different. My wording can be picked apart, I still think the spirit of the law is covered already.
"this will be reflected in catalogue ranking" - Really? What piece by piece - or the whole store? and who is going to be looking out for it? or can "the system" detect this? (Not)
BTW it's already happening…
most of us (I believe) came here to get away from the, shall we say, "features" elsewhere
I'm pretty sure I know what happened - remember they need BrickOwl just as much as you need them (or at least they will do if I am reading things correctly)
A new buyer who feels 'burned' will likely have a negative impression of BO, and will probably not turn to another BO seller, even though the huge majority of us provide up-front, inclusive pricing.
@Admin, and I mean this respectfully, but I believe it is your role to provide the software structure that promotes (actually forces) the good business practices that you have stated. By providing a loophole to accommodate sellers who want to retain the practices (specifically, the lot limits) and then state, "It does not provide a good customer experience and should only rarely be used", it seems that you are ceding much of the power that the software developer can wield.
Although I am relatively new here, it seems that you HAVE built a very strong system that encourages good business behavior. Congratulations, and I am very impressed. However, IMO, the decision to allow lot limits is an exception, and opens a window for manipulation that is not in the best long-term interest of the buyer AND seller community.
ARE manipulative… and I know how it works… and I may share, however IF I do then anyone here who wants to "make money" vs an AFoL will do it - and maybe that's the way to get rid of it.
Remember folks, a lot of "LEGO people" are quite **brainy** and know computor programming and such well - Me well no (and yes) because I got sucked in early with computor addiction, no different in 1976 than now with "gaming" - however I do have a "pretty good IQ" (Intellectual Quality?? LoL) -- I digress.
The folks that INSIST on lot limitations are using (**may or may not be** complex) algorithms to make it work - BUT it will only work WITH lot limitations…
and you will see emotive reasoning such as "but I must pay my employees something" whoa there - they also use psychology!
So you want to beat them? (There's only a few at the moment) without me "spilling the beans" - pick one, any one (of the big cheeses) and EmULaTe their pricing structure - only make ALL your prices .001 less and your "ALV" a little less. I guarantee you will get their business (oh and P*ssed off "buyers" - "customer" is so much more polite don't you agree?)
Lawrence - YOU are at a pivotal moment - you either LEAD or FOLLOW - personally I would prefer a "leader" -
To close as I need to make MY decision.
From week to week it has been oh WoW - I COULD make this a business (I would love that) to um maybe I should "do something else" - I have REALLY enjoyed Brick Owl up until now - I have some wonderful customers and some really nice comments left me - however I don't want to be a "money grabber" It doesn't suit me well - I am happy making "enough" and being in good company - I would rather not loose that…
thanks for reading
Average lot value (ALV) is simply a form of minimum order value (MOV). It's necessary for sellers who don't have another day job for their main income. When selling LEGO parts IS your day job, spending 1 hour picking an order worth a couple of quid/bucks isn't going to pay the mortgage, far less employees if you have them.
Nobody gets 'burned' or 'screwed' by ALV any more than they do by MOV. The concept may be new, (Lawrence is LEADING in this respect), but it's not difficult to understand even for those with a modest intelligence quotient.
If a buyer wants to place an order for 25p/50c worth of parts, many stores currently prevent that buyer from purchasing at their store. What does the buyer do? Leave BO and never return, or simply find a store that is prepared to provide service to them? Obviously it's the latter.
This is a venue where 'hobby' sellers and 'business' sellers co-exist, so there's always going to be disagreement and futile resentment of those who have more by those who have less. As the site grows, more of the same old grievances will repeat themselves. The obvious solution is to give customers MORE choice, not less. Customers aren't stupid; they'll buy if they want to and won't if they don't, but as long as there's LEGO for sale here, somebody will get the sale.
My understanding of the new EU regulations is that they are trying to provide a transparent situation for the consumer. It is the seller's responsibility to assure that the buyer knows the full cost of the transaction. The buyer is given the advantage by being able to cancel the transaction. (@Hoddie has given a much clearer and more detailed treatment of the EU requirements in this and in other threads.)
Therefore, it seems that transparency would be the most straight-forward method to meet these new requirements.
The current ability to set the 'Bulk Quantity' at the individual unit level and the 'Minimum Order Value' at the aggregate level seems to as clear as possible. The buyer knows the MOV when he or she enters the seller's store. The Bulk Quantity is known when viewing any item for sale in that store. Very clear. Immediate. No room for surprises or manipulation.
