|
 |
| | | Author: | FigBits  | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2015 08:00 | | Subject: | Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 270 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
As shown in dozens of forum threads, even experienced BrickLink buyers cannot
agree on exactly what it means if a buyer does or does not select the "insurance"
box when checking out a cart on BrickLink. New buyers cannot reasonably be expected
to understand either.
The simplest solution is to do away with the concept that sellers are somehow
selling insurance to buyers.
If sellers with to purchase insurance for themselves, they are certainly free
to do so. They can also pass on any costs associated with this to their buyers,
if they wish to. But this is different than the way that it is currently described
on BrickLink, where the buyer is choosing whether s/he wants to purchase insurance.
So, the suggestion is to remove that option on checkout. As this could be a significant
change for many sellers, there should be a reasonable amount of time provided
(and a specific "go live" date for the changeover) so that any needed changes
can be incorporated by these stores, similar to the change to xe.com exchange
rates.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:30 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:43 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
That is precisely how it is described on BrickLink. So, something would need
to change to make this site match those other millions of businesses.
When you checkout on BrickLink, there is a checkbox labelled "include insurance
with my order."
You will notice that there is NO box for "include postage with my order" or "include
a bubble envelope or box with my order." This is because BrickLink (properly)
recognizes that BL stores do not sell those items. They PURCHASE those items
as part of their business process in order to ship customer orders. They can
even pass on those costs either explicitly or implicitly to their customers.
But they do not SELLING them to their customers.
Insurance should be exactly the same.
Thank you for bringing up the perfect analogy. Insurance is exactly analogous
to shipping supplies. And they should be handles the same way by BrickLink. Specifically,
by removing the option for buyers to purchase insurance from BL stores (just
as there is no option to purchase shipping supplies).
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cameron.thorne | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:44 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
Your objection sounds more like a "yes" vote to me. I don't understand your
objection to the suggestion, based on what you wrote. Sellers choosing whether
or not to pass costs on to the Buyers is exactly what Marc described in his suggestion
(as distinct from Buyers choosing this). Can you elaborate?
-- Cameron
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
Your objection sounds more like a "yes" vote to me. I don't understand your
objection to the suggestion, based on what you wrote. Sellers choosing whether
or not to pass costs on to the Buyers is exactly what Marc described in his suggestion
(as distinct from Buyers choosing this). Can you elaborate?
-- Cameron
|
Insurance is an OPTION offered by many sellers. Not just here on BrickLink,
but by a great many other online and mail order businesses in the real world.
I understand some businesses prefer to include insurance and build it into the
prices of their goods and/or charge for S&H. I have no problem with that, although
I can often find better deals from other sellers who do not add these costs.
Thus, many businesses offer insurance as an option and let the buyer decide,
and by doing so they help keep costs lower for the buyer. Oftentimes significantly
lower than sellers who require or include insurance in their prices. Marc's
suggestion to effectively become the PayPal Police would remove the ability of
sellers to offer insurance as an option for the buyer to choose, and would increase
costs for many buyers. As a buyer, I prefer having this choice and will usually
avoid sellers who force me to buy insurance or build "self-insurance" into the
prices of their goods.
It comes down to simple economics for me. Of the 1372 orders I placed on BrickLink
only two uninsured orders were lost, having a combined cost to me of just over
$100. Had I been forced to insure all those other 1370 orders, it would have
cost me at least $5000 more in extra shipping charges and insurance fees. The
math is simple: $100 versus $5000.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:18 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
Your objection sounds more like a "yes" vote to me. I don't understand your
objection to the suggestion, based on what you wrote. Sellers choosing whether
or not to pass costs on to the Buyers is exactly what Marc described in his suggestion
(as distinct from Buyers choosing this). Can you elaborate?
-- Cameron
|
Insurance is an OPTION offered by many sellers. Not just here on BrickLink,
but by a great many other online and mail order businesses in the real world.
I understand some businesses prefer to include insurance and build it into the
prices of their goods and/or charge for S&H. I have no problem with that, although
I can often find better deals from other sellers who do not add these costs.
Thus, many businesses offer insurance as an option and let the buyer decide,
and by doing so they help keep costs lower for the buyer. Oftentimes significantly
lower than sellers who require or include insurance in their prices. Marc's
suggestion to effectively become the PayPal Police would remove the ability of
sellers to offer insurance as an option for the buyer to choose, and would increase
costs for many buyers.
|
That is not an accurate description of my suggestion. Nowhere do I mention anything
about "Paypal police" or anything about Paypal at all.
