status-resolved Who pays the fees?

[wwwweb]

Confusing question I see forum rules say only escrow fees are payable by buyer.

Many sellers are asking for buyers to pay PayPal fees, mods need to flag such listings, as really people are unaware of such a vague rule here.

Most don't even state it, only after you pay, do they shake you down for a couple more bucks, I would just like a clear answer how the mass pay, PayPal fee structure is for buyers?

---

Updated rule: https://www.namepros.com/threads/sellers-are-responsible-for-paying-all-transaction-fees.909883/

 

[NPer]

Please Report anyone failing to pay by a payment method specified in your sales listing. That's part of the agreement they're agreeing to when they place a bid.

Thanks Eric.
I will definitely do this.

Was meaning to write this on NP few weeks back for members to take note of their actions and agreement.

 

[SlimPickins]

regarding masspayment as a reasonable "requirement"... i think that should REALLY be looked at. as far as i know, paypal has made it VERY difficult for the "common bloke" to pay with masspayment. it USED to be that about anyone with a verified (or maybe only business/premier) account could make masspayments. but that is NOT the case anymore. they have MUCH more strict rules, and an account manager has to "approve" it, and I doubt that MOST people can pay with it these days.... I bet that a lot of sellers ASKING for masspayment to avoid fees coming out are not themselves ABLE to make masspayments and do not even realize it. maybe not, but I think that expecting a masspayment from a domain reseller on the forums is NOT probable compared to a masspayment from an auction house (that does a LOT of volume per month for paypal).....

 

[NPer]

Regarding masspayment being labelled as a "requirement"- it's not a "requirement', it's a payment method of the seller. It doesn't "REALLY" need to be looked at at all. This type of thinking is flawed.

That's to say buyers method of payment needs to be considered before that of the seller, beyond the Paypal brand.
No one can force a seller to list Skrill or Bitcoin to accomodate for buyers who don't use Paypal . And if that means the seller is limiting himself to a fewer buyers, so be it. That is the sellers choice

If buyers feel that they are disadvantaged because they need to have the right to bid in any auction they so choose despite:
1. They don't have Masspay where Masspay is the payment method
2. Dont have Bitcoin where Bitcoin is the payment method
3. Dont have Skrill where Skrill is the payment method, bla bla bla

Then cry me a river.

So now we have people suggesting that Namepros should set specific rules for Paypal brand products simply because they are a Paypal customer? That is not the business of this forum. Now member feels he is entitled to bid as he so chooses because he uses the same BRAND of payment, but not the right product or payment method-that's ridiculous.

 

[21x20]

For the record, I just saw this on an auction... (Not mine, but probably something like I would go with for my own...)

"Must have at least 3 NamePros positive rating to participate in this auction."

I think this shows it's going to actually be harder for new members to get involved. It's sorta like trying to find a job that requires experience, without having any experience. If any noticeable amount of auctions opt to do this, then it will be very difficult for new members to accumulate ANY ratings, negative or positive... which is sorta what I was getting at when I said the new policy is going to isolate new members and leave them with 0 options to get involved... rather than the good ole fashion way we had to give them an option to 'buy' trust via Escrow.

 

[21x20]

@Eric Lyon ... I feel like I should make one more suggestion on this and then I'll let it go.

Rather than force us to exclude new members with something like this:
"Must have at least 3 NamePros positive rating to participate in this auction."

Perhaps you'd consider the escrow fee policy to change where we could do THIS:
"Must have at least 3 NamePros positive ratings for PayPal -- otherwise, Escrow and buyer pays the fee."

I personally think the option of blocking out new members is really bad for the community overall going forward. It doesn't give anyone the option to get involved -- it just tells them they can't be involved -- how many auctions like that would a person have to see before they throw their hands up and move on?

The alternative approach I suggest offers new members a way to participate and get involved and gives them a clear path to NOT having to pay the escrow fees. I'd be all in favor of making it something that specific -- Let us lean on the trade review system that's already in place. Add focus to it and value with something like that. It makes having an established account something to be held onto and 'cherished'.