The use of Lot Limits COULD achieve the same result, but it would be apparent only after the buyer has assembled an entire order. (I understand that a running total will be available along the way, but it is meaningless until the end.) At that point, the buyer may see that the order just won't work with this seller. Either more items must be bought, lower priced lots deleted, or some other combination to reach the Lot Limit. This is anything BUT transparent. This method is clearly used to assure that the seller's time to fill the order is profitable, but it is susceptible to manipulation to benefit the seller and obscure the process to the buyer. (Of course the Bulk Quantity / MOV approach is also used to assure a certain profit level, but again, it is transparent to the buyer from the start.) I'm amazed at this statement. E-commerce is as close to a purely competitive market as is possible. Any seller, whether the hobbyist or the small company with employees, must be able to survive by maximizing its own strengths and overcoming its weaknesses. A company that must pay its employees must find some way to give the customer a reason to buy from it rather than from a smaller competitor. Maybe the larger company has more product selection, quicker turn-around, lower prices, etc. If there is no compelling reason for the larger company to be chosen over smaller competitors, then the market is saying that the larger company is not viable. If however, the larger company has benefits from economies of scale, then maybe the smaller seller is driven out of the business. The market is brutal, but is efficient.
It is ironic that a mechanism such as Lot Limits is being advocated by the larger sellers and that some of the smaller sellers are supporting full transparency. (I am speaking only for myself.) Here, the larger sellers are stating that Lot Limits provide protection to 'pay the mortgage' or to pay their employees. The most efficient markets are those that 'protect' neither the large, small, or weak sellers. Competition is the true balancer and will benefit the long-term community of buyers AND sellers.
If we are discussing how items SHOULD be sold on this site, I strongly believe that we should consider what provides the BEST buyer experience, encourages the BEST business practices, and NOT what would protect and prolong mechanisms that obscure the nature of the transactions and tend to encourage 'gaming the system'.
ALV is not good for the customer despite what might be claimed; it is simply a tool to protect the biggest sellers from having to deal with low-value customers. I personally think it's absurd that such a system should even be contemplated. If profit margins for the biggest sellers are so small that they have to turn some customers away, I think it's quite obvious that they're not factoring the cost of being in business into their pricing.
ALV also helps the biggest sellers retain their positions by being able to artificially lower their prices beyond those sellers who choose not to employ ALV. It's rewarding those sellers who, for some, offer the worst possible customer service.
BL was so seller-centric that I'm amazed they ever managed to win any customers. I genuinely feel that most buyers at BL were there simply because there was no real alternative. It sometimes took an age to work out who actually was the cheapest seller thanks to each seller having their own set of rules and fees, often so complicated you were left wondering whether they were deliberately so.
BO has been different, a revelation in fact, as the focus has very much been on the customer. To turn that on its head in order to win some high-value sellers might work in the short term but could have serious consequences for the longer term.
There's so much pricing abuse over on BL that you sometimes had to go to page 2 or 3 of search listings in order to find the cheapest deal. Do we really want the same here? Do we really want to piss customers off so much that they're driven back to BL because, if they have to suffer bad practices, they might as well do so at the site that still offers the widest and largest inventory and, usually, the best prices?
BO is at a crossroads. My 2p.
Stores that use minimum lot values are identified, in the catalog, on every page in the store, and with a running indicator if you are below the limit.
Internally, this is treated similar to the existing minimum order limit system, and results in "similar" consequences for customers, In regards to limiting their ability to purchas what they want.
I am aware this is one of those topics, that many people have strong varied opinions about. If I feel system is being abused, or if I consider it to be harming Brick Owl, I will seek to remedy that.
I would ask for a historic perspective.
When you set up BO with a transparent full-cost approach, beginning with the first item placed in the shopping cart, why was the Minimum Lot Values feature omitted?
You know, those who fired this place up with you, in July and August last year…
Those who spent hours (some must have spent days) re-naming items in the catalog providing images and so on after the rather juvenile "threat" from BrickLink (HK) Ltd
This is NOT about "fairness" or "bitterness" or "inequities" - Trust me I am the biggest Anti - Socialist, 100% free-market capitalist going, and believe in FREE and OPEN markets, competition is good, monopolies not so. Deception is very, very bad especially when the deceptive few nest within the majority of open, honest sellers.
No this is solely about deceptive practices, and how they are good for no-one except the "seller" employing them.
Someone up there (allegedly from a "non-emotive viewpoint") questioned my intellectual capabilities - to which I can assure you is "pretty good" not the best but "pretty good"
Setting a minimum order (MOV) is fine (at what ever level you wish) it is transparent, most stores have it set at a level whereby the PayPal per transaction fee is absorbed.