And NOT selling insurance would not increase buyer costs at all. Any more that
NOT selling envelopes does.
| | As a buyer, I prefer having this choice and will usually
avoid sellers who force me to buy insurance or build "self-insurance" into the
prices of their goods.
It comes down to simple economics for me. Of the 1372 orders I placed on BrickLink
only two uninsured orders were lost, having a combined cost to me of just over
$100. Had I been forced to insure all those other 1370 orders, it would have
cost me at least $5000 more in extra shipping charges and insurance fees. The
math is simple: $100 versus $5000.
Thor
|
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
You have brought this up multiple times, but you are the only one doing so. The
suggestion does not require it or even imply it.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:37 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
|
It is not specifically expressed in your suggestion. But that will be its effect.
But thinking this over, there is one way I could agree with your suggestion.
And that is if (a) the insured/non-insured options were offered and explained
in the shipping options section of a seller's terms AND (b) if BrickLink
respected those terms, particularly those terms for uninsured shipping options
and NPBs for buyers who breach those terms. In other words, if a seller offers
cheaper uninsured shipping as one of several shipping options and explains that
the risk of loss is on the buyer, the seller should be able to file and complete
an NPB if the buyer reneges on those terms by getting PayPal to refund his payment.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:15 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
|
It is not specifically expressed in your suggestion. But that will be its effect.
|
There is no reason to believe that such an effect would be widespread. Would
*some* sellers require insurance? Probably -- but nobody would be forced
to buy from those sellers, so by definition no buyers would be forced to pay
for insurance costs.
| | But thinking this over, there is one way I could agree with your suggestion.
And that is if (a) the insured/non-insured options were offered and explained
in the shipping options section of a seller's terms AND (b) if BrickLink
respected those terms, particularly those terms for uninsured shipping options
and NPBs for buyers who breach those terms. In other words, if a seller offers
cheaper uninsured shipping as one of several shipping options and explains that
the risk of loss is on the buyer, the seller should be able to file and complete
an NPB if the buyer reneges on those terms by getting PayPal to refund his payment.
Thor
|
Makes sense. Successful Paypal claims, to me, are clearly examples of buyers
not having paid for the order. So that all makes sense.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:27 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
|
It is not specifically expressed in your suggestion. But that will be its effect.
|
There is no reason to believe that such an effect would be widespread.
|
Of course there is. This has already happened in Europe.
| | Would *some* sellers require insurance? Probably -- but nobody would be forced
to buy from those sellers, so by definition no buyers would be forced to pay
for insurance costs.
|
If *most* sellers required insurance (as I now see in Europe) then the buyer
is effectively forced to pay for insurance because his other buying options are
severely limited. In that case, it would no longer be a choice between buying
from seller A versus buying from seller B. It would be a choice between buying
and not buying from anyone.
| |
| | But thinking this over, there is one way I could agree with your suggestion.
And that is if (a) the insured/non-insured options were offered and explained
in the shipping options section of a seller's terms AND (b) if BrickLink
respected those terms, particularly those terms for uninsured shipping options
and NPBs for buyers who breach those terms. In other words, if a seller offers
cheaper uninsured shipping as one of several shipping options and explains that
the risk of loss is on the buyer, the seller should be able to file and complete
an NPB if the buyer reneges on those terms by getting PayPal to refund his payment.
Thor
|
Makes sense. Successful Paypal claims, to me, are clearly examples of buyers
not having paid for the order. So that all makes sense.
|
Did we really just agree on something? Oh hallelujah! 
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:49 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
|
It is not specifically expressed in your suggestion. But that will be its effect.
|
There is no reason to believe that such an effect would be widespread.
|
Of course there is. This has already happened in Europe.
| | Would *some* sellers require insurance? Probably -- but nobody would be forced
to buy from those sellers, so by definition no buyers would be forced to pay
for insurance costs.
|
If *most* sellers required insurance (as I now see in Europe)...
|
I would want to see the numbers on that. Since shipping prices in the US have
gone up, my purchases from Europe have increased significantly. And I have not
bought from anyone with forced insurance in years.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ash_274 | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:45 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
Your objection sounds more like a "yes" vote to me. I don't understand your
objection to the suggestion, based on what you wrote. Sellers choosing whether
or not to pass costs on to the Buyers is exactly what Marc described in his suggestion
(as distinct from Buyers choosing this). Can you elaborate?
