Ping, AfterPay and Cash now only options from November

I placed a copy of my complaint to the Comcom up here yesterday but afraid it is still pending. I believe TMs actions are basucally a restraint of trade.

Tony, re your comment..

I am able to access every buyers email address from the emails Trademe send me when something sells, in my email program back to 2004, so I can email them if required. I'm sure I'm not the only one, so I can't see why you say you can not email buyers? or am I misinterpreting what you said?

Gary, Tony was joking. Yes, we could create a database on buyers, some probably have. 
Tom, go you! My first post was pending and the rest go straight through, hmm, what could this mean?
As I stated earlier, if its in the media its great advertising for them tidying up the site, the tricky question is why only in-trade, those evil in-trade people. If it's gone to comcom and it's all legal beagle, another win for TradeMe - transparency, enlightening. 

Yes I was joking Gary, in the same vein as some of Robert's points. 

Seriously though as an online trader one of our most valuable assets is the database of past customers' contact details. They are used to compile a Mailchimp direct mailing list for promotions to target those who have expressed interest by purchasing our products in the past. There's unsubscribe functionality so those that want to avoid promotional emails can do so to keep us compliant with spam laws. As Trade Me has degraded its online presence and its listings now seem invisible to Google and other search engines anything to boost the benefit of listing here must be fair game.

OMG! Tony! I did not know that. 
I often search for electronics and TradeMe goods are prominent. 
I just search for a couple of my own listings and NOTHING. 
Not only nothing, when I added TradeMe it only came up with 6 results and only TWO were TradeMe itself. 
What's going on there. This is actually way worse than I thought. No wonder our sales have crashed the past year or two. Not only did they remove our category heading from the home page, now they are not even showing up how any "normal" website would. WOW!

And to rub it in....another example of casual sellers getting what in-trade doesn't (TM obviously havent heard of "trade discounts") 

TM also doesn't know the difference between less and fewer. Despite the drop in sales, members, and revenue... ;-)

Its beyond me as to why TM is so against intrade sellers. What have we ever done other than make $$ for them!

Gary. There was a brief time where Trade Me trialled in-house communication only. Dare I say it, like a lot of TM stuff it was all a bit half-assed and full of issues. Launched May 2017. Turned it off again in September 2017. Perhaps in the period when you were abroad. 

Robert. Don't forget that the "in-trade" declaration and logo is a requirement set by the Govt. Trade Me were required by law to make this change. Commerce Commission are meant to Police it. I have had some success complaining about members that should be marked as in trade by reporting to Comcom rather than Trade Me. 

Thanks Callum. Yes I was away from 2013 till 2018 so missed that brief trial. I remember their messaging via the app only trial and how problematic that was, although that was only in addition to emails being swapped and not in place of.

The fees the commission on postage high volume listings success fees .I am working after tax buying stock ,petrol and time at three dollars profit .I have sold on trade me books for 20 years .my book business will be ruined soon .

Peter

I have sold on Trade Me for over 20 years, had in excess well over 20,000 sales, have 100% feedback, my lower feedback number reflects I have many repeat returning customers?, and yes a lot of Organizations that can only pay by Bank Transfer as no Credit card, yet these numbers mean absolutely nothing to Trade Me, I am now being punished un fairly?,

I will now be held at ransom to use ping against my will, discriminated against, lose business because I cannot run my business my way and offer my repeat customers Internet banking, They are interfering with the way we want to do things, that are in our best interest as it is our business, we know what we are doing and what suits each individual member / Sellers, We do not all fit in the same box,

They do not see the bigger picture at all, and looked outside the bigger box, It is absolutely disgraceful of their poorly thought out decision, Some will no longer be able to make a living on here and will end up lining up for Government handout, as some of us now are feeling the pinch on here, the site is just not like it once was,

I am am one that has been ripped off by casual sellers many times where I have had to raise disputes, those with no morals and no Integrity, Not Intrade sellers who moral do the right thing if there is an issue, Yes, I have had issues but remedy them Immediately at my expense so no disputes raised with Trade Me, as we are all human and we all do err at times, but morally we step up and do the right thing, 

Flossy

The worst part is - they actually think we are stupid! "Yes, let's tell them this line of reasoning, of course they will buy it"

It's a money grab. Just call it a damn money grab, and be done with it. Move on. The queue of people who actually believe Trademe is trying to make the placer safer and better for everyone, is about as long as the queue for entry to Epstein's Island. 

