Sellers adding for PayPal use is plainly BS

Are any of you old enough to remember when certain brands of gas stations started to charge more if you used a credit card? I forget who started it, but most everyone followed. Maybe 15-20 years ago...they said it cost them more to take credit cards - at that time their own - so credit card users should pay more. Funny thing, those brands started to lose market share to the station down the street (Shell I think it was)who started advertising "Same price, cash or credit".

I suppose it is a little different in the context of used audio equipment or auctions given that there may not be readily or immediately available alternatives. On the other hand, those of you who are proponents of "tacking it on" may want to take notice the number of people that are annoyed by the tactic. As a result, some may chose to ignore your items, thus reducing the market size and, perhaps, reducing the price you end up receiving. Why not take the suggestion and bury it in the price and just make it easier for people to bid/offer to buy and maximize your buying audience. You can always offer up a bit more of a discount for cash if someone wants to go the PayPal route.

I believe this is called Marketing 101.

1) Paypal is strictly a convenience

2) Credit cards are strictly a convenience

3) Convenience saves time

4) Time is money

5) Pay the fees if you want to use a convenient service ( Paypal ) and take advantage of another convenience ( credit card ) at the same time

7) The seller is happy as they don't have to sit around and worry about whether "Customer X" has actually put payment into the mail

8) The buyer is happy because the package is on the way to them within 24 - 48 hours since payment has arrived instantaneously

OR

9) Put the deal on hold until you can send out an acceptable form of payment, which you may have to pay for anyhow ( money order, cashiers check, wire transfer, postage, etc.. )

10) Wait for for the funds to arrive at the seller's

11) Wait for the seller to deposit said funds

12) Wait for the funds to clear

13) Twiddle your thumbs in anticipation for a few days while all of this takes place

14) Be glad when all is said and done, about two weeks or so later.

If paying 3% to secure a product that you want in a convenient and timely manner is going to break you, you are in the wrong hobby. Not only that, why should the seller be penalized for making it faster and more convenient for you to pay him ? There is NO reason for a seller to be penalized for this payment option UNLESS they specifically state that this is the only form of payment that they will take. It is no longer a "payment option" under those circumstances and they should absorb such fees since that is how they demand payment. Otherwise, it is the BUYER'S "choice" to pay in this manner and the BUYER should pay the fees involved. The seller is not making you pay that way, so why should they take the loss for giving you the option of making payment convenient for you ???

Either pay the fees for services rendered ( Paypal IS a service and has operating expenses like any other business ) and shut up OR get off your duff, do the leg-work yourself, sit around for a few extra days and save PART of the fees that you would have otherwise had to pay. How hard is that to understand ??? Sean
>

PS... Sorry if this came across as disrespectful, but i can't understand someone pissing and moaning about a service or option that they don't HAVE to make use of.

PPS... It was Amoco that started the cash / credit price structure. Being a vendor that has to pay an outside source to process credit cards, i can understand why they did it. The consumer, who has little idea of what it actually takes to operate a business and accept credit cards, whined loud enough that laws were passed making it illegal. Of course, guess who lobbied for these laws ? If you said the credit card companies, you might be right. People weren't using their cards as much, so Visa / Master were losing money and took steps to protect their business interests. The loser in all of this ? The consumers who pay cash, since retailers had to raise prices across the board to cover the fees that are charged to them when someone pays by credit.

You apparently haven't read my previous post. But regardless, i still believe that anyway you look at it, practice is DISGUSTING! Something like 'stiffing' your waitress at your favorite restaurant.

Amen Sean, well said. I usaully do auctions and sometimes these auctions end at a price lower than I paid as a dealer. We're talking brand new gear, deal of the century kind of thing going on here, and I still have the buyers in some instances cry about the 3% fee I add to the total for paypal. They will even argue over $5.00 frt. if they think I'm too high on the frt. Never mind that they are getting a $5000.00 amp for $2000.00. I beleive you could give away gear with the only catch being that they pay frt. and some would still gripe and cry.Like Sean said it's yor choice for the convenience. You tip the pizza del. boy, don't you? Audiogon is all about getting good deals and info. that 5 yrs. ago was unheard of and now that we have such a great source, some are always going to be as we say in the South "looking a gift mule in the mouth"!Keep on griping and see how audio life is without Audiogon or Paypal!

What a silly notion. Adam Smith (if he were inclined to read Audiogon forum posts) would turn in his grave.

If you subtract any consideration of what the buyer gets in exchange for payment of ANY fee (which, as rational maximizers, is an analysis all buyers perform before parting with their money), then EVERY payment becomes merely a seller's convenience and (under this rationale) morally objectionable.

Since the premise of EVERY purchase is that the buyer will have possession and use of the item for sale, and it's the seller's obligation to make sure the buyer gets possession, why not object on the same principle to buyers paying shipping charges? After all they just finance the seller's convenience by making the buyer pay to relieve the seller of the obligation to deliver the item personally.

By the way, I have read all the posts, and I have to agree with Sean.