Thoughts on sellers passing on paypal fees?

[Shadera]

I'm seeing more and more people with ads that state if the buyer wants to pay via paypal to add the 3% for fees.

Aside from it being against paypal's TOS, shouldn't it be considered good business ethics to price your animal to cover those fees? Should the buyer really have to cover the fees for the convenience of the seller getting paid instantly? Are these people really too broke to pony up $10 on a $300 sale? (Or similar..)

Personally, I think this is tacky and will run screaming from any seller who uses it. It's a cost of doing business.

Thoughts?

 

[Utta]

I agree... it also eurks me when people charge $2000+ for an animal then ask the buyer to pay for shipping. (Sorry to take it off track, but somewhat related?)

 

[deborahbroadus]

I'm seeing more and more people with ads that state if the buyer wants to pay via paypal to add the 3% for fees.

Aside from it being against paypal's TOS, shouldn't it be considered good business ethics to price your animal to cover those fees? Should the buyer really have to cover the fees for the convenience of the seller getting paid instantly? Are these people really too broke to pony up $10 on a $300 sale? (Or similar..)

Personally, I think this is tacky and will run screaming from any seller who uses it. It's a cost of doing business.

Thoughts?

I agree in a fashion...

I believe that the buyer should not have to pay the PayPal fees. The Sellers are the ones that initated using Paypal, and it's the seller that agreed to the terms and conditions of using the Paypal service. In my opinion, passing on the fees to the buyer is just "tacky." I would hope that many buyers would recognize this as an "iffy" ethical practice and avoid those sellers.

HOWEVER, the seller could simply bump up their animal prices to cover it as you suggested, so there's actually no way to know who is doing this and who is not (except for the ones that are upfront about it).

So actually how is it unethical? "Bump up the prices vs Charging the fee outright?"

I don't think that the prices should be bumped and I don't think that the buyer should pay the fee.

 

[deborahbroadus]

I agree... it also eurks me when people charge $2000+ for an animal then ask the buyer to pay for shipping. (Sorry to take it off track, but somewhat related?)

So you think shipping should be free after a certain price?

What do you thing that the price of the animal should be/ the ceiling before shipping should be included?

 

[Shadera]

At least if they're bumping up the price by three bucks for every hundred, they aren't outright stating in the ad that the buyer pays the fee. I think that's where the issue is. I don't agree that the buyer should be paying that, either, but I also think that the sellers should be pricing their animals so that they aren't having to ask the buyer to cover it. Not sure that made any more sense.

Like, if the animal is $300 and they don't want to pay the fees, for gawd's sake bump the price up to $325 and leave out the grabby hands "you pay the fee" wording.

Just a pet peeve I guess. I've got a lot of them, but this one's making me itchy tonight.

 

[Utta]

So you think shipping should be free after a certain price?

What do you thing that the price of the animal should be/ the ceiling before shipping should be included?

Honestly, I don't know. But let's take Prehistoric pets... they'll charge you 15grand for an animal, then still ask for the shipping. That just sends a twinge down my back.

Steve having the "free shipping on orders over $500" is a good way to go imo. Even $1000 is passable.

 

[hhmoore]

So actually how is it unethical? "Bump up the prices vs Charging the fee outright?"

Charging the fee is a violation of PayPal's TOS. Period. Charging shipping, handling, packaging, etc is not....as long as the same fee applies regardless of payment method.
Nobody will know if people are "bumping" the price to cover the fee, because it's built into the price. I don't concern myself with the fee when I'm selling - it's a cost of doing business & instant payment is a benefit. (There are similar fees involved with taking credit cards, plus a monthly fee that can be a prohibitive expense if one does sporadic selling.) If the $30 cut on a $1000 sale is going to break the seller, they should just charge $1050, IMO.
That said, I have no problem with a seller asking how payment will be made when discussing the purchase - I'm sometimes willing to go a little lower for a cash deal, because there aren't any extra fees to consider. *A discount for cash is not the same as charging a fee for using PayPal.

As for shipping costs - I have mixed feelings about that...
I don't have a specific statement in my Terms regarding that, because not every situation is the same. For example - if I trade a few snakes (which I value at $1500) for something, and later sell it for $1100, should I automatically eat the $50-$80 for shipping? What if I pay $2000 for a snake this year, decide I don't want to continue with that project after a year, and can only get $1000 for it...why should pay for shipping when I'm already losing my a$$ on that sale?

 

[polasian]

Personally, I think this is tacky and will run screaming from any seller who uses it. It's a cost of doing business.