The sheer number of comments and engagement on this post should at least have TradeMe thinking about this decision being reversed. Right? Surely their Management Team have a brain cell between them? They will regain some of our trust and respect if they make the admirable decision to actually listen to our viewpoints here. If they forge ahead with this ridiculous mandate, they will have only shown they are blind to the people that make them money. The sellers. We start the money train for them. If we sell less, the buyers buy less. End of stpry. Stop meddling TradeMe. Maybe you can just enforce us to make PING mandatory on all auctions. I already offer it on everyn one of my aucitons. Then buyers can DECIDE how to pay.. But, keep internet banking as a payment option. None of us really are swallowing your "streamlined and safe" line. We are not idiots.

Spot on, Matt. I already have a website where I also sell...but I haven't been giving it the attention it deserves. Following this money grab from TradeMe, I'm redoubling my efforts to sell elsewhere...starting with my more valuable items. I'll be doing more targeted marketing and outreach to my many hundreds of previously satisfied customers.

TradeMe...how can you be so clueless as to think you can frontload more costs on us in order to make more money, without thinking through that you are simply driving us to increase sales elsewhere, potentially resulting in less income for yourselves, and certainly poisoning your relationships with people that make you money in the process. 

Honestly, this is right up there with Trump's tariffs. 

It is a money grab. As is the service fees thing. Any claimes to the contrary are just facetious. The end result is fewer buyers, fewer sales, lowered profits for everyone including TM and the loss of hard built reputation. This is not the way to fight farcebook marketplace.

A heads up folks, those so called Fee Free listing promotions to Casual Sellers includes a dirty Fish Hook, all include and are Opted in to use PING and NO Bank account Option available.

So a blanket approach and coercion is been used to stop people passing out Bank account details to others.

May we assume this is to stop scammers and financial crimes?

The reality is, the banks have the option to use Human Intervention with Match, Partial Match or No Match.

FinTechs offering Payment systems, which is what PING appears to be doesn't.

There's a can of worms here with Regulations surrounding AML and Due Diligence, Enhanced Due Diligence etc.

At the end of the day, we are all unique traders in unique situations that allow for the right to choices.

The coercion used to use PING is as ok as an abusive relationship.

It's Not Ok Trade Me, nor is it ok for Michie and West's Behaviour Wheel Model to be used in this country that prides itself on strides it has taken with equality.

It's time to shred that Behaviour wheel model being used.

One has to question if some of these changes are as a direct result of all the Data Protection breaches through various websites including Ggle who have all been hit with Fines?

There's always a bigger picture out there.

Those who have incurred those fines will also be looking to recuperate costs and monies.

They have all been told to tidy up there acts.

It's important to be aware what else is going on Internationally in other countries so keep abreast with Judicial news.

If your thinking was right Harold, why are only a subset of TM users ie those in trade, the only ones being subjected to the new mandate? Shouldn't ALL users be?

I for one will not be using ping, and will be canceling my "in trade account", as i object as a seller to paying a fee that the buyer (who is the presumed protected party) should be paying in any case, and then it should be their choice to opt in or not.

Been a trader for 20yrs.  I offer PING and bank transfer NOT cash - just sold 2 items to 1 trader they clicked PP on both - so now Ive paid a fee on a postage quote  that won tbe paid to me- as I can combine.  MY friend who also does trade me does not have a credit card MANY people dont like to  load card details on line  it can be risky and its not trusted. The elderly also dont do PING sometimes how can they pay when Im near Hamilton and theyre in Wellington????????cash? in the mail????  There is so much wrong with this new  proposal rule.   I understand using PING to protect sellers but many of us are good sellers and being punished for those who rip people off which incidentally wont be in trade sellers - why wud an in trade seller rip people off ? Its their lively hood .

