Posted by Justin on 05/08/06 13:19

Chris wrote on [Mon, 8 May 2006 14:16:11 +0100]:
>
> "Frank" <frank@frankcoinsnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:YEz7g.6651$DT5.218@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Chris" <reverse_running@btinternet.com> wrote >
>>> A receipt for something that doesn't exist to buyers is about as much use
>>> as a chocolate firepoker.
>>>
>>> Some people have some very strange views about business, that's all I can
>>> say.
>>>
>> You certainly do. An official ebay partner is selling a CD of information
>> on how to
>> profit from finding private insurance cheaper than the postoffice's (or
>> self insuring )
>> and pocketing the difference. Just as the post office pockets the
>> difference between
>> fees and claims.
>>
>> http://www.platinumpowerseller.com/css_ebook_MassiveInsuranceProfits.php
>>
>
> Without even looking at the site in question, I already know you are way off
> base here.
>
> The pocketing the difference is NOT the point in question, nor is the
> business ethics of self-insurance.
>
> What the point is about, is making it known the buyer is paying for it, when
> that should not happen. At all. Ever. That kinda thing is just a no no!
>
> If you do declare a package is insured, then if it is private (you would
> have a reference number) and if it via the postal service (you would have a
> tracking number) there is no debate on what is offered is provided.
>
> There is a reason why shipping costs on most reputable websites are higher
> than than the stamp value (considering the likes of amazon would get
> significant reductions on packaging supplies). Just the same, as those who
> have zero shipping, have inflated item prices.
>
> But still, I guess everyone who sells a few items on ebay is suddenly master
> genius, and just how did amazon get so big anyway?

Now you're confusing customer service with your own sense of what's
right when it comes to offering insurance.

[Back to original message]