Should Second-Hand Buyers pay back YOUR shipping?

That's a good point, too... sometimes dolls sold second-hand will have a custom faceup, sanded seams, or other non-stock modifications (or come with eyes or a wig that the buyer might particularly like, or an outfit set or what have you) so that doll isn't directly comparable to the brand new doll from the site. All of those things can be factors in an increased price, and then it becomes hard to tell how much of the extra charge is for the sanding, how much is for the faceup, and how much is a general markup/previous shipping fee/etc.

Plus, as other people have mentioned, some brands can have a 2-3 month wait at times, and not having to wait that long may be worth $40 or $50 to some people. Some prefer to buy from within their own country, whether it's to avoid customs fees or just to have ease of payment and communication with the seller. All sorts of stuff can factor in, really.

 

well... i think that they have a right to for sure but i don't think people should. i know that a lot of people are trying to make up all their losses but they already paid the shipping and it has nothing to do with the original cost of the item(for example, they pay 5 dollars for something. that should be the cost for it to the second hand buyer + the SHB's own shipping) i mean, you paid for shipping yeah, but now the new buyer has to pay that plus their own shipping plus the cost of the item. just doesn't seem fair to me-the seller should pick up the cost for their own shipping, not charge it to their new buyer.

 

it all depends on your own values and priorities. i can understand why they'd want to make their money back-- i sold a delf boy body a while back, brand new, and i priced it pretty cheap. of course, it was my own fault for not having looked up common pricing on doa first, but still... when i found out i could have gotten alot more for it, i was irritated about the lost money for a long time. usually in the marketplace, people don't state "x amount for y reason, plus x amount for z reason," etc. they just declare a price, be it the same as or higher/lower than the company price.

i guess what i'm trying to say is... if the buyer is willing to pay an inflated price for something, then there is nothing wrong with the seller charing that high price, no matter what the reasons.

 

I think it's ok to tack on shipping when reselling especially if the item is new. As mentioned before the best way you perceive it is as an extra import fee or value added.

If the items is still being sold at the original site then the secondary buyer can just buy direct if not it's up to them to pay or not. It's called shopping around

 

Sellers have the right to sell their items at whatever the price they choose, it's up to the buyers to decide if they want to pay that price.

Also, sometimes sellers raise the price of what they're selling because it's sold out, rare, hard to get, or a highly coveted item.

 

I think its up to the seller too.

Personally If your going to charge the buyer your shipping as part of the price you should provide free shipping from you to the buyer >.> .

 

Its definately up to the seller to ask whatever price they want...however theyve come to that price theyre asking is up to them. As a buyer you dont have to pay what theyre asking you just move on and find what your loking for at a good price for you.

 

I think it's quite rediculous if you charge the doll+original shipping costs+new shipping costs. I mean... that way it will be even cheaper to simply buy the doll from the compagny. And than its new >_>

 

I think it depends on the age of the doll... If I just bought a doll brand new (especially if it's a newly released item), and find it's not going to work for me, I do this: I list the doll and charge *most* of the shipping.

Any potential buyer has two choices: Buy it from me for slightly less, or buy it from the company for the full price.

If the doll takes a long time to arrive normally, then I think the convenience of having the doll arrive in 2-4 days versus 2-4 weeks/months has some value. I might then charge the full amount of the shipping.

If the doll is sold out entirely then all bets are off. You might end up having to pay the shipping plus extra value if the doll is sought after.

Now if it's a doll, body, or part that's been out for ages, eg a Soulkid Tiffee, I wouldn't expect to make up near what I paid for shipping from Korea ...Why? Because she's easy to find second-hand, and shipping is not so high/such an issue with second-hand dolls that have already been in the US for quite some time.

I don't usually sell things for what I paid, I usually charge a bit less except in *rare* cases where I was especially lucky and/or can safely "get away" with getting my money back or even profiting a little.

Raven

 

I'm trying to sell a doll which is sold out on the site, in fact it's not even listed anymore. She's brand new, comes with clothes, and I'm adding in more clothes! Should I ask less because of that? In fact, I'm even throwing in a surprise if someone wants her, cause it's her size and she'll look good on it.