For me to do trade me as a business - I pay Tax, ACC, acct fees, Trademe fees on sales/postage/PING  its just about not worth doing wiht all the fees trademe  charge - and I struggle to understand WHY a seller pays for a buyers convenience to use  their credit card???? Buyers shud be payn their own fees to use credit cards etc..... These new fees are GROSSLY unfair on sellers and seem to have very odd reasoning behind them.....depressing and disheartening for sellers! Its already hard to sell when postage costs are so high.

I couldn't relist anything tonight ie Sunday as even though I don't want to use Ping the Ping button wasn't clickable! WTF TM

Harold, TM have also stuffed that up too i.e. insisting on Ping on trades to casual sellers during the free success fee period - I have both a business and casual account and have definitely been able to obtain payment via bank transfer during those so called "Ping" only trades with no success fee being taken so their system is flawed.

There isn't just an argument for this being anti-competitive or going against the Unsolicited Goods & Services Act 1975.

For any business that transacts less than $250,000/year through Trade Me, this infringes on rights under the Fair Trading Act, specifically Unfair Contract Terms:

1. The change creates a significant imbalance in rights/obligations, causes detriment financially and otherwise (eg loss of flexibility, delays with receiving payments), it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party advantaged by the terms.

2. FTA prohibits unconscionable conduct in trade that is harsh, oppressive, unfair - especially where one party has much more bargaining power or the other has no choice. Forcing traders to accept a payment form with additional fees that they cannot decline is abuse of power, and creates unfair pressure - especially in a 'take it or leave it' scenario.

3. This constitutes a variation/alteration of contract terms. This is unfair where terms are changed without consent. It's not reasonably necessary, heavily favours one party and violates rights under the FTA. It gives disproportionate power over finances, at significant cost, and gives TM the power to penalise. It is detrimental, creates material harm and disproportionally favours TM, when it is not essential for legitimate risk management. The payment clause increases costs to the point where traders are disadvantaged.

There isn't just the issue of the increased costs, delays in receiving funds, potential loss of customers, loss of flexibility etc - Ping also gives TM the power to decide in a dispute who they side with - so weeks after a sale, you may or may not be on the receiving end of a non-legitimate dispute, at the mercy of TM. As Ping uses credit cards, you are also exposed, weeks or even months, down the track to 'friendly fraud' eg someone arranging a credit card reversal via their bank. NZ does not have credit card protection for businesses and banks are reported to heavily favour on the buyer's side, even in scenarios where, for example, a buyer claims they never received their goods, even when tracking details show an item was delivered. 

There is also the issue of Ping not even being available for listings with a value over $10,000, as well as the fact that it can take TM some time to pick up whether a purchase is fraudulent. If someone pays via Ping and immediately collects or you post right away and several hours later TM's system alerts them there's an issue and they advise you not to proceed with the sale, and with protection only up to $2,500 - you are at significant risk with higher value purchases.

I got an email today asking for auction # s.

It was all of them & most all of my auctions have the glitch where there is no FPO. I sell mostly via FPO. Before the TM fux I would sell 3 items a week now I sell 3 items a month. It's not worth listing here at all!

I can see people adding cash and an explanation  in each auction that they dont allow pick up but just chose cash and have the bank details emailed. I have already emailed a lot of my reg buyers that use  Internet banking and explained . TM reconsider this 

I have come to the conclusion that Trade Me want to simply get rid of all the non-store in-trade sellers.

Given in-trade sellers are NOT scamming then this is simply not about making the site safer. 
It could be that Ping be introduced for casual sellers which would give your in-trade customers a competitive advantage. 
Casual sellers are the ones who get hacked, usually because they aren't as active on the site bases on anecdotal evidence. 
Two Factor Authentication would be the cheapest and simplest way to stop scams as it would markedly decrease hacking. 
Ebay has it so surely that's the Gold Standard for security. Are in-trade sellers the guinea pig trial run to see how well Ping works when forced on buyers?