Setting a S&H fee in excess of actual costs is also fine - charge what ever you wish it too is transparent:- my example is I charge Retail prices (the price I would pay at the post office) - I pay commercial rate which is 15% less - and this pays for packaging costs - without the customer paying any more than they would at the post office - (I do have a +20¢ on the low end:- retail is $2.32, I charge $2.52 and pay $1.93 - 60¢ covers packaging)
Setting "bulk" quantities is also fine, once again transparent. Visit DadsAFOL to see that, and Jason is a full time BUSINESS seller, with staff, - a good and honest seller. So if he can do OK as a business without lot limits then so can anyone.
What's the difference between Lot Limit's (ALV) and MOV? - There is NO comparison ALV allows for devious and clever manipulation, to me it's as clear as day, does nobody **see** how it works?
PLEASE Lawrence get rid of it and put this place back on track as not just the "new place" but the Best place to buy and sell LEGO
Graham
Does Average Lot Values allow lower pricing? Yes and obviously so, since the seller can reduce his costs. It's a business decision, such a seller will also lose some orders incompatible with his requirements.
The only valid argument I see against AVL is that it makes things more complex for buyers. I think it's very unintuitive, it's not something you see when purchasing any other kind of goods online. It is probably wise to exclude such stores from WishLish searches and so on.
I have no issue with things and trust Lawrence, who's site this is.
I believe small sellers do themselves a disservice by trying to compete with the giants. I have had a good sized store now for a while, I don't compete with them when the are on the low end of the "price guide" I buy from them. Compete with them I will buy from you too. Just trying to be more honest than normal here.
I don't have time to have a $5 minimum, I am still getting sales with a $50 minimum.
Smaller sellers should be happy when big ones limit their sales and not think the price of one thing matters that much in a final sale.
You can have a loss leader strategy with your store under this new system or without the new system.
I have quoted you and ran with some thoughts that are not meant to accuse you personally of anything. Just trying to share some perspective.
Buyers typically will have an item or two that they can always bulk up on, or they can add a minifig to reach ALV. But to have to buy everything in bulk, they might in the end be buying 10 of that and 20 of that when they really only need 2 or 5. In my opinion ALV let the buyer decide where the bulk is going to lie, not the seller. With ALV as a buyer I can have one lot that is $14 and 14 lots that are $0.05 and if the ALV is set $1 then this order will be just fine. If this particular seller chose bulk lots instead, I would possibly have to buy 20x's the quantity I wanted on the $0.05 lots. Then the order is at $29 (if I still want the $14 lot) or is full of items I really don't want.
Or is there something that I am missing completely?
Katie
A freedom to run your store as you want even if it is at the expense of a perfect customer experience.
I can't separate zones in Canada for shipping, this is not a good experience for my domestic customers who have to overpay or ask for a quote.
I am not whining about perfecting this in the forum and demanding it be done now with vague threats of "like bricklink" that come across like blackmail.
We are having an anniversary soon, could we have it in peace instead of strife?
The strife is the most bricklinkish thing I see in the situation.
Sorry for letting my passion get away on me.
Joe
I'm comparing to BL because that's the only directly comparable site. Bad customer service and seller-centric terms seem to be the source of many an argument over there. I'd like to think that we can keep that to a minimum here, but bringing across some of the ludicrous terms and fees that so far Brick Owl has managed to prosper without hardly seems to be moving in the right direction.
Struggling to justify? Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but I've seen no compelling argument why this recent change is necessary, except perhaps to placate a new seller here that has the potential to bring in a decent revenue for the site. Even Admin admits that this offers bad customer service. Perhaps in all honesty it just makes me a little fearful about what next might be introduced in order to entice another big seller.
At the end of the day it is Admin's choice what options he gives sellers. It's up to each of us to decide whether or not to use this site. But I don't think that means we can't be critical of some of the choices made.
@ Hoddie I can't agree with you more strongly - and I will add whilst on the subject of other e-tailer OR retailer that does anything like AVL
- oh I can't wait to go Lowe's or Home Depot to top up my nuts and bolts and assorted hardware and be told "sorry you have two many low value lots" - "you must either put some back or buy MORE of them" - THAT is a pretty direct comparable. Right or wrong?
Now look at eBay - I want assorted nuts and bolts I **maybe** find a seller, selling at a good price - but he/she sells in quantities of 25 - thats fine too… Right or wrong?
Or (In UK) go to B&Q you are only offered packs in multiples (bulk)
and @Joe emotions run high? Of course they do - THIS is the number ONE **thing** of BrickLink - and I don't like it coming here, and it would seem I am not the only **1** altho PLEASE NOTE I am truly only expressing MY opinion on MY behalf ONLY
ALL to placate ONE seller - how many really good suggestions have come and gone with no implementation?
