[HN Gopher] eBay, Etsy and other marketplaces on brink of having...
___________________________________________________________________
eBay, Etsy and other marketplaces on brink of having to disclose
seller details
Author : WarOnPrivacy
Score : 130 points
Date : 2022-12-26 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eseller365.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eseller365.com)
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| I am a long term MTG player. Sometimes I sell on eBay, about once
| per two or three years, because I get too many lowballs in other
| groups.
|
| Last year eBay asked me to verify my identity because I was
| selling for $260. It was cringe, I had much larger buys or sales
| in 2000s but apparently their database don't even have the record
| anymore
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Probably because the income thresholds for such things were
| heavily lowered in 2021. Previously you didn't need to include
| the sales on a 1099K until sales exceeded $20,000. It was
| changed to $600.
| trentnix wrote:
| Not only will this give consumers a measure of recourse when they
| are ripped off by sellers, it will give vendors and manufacturers
| a clearer idea of which of their distributors and retailers are
| violating their vendor agreement. Those that wish to better
| enforce MAP and other terms of their agreement will have the
| information to do so.
|
| Unfortunately, I'm guessing we'll find out many vendors prefer to
| be ignorant (and theoretically powerless) as long as they move
| units.
| samtho wrote:
| It remains to be seen with how much enforcement this will
| receive. If the remedy is that Amazon deplatforms the seller
| and just gets random, trivial fines now and again, this could
| be totally useless.
| IncRnd wrote:
| And, then there are another 3999 pages in the bill. There aren't
| enough hours in the day to read all of these 4k-10k page bills to
| learn what they really say.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Whenever I see that rare consumer-protection or worker-protection
| law get passed in the US, I'm always amazed at how timid and
| gentle on corporations the law ends up being. I know I shouldn't
| be amazed but I still am. I read the bullet point list in the
| article and think "Wait, don't companies already have to do these
| sensible things?" When it comes to protecting the investor class,
| you get giant sledgehammers like SOX. When it comes to protecting
| the little people, they put on the kid gloves legislation and
| give the company a popsicle if they at least try to follow the
| law.
| aksss wrote:
| TBF, Sox is also protecting the little guy and it has the
| effect (for better AND worse) of increasing the cost of doing
| business (properly/legally). When regulating small businesses
| it's important to be mindful of the overhead inflicted such
| that significant barriers aren't being raised to business
| creation. Similarly, Amazon doesn't advocate for $15 minimum
| wage out of altruism, no matter what your thought on the issue
| - they can afford to pay it whereas more local businesses would
| struggle and go under. Anti-competitive regulatory advocacy is
| a thing, so light touches in the SMB arena represent caution as
| often or more than regulatory capture.
| ghayes wrote:
| I think the sad fact, addressed in the article, is that the
| bill wasn't going to pass without industry support. Oftentimes
| this means either a) limited recourse for failing to comply,
| and/or b) new barriers to entry to smaller organizations. While
| this bill is meek, it does seem to be purely a net gain, since
| the burden on businesses is low and it gives consumers an
| easier recourse in cases of fraud (since the collected
| information will now available directly or by a subpoena).
| Spooky23 wrote:
| SOC was in response from Enron which impacted a lot of regular
| people. Enron bought up utilities that were often "widow and
| orphan", boring stocks that were held for a long time by
| retirees. I knew a few people whose parent or grandparents lost
| everything when their ancient electric company stock turned
| into Enron, then rode to zero.
|
| Minus a big story, people aren't in favor of consumer law.
| crote wrote:
| Seller details of _high-volume business sellers_ , mind you. With
| additional provisions to protect the privacy of individuals.
|
| I generally agree with the law. Marketplaces like this have long
| been used as a front for scamming, and with the anonymity
| provided there are basically zero repercussions. If i am doing
| business with someone I want to know who I am doing business
| with, so that there is at least the _possibility_ of taking legal
| actions. Now let 's hope we'll soon see similar regulations for
| Amazon sellers, ideally with some way to prevent commingling
| inventory.
|
| The only thing which stands out to me is the relatively low
| monetary threshold: $5000 might be a lot in revenue if you are
| selling something like second-hand clothing, but something like a
| single car or camera can easily put you over that limit already.