-- Cameron
|
Insurance is an OPTION offered by many sellers. Not just here on BrickLink,
but by a great many other online and mail order businesses in the real world.
I understand some businesses prefer to include insurance and build it into the
prices of their goods and/or charge for S&H. I have no problem with that, although
I can often find better deals from other sellers who do not add these costs.
Thus, many businesses offer insurance as an option and let the buyer decide,
and by doing so they help keep costs lower for the buyer. Oftentimes significantly
lower than sellers who require or include insurance in their prices. Marc's
suggestion to effectively become the PayPal Police would remove the ability of
sellers to offer insurance as an option for the buyer to choose, and would increase
costs for many buyers.
|
That is not an accurate description of my suggestion. Nowhere do I mention anything
about "Paypal police" or anything about Paypal at all.
And NOT selling insurance would not increase buyer costs at all. Any more that
NOT selling envelopes does.
| | As a buyer, I prefer having this choice and will usually
avoid sellers who force me to buy insurance or build "self-insurance" into the
prices of their goods.
It comes down to simple economics for me. Of the 1372 orders I placed on BrickLink
only two uninsured orders were lost, having a combined cost to me of just over
$100. Had I been forced to insure all those other 1370 orders, it would have
cost me at least $5000 more in extra shipping charges and insurance fees. The
math is simple: $100 versus $5000.
Thor
|
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
You have brought this up multiple times, but you are the only one doing so. The
suggestion does not require it or even imply it.
--
Marc.
|
So, if the BUYER wants insurance, how does the seller know that?
Don't say "in the order notes" or "in a separate e-mail" as those can be
missed in a transaction.
-Ash
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:49 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ash_274 writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | BrickLink stores should not be selling insurance, they should be selling Lego.
|
Voted no.
BrickLink stores do not "sell insurance" any more than they sell shipping or
packaging materials by passing along postage and related costs to buyers.
Each day, millions of businesses invoice their customers for shipping, handling
and insurance in addition to the price of goods ordered. I have never heard
any of those retailers described as "selling insurance" or selling the boxes
their orders come in. These are simply expenses that are legitimately passed
along to buyers.
Thor
|
Your objection sounds more like a "yes" vote to me. I don't understand your
objection to the suggestion, based on what you wrote. Sellers choosing whether
or not to pass costs on to the Buyers is exactly what Marc described in his suggestion
(as distinct from Buyers choosing this). Can you elaborate?
-- Cameron
|
Insurance is an OPTION offered by many sellers. Not just here on BrickLink,
but by a great many other online and mail order businesses in the real world.
I understand some businesses prefer to include insurance and build it into the
prices of their goods and/or charge for S&H. I have no problem with that, although
I can often find better deals from other sellers who do not add these costs.
Thus, many businesses offer insurance as an option and let the buyer decide,
and by doing so they help keep costs lower for the buyer. Oftentimes significantly
lower than sellers who require or include insurance in their prices. Marc's
suggestion to effectively become the PayPal Police would remove the ability of
sellers to offer insurance as an option for the buyer to choose, and would increase
costs for many buyers.
|
That is not an accurate description of my suggestion. Nowhere do I mention anything
about "Paypal police" or anything about Paypal at all.
And NOT selling insurance would not increase buyer costs at all. Any more that
NOT selling envelopes does.
| | As a buyer, I prefer having this choice and will usually
avoid sellers who force me to buy insurance or build "self-insurance" into the
prices of their goods.
It comes down to simple economics for me. Of the 1372 orders I placed on BrickLink
only two uninsured orders were lost, having a combined cost to me of just over
$100. Had I been forced to insure all those other 1370 orders, it would have
cost me at least $5000 more in extra shipping charges and insurance fees. The
math is simple: $100 versus $5000.
Thor
|
Again... my suggestion does is not about forcing anyone to pay insurance fees.
You have brought this up multiple times, but you are the only one doing so. The
suggestion does not require it or even imply it.
--
Marc.
|
So, if the BUYER wants insurance, how does the seller know that?