 

Er, perhaps I'm missing something here, but can't a seller set the price at whatever they want? I mean, if it cost them that much, wouldn't they want to get back what they paid? If the buyer doesn't want to pay it they could order it themselves, right?

So, what's wrong with wanting to make your money back, exactly?

For example, I just paid $70+ tax on the Crystal I got from Volks. The total came to over $900. Are you saying that if I decided that she wasn't right for me (I seriously doubt it, since she's adorable, but I'm speaking hypothetically) then I should be expected to eat the extra $90~ish that tax and shipping cost me? Why?

Of course, if someone doesn't want to pay the extra charges (which they would have had to pay themselves had they bought it directly), then they don't have to buy it. But I don't understand why I should be expected to sell at a loss?

Now, I do understand that if you're selling a doll that's readily available from the site that you may have to lower the price in order to find a buyer. But I don't understand the concept that there's something inherently wrong with NOT losing money if you choose to re-home a doll.

In what other circumstance would a price be dictated such that you lose money on something you sell, regardless of supply or demand? Oh, right, Zimbabwe.... Heh, sorry, not trying to be snide or anything but the free market tends to follow supply and demand and, when people are buying limiteds and re-selling them for hundreds if not thousands of dollars more than they paid, I find it a bit incomprehensible that the average person who decides (for whatever reason) to sell a doll should be expected to do it at a LOSS.

So, please clarify for me, those of you who don't think the seller should ask the price that covers their own cost, why would I sell at a loss? I mean, ultimately the buyer will decide if the price is right or wrong and either pay it or not pay it. But why would I start out from a position (as a seller) of losing money?

H

 

Sometimes the price you pay on Ebay is the advantage of not having to WAIT forever for that particular doll---I am currently selling a doll that I waited almost 8 weeks for, and gave a face up, and also made a custom wig--so do I want a little more than you could buy that doll for from the dealer? Dang right I do! I myself just paid 200 for a Nari that I could have gotten for 160 at Notdoll--BUT I will not have to wait 4-6 weeks to get her, I will have her in a couple days, so was the "extra" charge worth it to me? DEFINATELY!!
SO in the long run it is not up to anyone but the particular buyer on how much they are or are not willing to pay. Just because a seller sets their price doesn't mean you have to buy it!

 

I'm curious to know this as well, since some people seem to find it morally reprehensible, as opposed to just something they try to avoid paying if they can. (Hey, we all try to get a good deal whenever we can, I grok that, but a lot of folks in this thread seem to think they have a right to such a deal, and any seller not willing to take a financial hit for a stranger's benefit must be a scumbag.)

If someone had to shell out $900+ to get a doll, then that was the price they paid. Period. The fact that some of it was tax and some of it was shipping doesn't make much difference, in my mind -- it was all part of the cost of obtaining the doll, paid in one lump to the doll company.

Heck, I don't even remember the base cost of the dolls and clothes I've bought -- my only record is what I actually paid -- the amount that came out of my checking account when I paid the company. When I resell, I adjust my price based on demand, the item's condition, and so on, but the number I start with before that adjustment is the number that was recorded in my checkbook. And strangely, I've never had a problem selling my items, nor has anyone ever accused me of overcharging.

 

Hear hear! It kind of bothers me that some people see it as morally wrong to want to try and recoup shipping costs. IMO there's big difference between a scalper and a person who just doesn't want to have no item/doll and still be out money in the end. It makes it more difficult to find a buyer, but if they still manage to sell it then all I can say is, lucky them.

 

A seller can do what they want. It's their item when all's said and done. If they think they can recoup all their outlay on an item, then by all means let them try. The market decides whether the total price is reasonable or not.

That being said, I do find it a little tacky when sellers itemise their own costs. Like anyone cares?

If a doll or outfit is being sold, I would base my decision to purchase on the total price. Can I afford it? Is it a reasonable amount to spend on that item? If both questions are answered with a "yes", then the deal is done. How the price is calculated is immaterial.