Like, if the animal is $300 and they don't want to pay the fees, for gawd's sake bump the price up to $325 and leave out the grabby hands "you pay the fee" wording.

Charging the fee is a violation of PayPal's TOS. Period. Charging shipping, handling, packaging, etc is not....as long as the same fee applies regardless of payment method.
Nobody will know if people are "bumping" the price

Honestly, I don't know. But let's take Prehistoric pets... they'll charge you 15grand for an animal, then still ask for the shipping. That just sends a twinge down my back.

Steve having the "free shipping on orders over $500" is a good way to go imo. Even $1000 is passable.

With larger companies like Prehistoric pets, one must take into account how much business they do. Lets say they ship out 300 high end animals per year. If they offer free shipping...at (for ex) $30 a head...they're out 9k. It adds up. Having said that, yes...for 15k I'd offer free shipping

 

[wyldwurm]

I refuse to pay the 3 percent...I'll pay more from another seller before I shell out a lousy 10 bucks to cover *fees* to someone who can't be considerate enough to m ake my transaction the easiest it can be.

Buyers like to feel as if they got a good deal. Even if the actual price is a little higher, FREE shipping always sounds better than plus shipping. So why not add the 40-50 bucks to the cost of the animal.

Although, I have and will pay shipping, it's pretty much expected. But NO on the 3% thing...it's very rude

 

[Utta]

With larger companies like Prehistoric pets, one must take into account how much business they do. Lets say they ship out 300 high end animals per year. If they offer free shipping...at (for ex) $30 a head...they're out 9k. It adds up. Having said that, yes...for 15k I'd offer free shipping

But if you factor in how much there "over pricing" their animals, it'll make it even, no? (Ex: if they charge 500 for a normal retic, and the normal rate is 50, I think they can afford to take that "9k" catch my drift?)

 

[polasian]

But if you factor in how much there "over pricing" their animals, it'll make it even, no? (Ex: if they charge 500 for a normal retic, and the normal rate is 50, I think they can afford to take that "9k" catch my drift?)

Yes...adding a couple bucks to the price of an animal to label it "shipping included" is commonplace and has its benefits...as stated below...

Buyers like to feel as if they got a good deal. Even if the actual price is a little higher, FREE shipping always sounds better than plus shipping. So why not add the 40-50 bucks to the cost of the animal.

As far as the specific policies of Prehistoric Pets...I have no idea. I haven't done business with them, nor have I recently checked up on their stock. Mine was a blanket statement regarding larger companies in general.

 

[KelliH]

It's wrong to do period. The fee is the cost of doing business and the cost of the convenience of using Pay Pal. It's unethical to pass that cost along to your customer.

 

[BAD Morphs]

I agree with Shadera here. When I am looking to buy an animal for a set price and then in my mind I have to add in the shipping costs it makes me rethink the purchase. I think ppl are more inclined to purchase an animal that has one set price as opposed to having to factor in shipping costs. Also I think it depends on where the purchaser is from cause as we all know shipping costs range depending on that. So what I would personally do is set the price at 50 higher than asking and if actual shipping is less, then take the difference off the price for the buyer. They will feel like your an honest person and not looking to make a few "extra" bucks off of them and may be inclined to buy again.

As for the paypal fees I have and do eat them. I think as Shadera said its part of the buisness of selling snakes online.

 

[Utta]

Yes...adding a couple bucks to the price of an animal to label it "shipping included" is commonplace and has its benefits...as stated below...



As far as the specific policies of Prehistoric Pets...I have no idea. I haven't done business with them, nor have I recently checked up on their stock. Mine was a blanket statement regarding larger companies in general.

I gotcha Nick. I was just using PP as an example.

 

[deborahbroadus]

Charging the fee is a violation of PayPal's TOS. Period. Charging shipping, handling, packaging, etc is not....as long as the same fee applies regardless of payment method.
Nobody will know if people are "bumping" the price to cover the fee, because it's built into the price. I don't concern myself with the fee when I'm selling - it's a cost of doing business & instant payment is a benefit. (There are similar fees involved with taking credit cards, plus a monthly fee that can be a prohibitive expense if one does sporadic selling.) If the $30 cut on a $1000 sale is going to break the seller, they should just charge $1050, IMO.
That said, I have no problem with a seller asking how payment will be made when discussing the purchase - I'm sometimes willing to go a little lower for a cash deal, because there aren't any extra fees to consider. *A discount for cash is not the same as charging a fee for using PayPal.