Don't say "in the order notes" or "in a separate e-mail" as those can be
missed in a transaction.
-Ash
|
Through different shipping options.
A seller could offer one shipping method where the seller is responsible for
non-arrival and one where the buyer is responsible.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ash_274 | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:56 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Through different shipping options.
A seller could offer one shipping method where the seller is responsible for
non-arrival and one where the buyer is responsible.
--
Marc.
|
Valid, but cumbersome and potentially overwhelming:
Shipping Methods Available to Buyers In USA:
*Please keep the order open for now
*In-Person Pickup
*Arrange to meet at Legoland California
*Let seller pick the best method WITH TRACKING
*Standard 1st Class/Priority US Mail (w/Tracking)
*FedEx Ground (whichever is least expensive)
*Priority Mail (regardless of weight)
*For smaller orders (under 13 ounces) that you want in a hurry.
*Ground Courier service
*UPS or FedEx Air
*Let seller pick the best method WITH TRACKING and full insurance
*Standard 1st Class/Priority US Mail (w/Tracking) and full insurance
*FedEx Ground (whichever is least expensive) and full insurance
*Priority Mail (regardless of weight) and full insurance
*For smaller orders (under 13 ounces) that you want in a hurry and full insurance
*Ground Courier service and full insurance
*UPS or FedEx Air and full insurance
Shipping Methods Available to Buyers Outside of USA:
*Please keep the order open for now
*In-Person Pickup
*Arrange to meet at Legoland California (limited availability)
*Let seller pick the best method
*USPS First Class Airmail (7-10 days)
*USPS REGISTERED First Class Airmail
*USPS Priority International (4-7 days)
*USPS Express (2-4 days, Includes tracking)
*FedEx International (Includes tracking)
*UPS International (Includes tracking)
*DHL International (Includes tracking)
*Let seller pick the best method with full insurance
*USPS First Class Airmail (7-10 days) with full insurance
*USPS REGISTERED First Class Airmail with full insurance
*USPS Priority International (4-7 days) with full insurance
*USPS Express (2-4 days, Includes tracking) with full insurance
*FedEx International (Includes tracking) with full insurance
*UPS International (Includes tracking) with full insurance
*DHL International (Includes tracking) with full insurance
Whew. That suggestion nearly doubled my shipping options.
Isn't that existing checkbox a lot simpler? It even flags the order to show
what the buyer wanted at the time of purchase, whereas shipping methods can be
changed by the seller unilaterally.
-Ash
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:06 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ash_274 writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Through different shipping options.
A seller could offer one shipping method where the seller is responsible for
non-arrival and one where the buyer is responsible.
--
Marc.
|
Valid, but cumbersome and potentially overwhelming:
Shipping Methods Available to Buyers In USA:
*Please keep the order open for now
*In-Person Pickup
*Arrange to meet at Legoland California
*Let seller pick the best method WITH TRACKING
*Standard 1st Class/Priority US Mail (w/Tracking)
*FedEx Ground (whichever is least expensive)
*Priority Mail (regardless of weight)
*For smaller orders (under 13 ounces) that you want in a hurry.
*Ground Courier service
*UPS or FedEx Air
*Let seller pick the best method WITH TRACKING and full insurance
*Standard 1st Class/Priority US Mail (w/Tracking) and full insurance
*FedEx Ground (whichever is least expensive) and full insurance
*Priority Mail (regardless of weight) and full insurance
*For smaller orders (under 13 ounces) that you want in a hurry and full insurance
*Ground Courier service and full insurance
*UPS or FedEx Air and full insurance
Shipping Methods Available to Buyers Outside of USA:
*Please keep the order open for now
*In-Person Pickup
*Arrange to meet at Legoland California (limited availability)
*Let seller pick the best method
*USPS First Class Airmail (7-10 days)
*USPS REGISTERED First Class Airmail
*USPS Priority International (4-7 days)
*USPS Express (2-4 days, Includes tracking)
*FedEx International (Includes tracking)
*UPS International (Includes tracking)
*DHL International (Includes tracking)
*Let seller pick the best method with full insurance
*USPS First Class Airmail (7-10 days) with full insurance
*USPS REGISTERED First Class Airmail with full insurance
*USPS Priority International (4-7 days) with full insurance
*USPS Express (2-4 days, Includes tracking) with full insurance
*FedEx International (Includes tracking) with full insurance
*UPS International (Includes tracking) with full insurance
*DHL International (Includes tracking) with full insurance
Whew. That suggestion nearly doubled my shipping options.
