|
Dario,
You know, even though I think of myself as worldly-wise, you point out a
technique I had never even thought of. If we postulate that the
seller is in on the deal, then yes, I suppose that with Private auctions (where
the bid history is never visible either during or after the auction), it would
be possible to "flush out" people's maximum bids by having the shill simply bid
until he is top bidder, then quickly retract or reject the shill's last bid and
leave the item sitting right at the real bidder's maximum bid. That would be a
fairly elaborate technique to orchestrate on a large scale, however, and I
suspect it would draw eBay's attention pretty quickly if it were done
hundreds of times during a single auction. Still, it could happen. Another
reason to snipe at the last second.
Taking the logic of this idea one step further, I suppose the
potential for this kind of abuse would be greater in private internet
auctions taking place in an non-eBay environment where there was
no "watchdog" behind the scenes who would ever see "something not quite right
here" like eBay might (I emphasize "might"). *Sigh* As Cat Stevens
said, baby, it's a wild world. As Ron very helpfully explained, at least there
are techniques you can use in a live floor auction to protect yourself to some
extent against shilling that simply aren't available in an on-line
environment.
But again, this is where the sniper programs come in handy and are an
excellent hedge against auction manipulation. You place a maximum bid that is
far lower than what you are actually willing to pay during the early days of the
auction. If it gets trumped -- for whatever reason -- you are waiting in the
wings with a sniper bid that will be placed in the last seconds which contains
your REAL maximum bid. Since all the snipes go off at the virtually same time in
cyberspace where no one -- not even the seller or eBay itself -- has any way of
seeing what's happening in those last few seconds or controlling it, trying to
shill during the last few seconds would be foolish and ineffective. Except in
the case where all the shill is trying to do is guarantee that the item doesn't
sell to a genuine bidder for less than the seller or consigner is willing to let
it go for.
In truth, I think that most of the shilling which does occur, wherever it
occurs, is not so much evil intent as it is trying to make sure an item sells
for at least the minimum amount the seller wants to let it go for. Why not use a
reserve then? Well, because as we've seen on this list, most people will not bid
on an item with a reserve. So, the only other thing a seller/consigner can do is
place a minimum starting bid on the item that is the true minimum amount that
they are willing to let the item go for. But that discourages bidding as well,
as so many people won't bid on an item where the minimum is close to the market
value -- we've seen that on MPB -- because they want to believe they can snap
up a great item cheap, for a super-bargain price. This is not
realistic thinking on the part of bidders when it comes to quality vintage
posters, but that doesn't stop people from thinking way -- and
choosing which auctions to bid on based on that idea. As Bruce realized and
proved so many years ago.
So, you throw in massive competition from so many other sellers and you end
up in a situation where sellers/consigners feel they have no choice but to start
their items off at absurdly low minimum bids... even something as insipid as a
99-cent starting bid on an original FRANKENSTEIN one-sheet. But... honestly
now... who is going to take a chance on that FRANKENSTEIN one-sheet -- or
any other valuable poster, even one worth "only" several hundred dollars
-- being sold for way below what it is worth just because during that one
7-day period not enough people wanted it that bad... or had the money that
week... or saw the auction at all?
All of this can lead to "reserve shilling" where the shill is instructed to
get the price up to X dollars (the amount the seller/consigner is willing to let
the item go for) and then stop pushing and let the true market
take the item higher than that, if it turns out there is enough
interest in the item to do so.
It's a crazy situation -- people shouldn't feel they have to start out
valuable posters at absurdly low minimum bids and so be forced to resort to this
kind of thing to protect their investment, but sadly, that's the
auction environment which eBay has created over the years -- where you have
this massive daily flux of tens of thousands of posters being up for
auction at all times in a global bidding environment.
And yes, Bruce had a whole lot to do with creating the public mentality on
eBay that ALL posters -- even very valuable posters -- should start out at
99 cents. There's no question about that. But if he had not been the one
to do it, wouldn't someone else have come along and done it eventually?
Probably. I'm sure originally Bruce was just doing it as a PR stunt, but the
long-term effect on the overall marketplace has been very deleterious for
everyone else, and even for him to a lesser extent in the long run, I think.
There are consequences for actions.
-- JR
|
- Re: [MOPO] Shill me, Seymour JR
- Re: [MOPO] Shilly me Craig Goebel