Anyway... Something to consider for a moment or two if nothing else.

Best wishes...

 

[SlimPickins]

My point is that people have been posting paypal "gift" or "masspayment" only threads.... and that stipulation is 1) against pp tos to request a "gift" to avoid fees and 2) masspayment is no longer a option for MOST people that use paypal, INCLUDING people with verified business accounts that until a few years ago COULD and DID make masspayments but now no longer are able to. So if they are "only" accepting paypal as masspayment then it is effectively "offering" an option that really isn't an option for most people anymore. It is NOT the same as requiring "verified paypal account" etc.

NPer are YOU able to make masspayments still? I myself cannot anymore, and know of at least 1 other person that DOES do a lot of volume each month as buyer and seller, and USED to pay me with masspayment but even HE, despite also having a verified business account and doing consistent +$XX,XXX volume per month using paypal, had that option removed from his paypal account. So if YOU are still able to send masspayments I am quite impressed and envious.

I DO agree with you that it is, and should remain, the SELLERS right to determine their own acceptable methods of payment, and that buyers should READ and be able to comply with those terms before bidding or posting sold. If a seller wants to limit the pool of potential buyers by super restrictive, or unrealistic, payment methods that is indeed their choice... but I have stick by my view that a lot of people requesting or requiring "masspayment only if using paypal" probably 1) cannot/do not send masspayments themselves 2) may not even be aware that it is no longer a viable option for most buyers even with verified and/or business accounts and 3) probably have not actually received any masspayments here on the forums since years.... I would even venture to guess (yes, only a guess) that people often post "masspayment"only" as a way to get out of a deal if someone that posts sold/wins looks a bit unestablished or risky and wants to pay normal pp.... but if a well established members makes contact and says "I can't pay with masspayment but I am a long time member here with great TR and I can pay with verified paypal" etc the seller can and most likely does just choose to accept the normal pp payment and complete the deal. Maybe not, but given how strict the masspayment option has become I really doubt there are many members here that can make masspayments anymore. In my case I am not surprised.... having it removed despite my verified business account was a bummer, but I am no pro and definitely do not have high $$ volume each and every month which would perhaps convince pp to let me keep it as an option. But, given that I know members that are full time/professional domainers doing high volume each month for PP, it would seem likely that if even they had this option removed then the vast majority of other members who are doing even less volume each month no longer can make masspayments either.

I stick by my original point that stipulating "masspayment only" IS in effect a requirement, since it clearly limits paypal as an option to ONLY those select few that can still do it. It would be the same as me saying "payment accepted via bitcoin OR CASH personally delivered to my door. And I live on the north pole." Which effectively limits the realistic payment method for most everyone to.... bitcoin.

Regarding masspayment being labelled as a "requirement"- it's not a "requirement', it's a payment method of the seller. It doesn't "REALLY" need to be looked at at all. This type of thinking is flawed.

That's to say buyers method of payment needs to be considered before that of the seller, beyond the Paypal brand.
No one can force a seller to list Skrill or Bitcoin to accomodate for buyers who don't use Paypal . And if that means the seller is limiting himself to a fewer buyers, so be it. That is the sellers choice

If buyers feel that they are disadvantaged because they need to have the right to bid in any auction they so choose despite:
1. They don't have Masspay where Masspay is the payment method
2. Dont have Bitcoin where Bitcoin is the payment method
3. Dont have Skrill where Skrill is the payment method, bla bla bla

Then cry me a river.

So now we have people suggesting that Namepros should set specific rules for Paypal brand products simply because they are a Paypal customer? That is not the business of this forum. Now member feels he is entitled to bid as he so chooses because he uses the same BRAND of payment, but not the right product or payment method-that's ridiculous.