Isn't that existing checkbox a lot simpler? It even flags the order to show
what the buyer wanted at the time of purchase, whereas shipping methods can be
changed by the seller unilaterally.
-Ash
|
I would simply say that you have too many options.
Some sellers would want their terms to be that the seller is responsible for
packages that do not arrive. For these, no additional shipping options are needed.
Some sellers would want their terms to be that the buyer is always responsible
for packages that do not arrive. For these, no additional shipping options are
needed.
Only sellers who want the buyer to shops who is reponsible for lost packages
are affected. And many of them already have multiple shipping methods set up
which explicitly state whether the method is insured against loss or not. So
the number of sellers who would need to add shipping methods is even smaller.
But the benefit is clarity. If we get rid of the idea that sellers are offering
insurance for sale, no buyer needs to look at that insurance box and debate what
it means to check it or not. They don't need to worry about whether the seller
will "self-insure", they don't need to worry about whether they are allowed
to file a Paypal claim and whether checking that box has an effect on that.
The terms will state who is responsible for non-arrival.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:11 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Only sellers who want the buyer to *shops who is reponsible for lost packages
are affected.
|
*choose
Only sellers who want the buyer to choose who is reponsible for lost packages
are affected.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cameron.thorne | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:47 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| A resounding YES vote from me. As a relatively new Seller, that insurance bit
gave me hours of heartburn until I just ended up changing my store terms to FOB
destination and implementing my shipping/handling/insurance rates just like you
described in your suggestion. Now I sleep at night, and my Buyers are happy.
Which brings up a side thought: should FOB terms be standardized across Stores,
and does that relate directly to your Suggestion (implement simultaneously, etc)?
-- Cameron
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 19:58 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | A resounding YES vote from me. As a relatively new Seller, that insurance bit
gave me hours of heartburn until I just ended up changing my store terms to FOB
destination and implementing my shipping/handling/insurance rates just like you
described in your suggestion. Now I sleep at night, and my Buyers are happy.
Which brings up a side thought: should FOB terms be standardized across Stores,
and does that relate directly to your Suggestion (implement simultaneously, etc)?
-- Cameron
|
I think that it makes sense to still allow sellers some flexibility in their
shipping Terms, so I would not necessarily be advocating that everyone have FOB
Destination. Sellers could offer multiple shipping types, some of which could
be for FOB Destination and some for FOB Shipping Point. (Forgive me if I am misusing
these terms slightly, as this isn't the verbiage I commonly employ).
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cameron.thorne | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:28 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
I think that it makes sense to still allow sellers some flexibility in their
shipping Terms, so I would not necessarily be advocating that everyone have FOB
Destination. Sellers could offer multiple shipping types, some of which could
be for FOB Destination and some for FOB Shipping Point. (Forgive me if I am misusing
these terms slightly, as this isn't the verbiage I commonly employ).
|
You got the terms right. I think a checkbox on setting up shipping terms to indicate
the FOB terms from a standard list of options (there aren't very many) would
complement the other suggestion where alternate shipping options would drive
the inclusion of insurance (and costs) -- or not.
-- Cameron
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | MidwayPete | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2016 01:07 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cameron.thorne writes:
| | A resounding YES vote from me. As a relatively new Seller, that insurance bit
gave me hours of heartburn until I just ended up changing my store terms to FOB
destination and implementing my shipping/handling/insurance rates just like you
described in your suggestion. Now I sleep at night, and my Buyers are happy.
Which brings up a side thought: should FOB terms be standardized across Stores,
and does that relate directly to your Suggestion (implement simultaneously, etc)?
-- Cameron
|
And what if I don't want my order shipped to a Forward Operating Base?
Or maybe I'm just Fresh Off the Boat.
Peter
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ash_274 | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 20:41 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| While I disagree with your suggestion, I agree that the subject warrants some
more discussion.
Bricklink sellers don't "sell insurance" any more than they "sell postage"
or packing material or taxes or payment processing/acceptance fees. (Though it
makes it a little gray when sellers mark-up their shipping prices). Sellers
pass through those costs to buyers or else eat them themselves.