@Rant again - yes of course this website belongs to Lawrence et-al and they can do whatever the heck they like (within the law - perhaps look into that? BTW)
Another comparable, perhaps ludicrous, but it serves the point :- a land owner who allows peasants to farm and live on their property, in return for "commission" - a percentage of the crop, in the beginning all are treated equal, then 1 peasant farmer discovers fertilizer and demands preferential treatment…
NOW on "customer service" - look at all the giant companies - they ALL got there (whether you like them or not) by excellent customer service. Amazon would by the primary example.
Why do I crow on? Because I care about this website - that's why - I have no intention of competing with these big sellers, as you mention @Joe, I also have got inventory from them. It IS NOT about fairness or "equal playing field". I was doing fine on BL beside them, so do not doubt it will be the same here.
What I DO care about is the overall perception of our customers, a large number of them do not know about BrickLink (this is loosely ratified by some dealings with customers)
Some are unaware that BrickOwl consists of different stores, I had an angry message about lack of parts availability - I read it carefully and thought - he doesn't know that I am NOT BrickOwl - and I was correct - I wrote him a message suggesting he tried some other stores and he came back and thanked me!
So someone "stumbles" upon one of these ALV stores - gets upset - gone, for ALL of us
and yes this gives a clear signal to the **BiG Boys" they shout = they get what they want, so what comes next?
and lastly - really not a good time to implement this - just as the 1yr mark is reached - it would have been something to celebrate.
ALL The above is absolutely MY opinion ONLY ~~ any thing else implied is just bad grammar - sorry about that - I failed English - my only language LoL oh well at least I have "spell check" just caught about a dozen errors!!
With that said, I am okay with the lot averages, as long as it is clearly pointed out. A few things I have noticed with the current implantation of it.
-It shows up under the section that shows feedback, smoke/non smoke, ect. This is good. It does look like the tables are off a little bit or at least when I view it in Safari (haven’t checked the other browsers)
-Would it be possible to keep a running total when you click “View My Cart.” For example, I do not know if I am within the boundaries until I click Checkout, then I get the notification. This would greatly improve the buying experience. (Same for minimum purchases).
-Not including them in the magic wishlist is good. Could we also apply the same to “Minimum Purchase” stores as well. In theory, average lots are along the same lines as minimum purchases
At the end of the day for my small store (hoping to get larger), I am not competing against the big guys or the little guys, I am competing against myself. It all comes down to this question, “What can I do to make my store/self better than the competition?” For me, it is all in the customer service I provide, communication, and the purchase. The business stuff falls into place after those.
Coming back to average lots, if it brings more big fish over, great! Wider part/set/minifigure selection is good for the site. Clear representation of the limits is needed though.
The fact is that every business has costs. In my experience such costs are always either charged in the form of a flat per-order fee or are simply factored into their pricing.
I think fair representation of pricing is particularly important where the prices of several sellers are displayed alongside each other. The BL search pages are not representative of the final pricing you can expect to pay, thanks to payment surcharges, average lot minimums and all sorts of other nonsense. Now, thanks to this latest change, BO search pages are no longer representative either. It's a bad move and I don't think you'll ever convince me otherwise. But if pricing fairness and customer service is no longer the priority of BO then fair enough, I can live with that, but if that's true, let's not pretend otherwise.
and I second that - it would be a better place with NO restrictions - MOV would simply be replaced with a higher shipping rate, which is what I used to do over there - with flat rate shipping @ $3 (same as TLG do - @ $2.95)
Further, I would then suggest a uniform shipping rate (like Amazon do with market place sellers)
as long as you get rid of ALV!!
That retailer is TLG - S@H (PAB), no MOV no ALV and flat rate shipping.
Now there is a limit by phone, but that's due to time
and in the spirit of the thread I am removing my MOV - it isn't customer friendly nor necessary either,
funny thing is I would say at least 90% of my orders to date have been within reason, and would have satisfied all but the most ridiculous limits - and I can only recall 3 orders that were a real pain
and one more thing the referrals from other sites, do they warn folks about stores with ALV and MOV? - or do those potential customers just get a **surprise** - perhaps shock!
That certainly wouldn't be good as most of these customers are new to all this
Graham
I don't mind picking low value orders at all, but if the paypal costs are more than the order value there's not much fun in doing it.
So yeah, I think a minimal order value is certainly in place here on BO to protect sellers from such transactions. IMO it's either that or allowing us to charge paypal fees, which I certainly don't advocate.
I just don't like paying for someone else's parts, that's all...