As for shipping costs - I have mixed feelings about that...
I don't have a specific statement in my Terms regarding that, because not every situation is the same. For example - if I trade a few snakes (which I value at $1500) for something, and later sell it for $1100, should I automatically eat the $50-$80 for shipping? What if I pay $2000 for a snake this year, decide I don't want to continue with that project after a year, and can only get $1000 for it...why should pay for shipping when I'm already losing my a$$ on that sale?

Oh man! I reread what I posted; I absolutely should NOT post after a few drinks (I was relaxing at home). I think I still have the context in the right order and it can be clearly seen that i must have meant to say, "How is one more unethical than the other?"

I don't agree that buyers should pay the fee, and I don't agree that we should "bump" the prices to include the fee. Both are unethical and there are actually no "degrees" of unethicality in either. One act is more "upfront" than the other, but they are both the same act.

I have used the "Discount for Cash" when I want to move animals fast. I guess we all have to trust that we are being honest when we claim we don't charge Paypal fees. I don't even charge MD tax because often they will do a "meet and pick up" which saves me fees, so I pass this savings on to the MD residents (out of state already don't pay tax).

I really believe that if I am selling the animal for close to what I got, then I don't mind paying the shipping..it's like "Free Shipping when..." I don't consider that I am "losing my ass" when I have to sell one of my animals for less than I paid...because usually I have received my "investment" back though the eggs that were produced, hatched and sold?

 

[DAND]

I'm sorry, if $3.00 and change per hundred dollar sale is going to break you then you need to find another line of income. The obvious breaking of pay-pal's TOS notwithstanding it's just downright wrong to expect the buyer to pay for your ability to make a sale through pay-pal. It is your choice to utilize pay-pal as an a convenient option. I'm sure you'd pay the same $3.00 and change just in gas to go and deposit a check or money order at the bank and well over that in fees if you were to opt to accept credit cards.

 

[hhmoore]

Adding a predetermined shipping fee to the price (and calling it free shipping) is a double edged sword. Sure, it's easy...but, especially for the lower volume sellers, its a money losing method. Say I charge a flat rate of $50, and include it in my price - If I'm shipping across the country, the cost could easily be $25-30 more. My experience seems to be that THAT scenario is more likely than one in which I ship to a neighboring state, and the cost is $20 less. Then, if I go along with the message I see here, I should charge those local customers less...which eliminates what little offset there might have been to those losses.

Hobby or business, sellers cannot absorb loss after loss....and the habits of an increasing portion of the people involved in the buying & selling are affecting many of us. Sure, there's a supply and demand factor in the reduction of selling prices...but there's also the factor of people seeing reductions & expecting them from everybody. How many of you have not had people try to knock the price down by 30% (or more) on an animal you are selling? I rarely factor that much give into a price, so I won't generally accept that kind of offer...and I lose sales because of it (not a complaint, just a statement...it is, after all, my choice). Then, people want/expect free shipping on top of it?

Oh, and Deborah...if I breed an animal enough to recoup my investment, and sell it for "below value" that would be a different story. In my story, the animal was never bred, so I was losing $1000 on it - not counting associated costs and time(...and shipping??)

 

[hhmoore]

I thought of something when I first saw this thread, but neglected to include it in my earlier post....charging the customer a fee to use PayPal is obvious - it's a violation of their TOS, meaning the company specifically states the seller cannot do that. There is another tactic that I have seen being used more recently - sellers stating that the payment must be put through as personal, to avoid the fees. IMO, that is as bad as, if not worse than, charging the fee.

 

[Lucille]

I thought of something when I first saw this thread, but neglected to include it in my earlier post....charging the customer a fee to use PayPal is obvious - it's a violation of their TOS, meaning the company specifically states the seller cannot do that. There is another tactic that I have seen being used more recently - sellers stating that the payment must be put through as personal, to avoid the fees. IMO, that is as bad as, if not worse than, charging the fee.

I agree, it is dishonest to try to hide the fee, and it is against Paypal TOS to charge it off to your customer.

Worse, it makes the business look childish and unprofessional. If a kid at a lemonade stand wanted to charge me an extra nickel for the cup he or she was using to serve my lemonade, I'd laugh (and would not pay it) but it would be a funny attempt at passing along costs. If an adult does this, it isn't funny, it just looks amateurish.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

The fee is the cost of doing business and the cost of the convenience of using Pay Pal.

Exactly! A legitimate business also knows that the PayPal fees are a tax right-off...So it makes you wonder if the people that are requesting the 3% PayPal fees are even claiming the income appropriately!

When someone requests the 3% I go elsewhere...I've also had customers offer to cover the 3% (maybe because they're used to others requiring it?) and I explain to them why it's a no-no.