There are also more than two parties involved in the vast majority of
Bricklink transactions:
Buyer
Seller
Bricklink (though their involvement isn't part of this element of transactions)
International customs (when applicable, though, they are almost never involved
with this issue)
Payment processor
Carrier (postal system or systems, private carriers and their contractors)
Who actually sells the insurance? The carrier (though it may be through
a contracted company or subsidiary)
Who is responsible for making sure that the product gets to the customer?
According to Paypal in the US, the Seller is, no matter what other agreements
the buyer and seller have made. Rules and ToS for Paypal and other payment processors
vary between countries and even within countries.
As a buyer I like that option (when it's available), when I
may be skeptical of the seller (will they disappear with my money if the package
never arrives? Do they pack MIB boxed sets by wrapping paper around it so it
arrives completely squashed?) or the postal systems involved (Looking at you,
Italy. Your postal system could manage to destroy a stress ball. Or UPS as I've
had footprinted, tire tracked, and even forklift-skewered packages).
There are times when I'll insure a order for replacement cost, and
not just the cost I paid because because one seller has a rare item for $80,
the cheapest replacement for it may be $120 and if it arrives damaged or missing
then "someone" is going to put what I want in my hands for no more than I originally
paid; getting my money back doesn't resolve my need before I ordered the
item.
As a seller I let buyers have that option and I reserve the option to
add insurance at my own discretion (though I have rarely done this). As a small
store I can seldom absorb the loss of an uninsured order; and in my case, that
loss equates to orders I then can't afford to place. I don't have a
"business expense" or homeowners policy to put a claim toward.
As Thor stated (and all seasoned sellers know) bad stuff RARELY happens, but
as a 10+ year veteran of retail shipping management and another 5+ years of Bricklink
selling I certainly know that bad stuff CAN happen and eventually WILL.
-Ash
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | jenwick | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 21:25 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ash_274 writes:
| | While I disagree with your suggestion, I agree that the subject warrants some
more discussion.
Bricklink sellers don't "sell insurance" any more than they "sell postage"
or packing material or taxes or payment processing/acceptance fees. (Though it
makes it a little gray when sellers mark-up their shipping prices). Sellers
pass through those costs to buyers or else eat them themselves.
There are also more than two parties involved in the vast majority of
Bricklink transactions:
Buyer
Seller
Bricklink (though their involvement isn't part of this element of transactions)
International customs (when applicable, though, they are almost never involved
with this issue)
Payment processor
Carrier (postal system or systems, private carriers and their contractors)
Who actually sells the insurance? The carrier (though it may be through
a contracted company or subsidiary)
Who is responsible for making sure that the product gets to the customer?
According to Paypal in the US, the Seller is, no matter what other agreements
the buyer and seller have made. Rules and ToS for Paypal and other payment processors
vary between countries and even within countries.
As a buyer I like that option (when it's available), when I
may be skeptical of the seller (will they disappear with my money if the package
never arrives? Do they pack MIB boxed sets by wrapping paper around it so it
arrives completely squashed?) or the postal systems involved (Looking at you,
Italy. Your postal system could manage to destroy a stress ball. Or UPS as I've
had footprinted, tire tracked, and even forklift-skewered packages).
There are times when I'll insure a order for replacement cost, and
not just the cost I paid because because one seller has a rare item for $80,
the cheapest replacement for it may be $120 and if it arrives damaged or missing
then "someone" is going to put what I want in my hands for no more than I originally
paid; getting my money back doesn't resolve my need before I ordered the
item.
As a seller I let buyers have that option and I reserve the option to
add insurance at my own discretion (though I have rarely done this). As a small
store I can seldom absorb the loss of an uninsured order; and in my case, that
loss equates to orders I then can't afford to place. I don't have a
"business expense" or homeowners policy to put a claim toward.
As Thor stated (and all seasoned sellers know) bad stuff RARELY happens, but
as a 10+ year veteran of retail shipping management and another 5+ years of Bricklink
selling I certainly know that bad stuff CAN happen and eventually WILL.
-Ash
|
I agree with Ash.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cameron.thorne | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2016 10:36 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Delete "Insurance" option | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| When I was thinking through this problem, I made myself a chart of what 3rd party
shipping insurance actually covers, and what it doesn't, and it is less than
I initially thought.
Please feel free to correct any errors in my thinking, but this is what I put
together:
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
USA, North Carolina
