Sellers adding for PayPal use is plainly BS

Although "Danner" makes the most business sense, I would not like to buy from a seller/especially a dealer who wants to charge me for paypal fees. For most buyers it boils down to how desperate they are or how good the deal is. However, I still believe that the buyer has the advantage; there are a lot of sellers who do not charge paypal fees. If all buyers felt like me than sellers could never charge for paypal fees.

When you go to the dealer you ARE paying for the costs of his ads, credit card fees, shipping material, his time, and even his gas to and from where ever he has to go. The only difference is that it is worked into the price already. At least this way you have a choice.

Don't you love it when someone pay-pals you a few grand but they don't include a verified address :^( I think everyone knows what could happen if you ship to a non-verified address? It's a crazy little thing called chargeback. You know, that's when they rip the money out of your account one-day with no rhyme or reason. And guess what? You have know recourse. Try not to make that mistake more than once. Always ship to a verified address.

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.