What's the point of eBay's best offer if the seller won't budge?

By the time you figure eBay fees and PayPal fees and the cost of acquiring the item itself, there's not much left for a profit. It's not surprising that he barely budged.

mikekelley wrote in post #7796332
$20 isn't really breaking the bank to me, or anybody really on this forum for that matter. That isn't the problem. The problem is the time-wasting aspect of it. If I could get it for cheaper, that would be cool, but my panties aren't bunched over the money. It's over the waste of time that it takes to have them fake a "best offer" thing when they aren't taking any offers lower than the buy it now.

But, as cdifoto just pointed out, it's so that they get more search hits, apparently.

How long did it take you to suggest two counter offers?

I think you're getting a little too emotional about this. The guy had his price, he didn't like yours, and that's that. Welcome to sales.

mikekelley wrote in post #7793031
I was trying to buy a LowePro bag today on ebay. A seller had one for 133 dollars, or best offer. I first offered 110, thinking maybe he's desperate for a sale. Okay, he declined, but he counter-offered 130. I counter-offered 120 back, and he still offers 130. I tried again at 125 and he turned me down yet again. At this point I bought from someone else for $140 just to spite him.

Are people really trying to move bags at profits this thin, for such an expensive bag? God I hate ebay sometimes.

I completely understand where you are coming from. I tried this with a bag a couple weeks ago on eBay. I made what I thought was a reasonable offer and the dude countered back with $1 less than his asking price. So I raised my offer and he hit me back with the exact same counter offer. Stupid. I just bought it from an online retailer for a couple bucks more. At least I know they ship in a reasonable time frame and have legit return services. Better than some dude selling crap out of his basement.

thischarmingman: Exactly!! I knew I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

Esquire: Got one offer back on the same day, waited overnight for the second one, which I had back at midday the next day, and I shot off another offer which came back the next morning. So it was probably a 48 hour ordeal.

As cheap as I have bought my last 3 Lowepro bags on EBay, I don't complain

mikekelley wrote in post #7795003
But just don't waste my time beating around the bush offering me $3 less than his asking price on a relatively expensive backpack.

He wasnt your time, he was trying to save you $7

thischarmingman wrote in post #7797877
Better than some dude selling crap out of his basement.

So if he had accepted your offer, you would have brought his basement crap

So, if I understand the tone of some of the responses, it's perfectly fine for the seller to be stubborn, but not the buyer? Why the double-standard?

I see nothing wrong with the OP's point of view. He made a legitimate offer and didn't want to play games. Then he took his business else where because sometimes it's not about just the money. That's wrong?

photoguy6405 wrote in post #7799808
So, if I understand the tone of some of the responses, it's perfectly fine for the seller to be stubborn, but not the buyer? Why the double-standard?

I see nothing wrong with the OP's point of view. He made a legitimate offer and didn't want to play games. Then he took his business else where because sometimes it's not about just the money. That's wrong?

Where's the double standard?

If the seller came in here and complained about buyers trying to lowball him, then the buyer came in and complained about stubborn sellers, yes, there is a double standard.

Calling this an ordeal is just ridiculous. It's not like the seller sat around and chatted the buyer up, wasting his time. I think plenty of people wait a day for a response to a PM in the seller's area, so what's the difference?

photoguy6405 wrote in post #7799808
So, if I understand the tone of some of the responses, it's perfectly fine for the seller to be stubborn, but not the buyer? Why the double-standard?

I see nothing wrong with the OP's point of view. He made a legitimate offer and didn't want to play games. Then he took his business else where because sometimes it's not about just the money. That's wrong?

Well, it's the OP whining about it. And he did say: "At this point I bought from someone else for $140 just to spite him" which is pretty stupid.

Best offer is stupid if they don't just take a reasonable offer. 120 for and ask of 133 is a "reasonable offer".

EBAY is stupid as the OP said, because they should be forced to take reasonable offers if they decide to use that stupid function.

Otherwise they are just wasting time.

There was a seller that instantaneously refused my 3 best offers, it was total BS because they would have never accepted anything short of the buy it now.

EBAY is crooked.

miccullen wrote in post #7799917
Well, it's the OP whining about it. And he did say: "At this point I bought from someone else for $140 just to spite him" which is pretty stupid.

It's stupid to you because you know nothing about sales.
If I was selling something and somebody was interested in buying it:
I WILL SELL IT TO THEM.
Whatever is lost in negotiations can be gained in return business and a growing clientele. That arbitrary figure can essential make you money.

Of course the vortex of the stupid EBAY consumers blows all of sales theory out of the water because people turn buying crap into a competition.

mikeassk wrote in post #7799933
It's stupid to you because you know nothing about sales.
If I was selling something and somebody was interested in buying it:
I WILL SELL IT TO THEM.
Whatever is lost in negotiations can be gained in return business and a growing clientele. That arbitrary figure can essential make you money.

Of course the vortex of the stupid EBAY consumers blows all of sales theory out of the water because people turn buying crap into a competition.

Ah, OK. I know nothing about sales, but you'll sell at a loss to make clients.

Stupid me! (And most everyone else iin the thread, it seems.)

I've got it now, though.

miccullen wrote in post #7799949
...but you'll sell at a loss to make clients.

Who said anything... anywhere... about selling at a loss? Who said anything about the seller being somehow obligated to take *any* offer? Who here *knows* what price the seller paid for the item?

mikeassk wrote in post #7799933
It's stupid to you because you know nothing about sales.
If I was selling something and somebody was interested in buying it:
I WILL SELL IT TO THEM.
Whatever is lost in negotiations can be gained in return business and a growing clientele. That arbitrary figure can essential make you money.

Of course the vortex of the stupid EBAY consumers blows all of sales theory out of the water because people turn buying crap into a competition.

What you are describing might be true for repeat clients, but I doubt this seller was a major retailer that wanted to established a relationship.

And to say that sellers should be forced to accept "reasonable" offers is just ludicrous. This guy came with $120, got rejected, then came back with $130. So which is reasonable? The $120, or the $130? If your idea is put in place, the $120 automatically wins, which benefits the buyer, but the seller could have capitalized on $130 given the chance. Your method would discourage sellers from offering the best reasonable offer function altogether, which only really hurts the buyers in the end.

mikeassk wrote in post #7799918
Best offer is stupid if they don't just take a reasonable offer. 120 for and ask of 133 is a "reasonable offer".

EBAY is stupid as the OP said, because they should be forced to take reasonable offers if they decide to use that stupid function.

Otherwise they are just wasting time.

There was a seller that instantaneously refused my 3 best offers, it was total BS because they would have never accepted anything short of the buy it now.

EBAY is crooked.

Wow--just wow!