 

[james haw]

As per this thread I posted https://www.namepros.com/threads/sh...s-the-fees-when-the-sale-price-is-low.892821/ (copy/paste here)


The rule is that the seller pays sale fees, no options or deviations, the seller pays.

I think this is fine when the sale price is high enough that the fees are more than covered. But what about bargain domains - low sale prices? Those quick flips and bargains are great to the buyers, but not to the sellers.


Buyers and sellers are equal in many ways:
Without buyers there would be no sellers, but without sellers there would be no buyers either.

Neither sellers nor buyers want to pay fees:

• Sellers want to get as much as possible

• Buyers want to pay as little as possible

There are pros and cons for when either party pays:

1. Should seller pay fees, and we risk losing people wanting to sell domains cheap or start auctions low?
2. Should buyer pay fees, and we risk losing people bidding?

However, the difference from paying fees on low price sales does not mean the same thing for a buyer as it does a seller.
When the sale price is low the seller gets barely any profit, and paying fees on top means their profit is tiny. Whereas the buyer paying the fees means their domain is a little bit more, and will still be a bargain!


A mutual benefit exists:

Many users will come and list cheap domains, either new users or those just happy getting a quick flip and small profit (it's a genuine business model). Such sellers selling cheap domain names provides a means for shrewd buyers to obtain cheap domains to spend a bit more time/effort and make a larger profit over time.

There may well be more potential bargains being listed if the seller didn't have to pay the fees on low price domains!



Based on all of the above, I suggest:

Have a threshold which determines the point of whether the buyer or seller pays any fees.

For example:

• Sale price below $25 for PayPal the buyer pays the fees
• Sale price at or above $25 for PayPal the seller pays the fees

(I've not suggested a threshold for Escrow as this is about cheap domains and shouldn't need escrow)

Yes this adds a slight complication, but is it really that hard?


Pros and Cons of discouraging buyers VS sellers:

1. If some buyers are not bidding as they don't want to pay fees (under $25 etc) the domain is still listed for many other buyers to bid on, and the site obtains the content and remains a good place to buy and sell.
2. If the seller doesn't want to list because they do not want to pay the fees or are new and unsure of the fees, then no-one at all gets to bid on the domain, and so the site has less posts, and other buyers lose out on potential bargains.

This is just an idea for discussion. I'm sure there'll be caveats I've not thought about

 

[21x20]

As per this thread I posted https://www.namepros.com/threads/sh...s-the-fees-when-the-sale-price-is-low.892821/ (copy/paste here)


The rule is that the seller pays sale fees, no options or deviations, the seller pays.

I think this is fine when the sale price is high enough that the fees are more than covered. But what about bargain domains - low sale prices? Those quick flips and bargains are great to the buyers, but not to the sellers.


Buyers and sellers are equal in many ways:
Without buyers there would be no sellers, but without sellers there would be no buyers either.

Neither sellers nor buyers want to pay fees:

• Sellers want to get as much as possible

• Buyers want to pay as little as possible

There are pros and cons for when either party pays:

1. Should seller pay fees, and we risk losing people wanting to sell domains cheap or start auctions low?
2. Should buyer pay fees, and we risk losing people bidding?

However, the difference from paying fees on low price sales does not mean the same thing for a buyer as it does a seller.
When the sale price is low the seller gets barely any profit, and paying fees on top means their profit is tiny. Whereas the buyer paying the fees means their domain is a little bit more, and will still be a bargain!


A mutual benefit exists:

Many users will come and list cheap domains, either new users or those just happy getting a quick flip and small profit (it's a genuine business model). Such sellers selling cheap domain names provides a means for shrewd buyers to obtain cheap domains to spend a bit more time/effort and make a larger profit over time.

There may well be more potential bargains being listed if the seller didn't have to pay the fees on low price domains!



Based on all of the above, I suggest:

Have a threshold which determines the point of whether the buyer or seller pays any fees.

