Anyway, a vendor bid is no different to a reserve price. A vendor bid pushes the price of an item to a point that the seller is willing to part with the item. Exactly the same as a reserve.
Bazza - I acknowledge your right to hold your opinion, but I cannot agree with it.
The only argument I can see is the net effect at the end of an auction FROM THE SELLER'S PERSPECTIVE will be much the same. If you are looking at it from that direction only, I can understand your stance - but it is the BUYER who is disadvantaged.
By taking your stance, you project a very strong picture where you are not concerned about buyers and are supportive of sellers :
... drive the price to a point the seller is willing to accept.
Sorry. That is just so wrong. Auctions are about how much the buyer is willing to pay
As it has been said, when an item is auctioned, the purpose is for the market to set a value on the lot being put up. If the seller (or their representative) enters the bidding, they are acting fraudulently. Their participation in the bidding has absolutely NO bearing on the
perceived value from the market's perspective - it is only a representation of the
seller's desire.
No-one is going to argue that shill-bidding is unlawful.
Agreed
Morally wrong...that's debatable.
Not for me. With many things in this world that aren't unlawful but
are morally wrong, it would seem to me that in raising the bar, legislatively, there is a corresponding increase in what is considered morally wrong. You say shill bidding is unlawful, so how can it be anything other than morally wrong? Mind you, that is an objective view on morality.
Thought, if you have a subjective view, then I can't argue against that other than by disagreeing with the concept of someone deciding for themselves what is right or wrong. In my opinion, that is self-serving and anti-social.
Bringing the laws of the land into the arguement doesn't wash with me.
So you are advocating illegal conduct...? Can I take your car without your permission, then?
I live in the real world where profit and loss mean survival,
I live there too. I also play the game by the rules. I seem to survive. I know one or two others that seem to do the same or a lot better than me. I don't have a flash car or a 60" flat panel TV, but I can still get from A to B and watch a DVD.
where shill bidding is used as a competitive edge
Now we are getting into the 'justification stakes'. The
competitive edge ...! Like steroids for an athlete? Bribing a politician? Kickbacks to contract selectors? Whatever happend to quality merchandise, extensive range, superlative service and aggressive pricing. They are some of the factors I support for that 'competitive edge' - and they aren't unlawful (oops, sorry).
and where reserves don't exist within the largest on-line marketplace in Australia (with few exceptions).
Now THIS I will agree on. EBay have changed the playing field and I am no fan of removing options, such as this.
It is, unfortunately, the result of eBay being a business in its own right - and they have stated their reasoning. The truth is that sellers are forced to choose between starting auction items at their minimum sale price - which gives eBay higher listing fees - or starting them at a lower amount (to reduce listing fees) and take the risk that bidding will reach an acceptable level - where eBay will get a FVF if there are
any bids.
I have said this before - when the rules change, the players will change the way they play the game - or simply not play. (It was always inferred in that statement that any game playing would be within the rules.) I would have expected that anyone who was not able to play within the rules would have moved to somewhere where they could.
We can talk all we like about the law,
... and it still remains the law: relevant and definitive.
but it's real and it happens.
The same can be said for fraud, embezzlement, murder, robbery, assault, rape, drink driving, speeding, parking in a clearway, streaking, shill bidding, product misrepresentation, mailing plutonium, destruction of (someone else's) property, evading tax, drive an unregistered vehicle on a public thoroughfare, being a traitor, libel and slander as well as shill bidding.
They are unlawful too.
Ignoring the law for your own benefit and justifying it by claiming your own subjective morality permits whatever actions you deem reasonable, is just one concept in which I cannot begin to find any validity. To me, it is a rationalisation for a self-centred approach to life with a mix of greed, laziness and/or poor vocational selection.
But that is just my opinion...