 

I think the seller can choose any price they want for their goods, but charging 100% shipping on top of the old price is pretty low of them, however theres nothing stopping them.
When they say things in their item description like "The shipping is so high because I got hit with a customs fee on this..." that really irks me, because they should realise that the package they are selling is liable to get charged with a customs fee as well when they send it to the buyer?
Meaning the buyer pays for their own custom costs AND the seller's~
If you're trying to make up for lost customs money, at least don't point it out in your sales post XD

Fortunetly this doesn't seem to happen so much to unlimited dolls because then the seller wouldn't be able to sell their doll if it's just cheaper to get it from the company+shipping, so at least there is a limit to how much they can scalp out.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I mentioned this on page one, but few people seemed to agree, so I guess we're unusual.

It's kind of like the PayPal fees paranoia -- no one ever complains when the fees are "built in" to the price and not itemized, but point them out and all hell breaks loose, even though in the end, the buyer is still paying the same amount. (And before anyone gets any ideas, no, I don't do this. As I've stated in a million threads, I don't charge fees, and I don't build them into my prices, either, because that's not fair to people who don't use PayPal. PayPal says don't charge fees, so I don't. Period.)

 

My point exactly.
It's not really about if seller should or not.
It's rather if seller should point it out..

I agree.. why not makeing as much money as seller can.. it's up to seller to set the price.
But.. someone will loose money sooner or later. Couse imagine that someone sells doll ( for it's orginal price + shipping+ customs) than new owner decides to sell it also and we have - orginal price+2 shipping+2customs.. where does it end?

 

I guess I'm unusual as well, then.

A seller can charge whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but once they start giving a breakdown ("$x for shipping, $x for customs, $x for gas to the PO") I just have to roll my eyes. There really is no better word for it than tacky.

 

This is the part I don't understand, and please forgive me for being repetitive. How is it 'low' or immoral to try to get back what you yourself paid? Mind you, I am strongly anti-scalping but often (especially with limiteds) you have one shot to get a doll without paying exhorbitant 2nd hand prices, and more than once I've jumped at the chance and then gone... um, she looked better in the photo... I rationalize to myself that if I don't try for the limited myself when the opportunity is there then I am far more likely to be out a lot of money later if I decide it's a MUST-have (having paid $1,000s for dolls that originally went for a few hundred more than once, I'm a little sensitive about it).

I am genuinely trying to understand the other position here, of the immorality of charging your own cost to the potential buyer. Although I admit the position I come from is one of A. Other people are probably charging a LOT more for the limited whereas I am 'only' trying to get back what I paid and B. The buyer would have had to pay the shipping fees/tax themselves had they bought it directly. So in fact their price is only slightly over what they would have paid themselves and if I weren't to charge it, they would be getting a significant savings.

As several other posters have said, I rather dislike the 'itemized' cost. Just tell me what you want and if I think it is reasonable and is for something I want I will pay it. I'd rather not know that you tacked on 4% for paypal and it includes $45 shipping... just tell me the total and let me decide.

I am really interested in the whole 'morality' of selling thing... many of my friends (collectors and non) can't understand why I don't always try for top dollar and instead try to request something that covers my expenses and little more. I in my heart feel that contributing to the community is more important than making a few bucks, but I'm quite averse to LOSING money if I can help it. Then the problem comes up of something I decided I don't want which has grown to a premium on the secondhand market... on one hand I don't want to be a scalper, but if everyone is paying $2,000 for a Jun Tachibana, wouldn't I be foolish to sell for $500? These are the thoughts that come to me when confronted with these issues, and I am much more morally torn in a situation such as the above (where I have to decide how much less than the going rate is low enough that I feel morally OK about it and not so low that I feel like someone took advantage of me) than in the question of making back what I paid.

I am trying to understand how it is immoral to not want to lose money. To me it just seems rational. Sure it would be nice for the buyer to save a few extra bucks, but at what point does that become my concern (other than their willingness to pay it)?

And I'm not really saying one way is 'right' or 'wrong' and like many people have said, the market will decide. I am just struggling to understand how I am immoral for wanting to break even rather than take a loss.

Thx~
H