I can understand that White Elephant Media feels aggrieved.
I can understand the devastation resulting from being unable to trade anymore.
However, they've been disingenuous with their perception of feedback having been great, and everything in the garden being lovely prior to the demand by PayPal for this large amount of money.
They have behaved like BAD powersellers in the past; their feedback consistently has included what I consider a significant number of extremely dissatisfied customers for whom the transaction was not a delight. Judging by the feedback in the past, White Elephant Media have been selling goods they don't have in stock - they've been drop-shipping, in other words, and not even stating that in their listings.
That's not admirable behaviour in a seller. However, no doubt White Elephant Media considers they were doing pretty darned well because the negatives were swallowed up mostly by the positives. They've been inculcated within the eBay feedback society to think that this is more than adequate.
I don't think they WERE doing well. Outside eBay, consumer expectations and merchant responsibilities have to exist in the real world, which means consumer legislation as per the TPA. The number of very dissatisfied customers who'd make a complaint through THOSE channels, the real world channels, would force an investigation, and then White Elephant Media would have understood that they were not performing as required.
They should NOT have been selling items they did not have in stock.
They should NOT have been ignoring the symptoms of extreme unhappiness from so many customers.
They should NOT have gone merrily on their way, skirting from one disaster to another.
They should NOT now be thinking it is all eBay's fault.
eBay bears a significant amount of blame, though.
1. Demanding "a quarter of a million dollars" from a seller is really outrageous. I've read the justifications put forward by PayPal for this latest behaviour, and it's simply beyond belief. Businesses already operating within a very tight profit margin don't have the large percentage of the total items sold amount available as liquid funds. Outrageous, outrageous, outrageous.
2. Creating a seller culture in which drop-shipping by Powersellers is tacitly winked at is out of order. eBay must bear a great deal of blame for enabling sellers to take advantage of this winking.
3. Creating a seller culture in which lots of negatives are simply swallowed up by the large number of positives is creating a false sense of satisfaction and reliability. A great many Powersellers are floating their boat on the lake of eBay's magic numbers, and ignoring the real world expectations and requirements for customer satisfaction and protection. NOT GOOD ENOUGH... but it wouldn't be happening if eBay didn't allow it. And worse still, allowing it makes it a market edge which sellers may well feel they must take, lest they become undercut badly by their competitors. It's like seeing men thrown into an arena, told that one must tear off the other's head, because only one will be allowed to make it out alive. Who is the real killer? The bloodied winner of the arena or the brutish savages who roared in approval as they watched the "game" and put them there?
4. Allowing sellers who are insolvent or are indicating insolvency or where insolvency or inability to continue trading may be suspected is appalling behaviour on the part of eBay. SOMEONE in eBay must bear the responsibility for either failing to notice the signs, or ignoring the signs in favour of giving the seller another chance. If eBay gives Powersellers extended chances when suspicions should justly be raised, I would expect eBay to bear the full responsibility for protecting any buyer's purchase from that seller - and I don't mean just through PayPal, either!