Nancy, the key things I saw in your post are the relationship between TradeMe and in-trade sellers is not even. If TM is our primary platform, sole platform, or where we derive most income from, then we are forced to toe the line no matter what the changes are - it's making to monopolistic pricing. Another point you raised is whilst in-trade sellers gain no advantages by declaring such, we are treated in a way that disadvantages us on the site thus (UN)fair trading. 

Two percent to a casual seller is neither here nor there. Two percent to an in-trade seller will be massively more than 2% off the bottom line. If your net profit margin after expenses is say 30%, then 2.19% is the equivalent to 7.3% or the same as a 50% increase in GST! This is not a small imposition for a professional seller. As the profit margin decreases for each seller, the impact of that 2.19% increases exponentially. 

Well, if my community is anything to go by, they are also losing buyers. And buyers, like sellers are kind of essential on a trade based site.

Sharon I'm casual seller I only list clothing on here now. I couldn't relist anything last night because I couldn't add Ping!

So it not just intrade seller that it is affecting. It's all traders.

Template to use to email to the Commerce Commission at PaymentsTeam@comcom.govt.nz - include this when forwarding the original email sent by TM advising change to payment forms:

Dear ComCom,

From Monday 3 November, new listings from in-trade sellers on Trade Me will exclusively be forced to use Ping, with cash and Afterpay as optional additions. Listings from this time on will have PING automatically added and bank transfer as a payment option will be removed. Payment via Ping will have a transaction fee of 2.19% deducted from the total amount the buyer pays (including shipping). This mandating of payment methods will severely constrain my trade on Trade Me. I have used bank to bank transfers for years and have never had a problem.

Ping is mandated and there is NO option to NOT use this payment method. In other words we as sellers are being forced to use a payment method owned by Trade Me that adds another income stream for them. As I sell items NZ wide, as of Nov 3 I will only be able to supply products to local cash buyers.

There is an argument that this move creates a restraint in trade, is anti-competitive and constitutes an unsolicited service.

In addition, for any business that transacts less than $250,000/year through Trade Me, this infringes on rights under the Fair Trading Act, specifically Unfair Contract Terms:

1. The change creates a significant imbalance in rights/obligations, causes detriment financially and otherwise (eg loss of flexibility, delays with receiving payments, loss of customers who cannot pay by credit card or need to split payments), it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party advantaged by the terms.

2. FTA prohibits unconscionable conduct in trade that is harsh, oppressive, unfair - especially where one party has much more bargaining power or the other has no choice. Forcing traders to accept a payment form with additional fees that they cannot decline is abuse of power, and creates unfair pressure - especially in a 'take it or leave it' scenario as it is here.

3. This constitutes a variation/alteration of contract terms. This is unfair where terms are changed without consent. It's not reasonably necessary, heavily favours one party and violates rights under the FTA. It gives disproportionate power over finances, at significant cost, and gives Trade Me the power to penalise. It is detrimental, creates material harm and disproportionally favours Trade Me, when it is not essential for legitimate risk management. The payment clause increases costs to the point where traders are disadvantaged.

There isn't just the issue of the increased costs, delays in receiving funds, potential loss of customers, loss of flexibility etc - Ping also gives Trade Me the power to decide in a dispute who they side with - so weeks after a sale, you may or may not be on the receiving end of a non-legitimate dispute, at the mercy of Trade Me. It is well reported online how unfair, arbitrary and lengthy their disputes process can be.

As Ping is linked to a credit card, a seller is also exposed, weeks or even months, down the track to 'friendly fraud' eg someone arranging a credit card reversal via their bank. NZ does not have credit card protection for businesses and banks are reported to heavily favour on the buyer's side, even in scenarios where, for example, a buyer claims they never received their goods, even when tracking details show an item was delivered.

There is also the issue of Ping not even being available for listings with a value over $10,000, as well as the fact that it can take Trade Me some time to pick up whether a purchase is fraudulent. With a potential sale value up to $10,000 - you are at significant risk with higher value purchases.

Regards,