For example:

• Sale price below $25 for PayPal the buyer pays the fees
• Sale price at or above $25 for PayPal the seller pays the fees

(I've not suggested a threshold for Escrow as this is about cheap domains and shouldn't need escrow)

Yes this adds a slight complication, but is it really that hard?


Pros and Cons of discouraging buyers VS sellers:

1. If some buyers are not bidding as they don't want to pay fees (under $25 etc) the domain is still listed for many other buyers to bid on, and the site obtains the content and remains a good place to buy and sell.
2. If the seller doesn't want to list because they do not want to pay the fees or are new and unsure of the fees, then no-one at all gets to bid on the domain, and so the site has less posts, and other buyers lose out on potential bargains.

This is just an idea for discussion. I'm sure there'll be caveats I've not thought about

James I love the thought you've put into all of this but please note that it is strictly against PayPal's own policy for a seller to charge any fees to a buyer using PayPal.

My posts in this thread prior focus more on the Escrow side for new or low reputation buyers. I think we should all agree to abide by PayPal policies when it comes to not trying to pass fees for them along to buyers as a separate charge.

Escrow, on the other hand, does allow the option.... It's the forum that is disallowing that now.

 

[james haw]

I'm in no way suggesting we circumvent any rules, not even hint at it, I'm just discussing.

it is strictly against PayPal's own policy for a seller to charge any fees to a buyer using PayPal.

It seems the policy is not as black and white as that:

Quote below from: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

4.5 No Surcharges. You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method.

I might be twisting that definition, but as it's written it reads as "only allowing PayPal as an option on the condition that the buyer pays the fees". The option of PayPal as a payment method is provided as a means of payment without condition, and the condition for the buyer to pay the fees is based separately on the requirements of auctions here at NamePros.

Again, that might not cut it, however the PayPal rule (as linked above) goes on to state:

You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions.

So when the final price is less than $25, NamePros sellers can charge a "handling charge" of $1 based on a reason which satisfies the above policy, as long as it's not a "fee for allowing PayPal payments" - such as:
"$1 for seller's fee for time spent making the listing"

In that scenario, the seller still pays the fees when they accept the money, and the option to use PayPal is there regardless, the site just requests the buyer to pay a "handling charge" of $1 because the final sale price is less than $25 and so the sellers time (or whatever) should be compensated.

Is that breaking PayPal policy? Or (more likely) will it be construed as trying to get around buyer does not pay fees? I don't think so, I think it's a fair reason that when selling something at a low price and thus barely any profit, there can be a handling charge so that a "reasonable" profit can obtained.

 

[ninjadomain]

Question: Escrow.com charges international buyers an extra fee, how to make up for that fee on small sales? Thanks!

 

[james haw]

You don't really need to use escrow on small sales. In fact you can't when there's a $25 charge as you end up losing money.

 

[ninjadomain]

James,

Thanks for your feedback.

I use escrow.com for any transaction in which I am weary about the buyer doing a charge back via PayPal as they clearly told me there's nothing they can do if the buyer does a charge back. I've been cheated both ways as a seller and a buyer so I don't like to take unnecessary chances.

Perhaps, there could be a criteria such as seller pays fees up to a maximum amount or that the buyer will pay the extra $25 international fee when using escrow.com?

"Transactions with a Buyer outside the United States will be charged an additional $25.00 to cover any intermediary bank fees. This will be added to the escrow fee, regardless of who is paying the fee, when the Buyer selects to pay by wire transfer."


Most of the time, I will not be affected as buyers negotiate with my asking price, but sometimes I sell domains at cost (or even below) and don't want to take a loss (or greater loss if less than cost) because I overlooked something.

These points are to make NamePros an even better place in which buyers and sellers don't run into an extra fee once a deal is reached.

Best,

NinjaDomain

You don't really need to use escrow on small sales. In fact you can't when there's a $25 charge as you end up losing money.

 

[Eric Lyon]

I've double checked the rules and confirmed that we allow sellers to set different prices depending on set criteria.

Learn more: https://www.namepros.com/posts/5239715/