| The bill refers to "high-volume sellers", and defines that as a)
| 200 orders, or b) $5000. It does make sense to protect high-value
| sales too, especially considering that the information only needs
| to be disclosed to the marketplace at that point - providing the
| information to the buyer only needs to happen at $20.000 and at
| that point you are _definitely_ a business - but it is
| interesting that they do not seem to explicitly state so.
| mike_hock wrote:
| > The only thing which stands out to me is the relatively low
| monetary threshold
|
| Which is typical for laws like this. Make the essence of the
| law something most people would agree with ("disclose high-
| volume sellers"), then define some ridiculous numbers so what
| the law _actually_ means is disclose the details of anyone who
| does any semi-serious business there and doesn 't just sell the
| odd used sweater.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I've bought two cars on EBay that were more than $20K each,
| neither from a business. I felt like I could already get as
| much info as I wanted to go through with the sales (both of
| which went smoothly), so I'm not sure a single transaction of
| $25K (or even perhaps any amount) means I need this additional
| policy.
|
| Single transactions the buyer is more likely to bother to go
| chase if they go sideways anyway.
| fgsgfsdgfdg wrote:
| [flagged]
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Nobody said that - in fact, they explicitly stated concerns
| around this issue - and this is a bad-faith comment.
| fgsgfsdgfdg wrote:
| Why is it bad faith?
|
| "In addition, marketplaces would have to disclose a
| business seller's full name, address, phone number, and
| email address, only allowing for some limited protections
| for home-based businesses."
| jakear wrote:
| This doesn't apply to Craigslist, it only applies to
| marketplaces (where the platform is in charge of
| collecting and distributing fees).
|
| Regardless, for personal sellers the only required
| disclosure is country and state of operation.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop creating accounts for every few
| comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is
| in the site guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to
| be a community, users need some identity for other users
| to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames
| and no community, and that would be a different kind of
| forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&
| type=comme...
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >Marketplaces like this have long been used as a front for
| scamming
|
| Commercial eBay seller here.
|
| Honestly, it's been damn near impossible to scam someone via
| eBay (as a seller, at least) since around 2008, when they
| introduced mandatory PayPal payments by default. Managed
| Payments (rolled out during the pandemic) makes it even harder
| to scam as a seller.
|
| There's still the perceptions that hang around from the early
| days, but buyer protections and reversible payment methods
| controlled by eBay themselves have successfully scared away the
| scammers. The only fraud you still get is friendly fraud from
| buyers.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The only fraud you still get is friendly fraud from buyers.
|
| I've been bitten by this. I thoroughly tested a PC part,
| packed it in original anti-static packaging, packed that
| inside of an excessive amount of packaging and a thick box,
| and then shipped it all via a well-tracked shipping method.
|
| Buyer waited until a day before the end of the claim period
| and then insisted the part didn't work. Wouldn't cooperate
| with any debug questions so I grudgingly authorized a return.
| Buyer never returned anything, never even provided return
| tracking info. Yet he's been escalating this to eBay and now
| filing a chargeback with his credit card company.
|
| After less than 10 minutes with eBay support, they admit that
| this buyer has a pattern of doing this exact scam. Just
| follow the steps and provide the requested info and I'll be
| fine, they said.
|
| I'm blown away that they know a buyer has a habit of doing
| this, yet continue to let them operate on the platform.
| Losing the couple hundred dollars wouldn't be the end of the
| world, but I'm deeply frustrated that eBay is so heavily
| tilted toward the buyer that someone can develop a pattern of
| fraudulent chargebacks and false complaints with apparently
| no consequences.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Support's right, you'll win the case. If they open a return
| case, they need to send the item back. Happens all the time
| to us.
|
| >I'm deeply frustrated that eBay is so heavily tilted
| toward the buyer
|
| Their answer to this criticism is that siding with the
| buyer by default creates trust, which encourages more
| buyers to use the platform and therefore increases sales
| volume for their seller. I'm honestly inclined to agree.
| I'd much rather lose 1% of our revenue each year to fraud
| and unnecessary returns than 50% through buyer hesitation
| because they're not sure their items will work or even
| arrive.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Honestly, it's been damn near impossible to scam someone
| via eBay (as a seller, at least) since around 2008, when they
| introduced mandatory PayPal payments by default. Managed
| Payments (rolled out during the pandemic) makes it even
| harder to scam as a seller.
|
| This seems like a fairly important facet of this discussion.
| brudgers wrote:
| The current scam on eBay is to provide a tracking number to
| the same Zip Code as the purchaser.
|
| These tracking numbers are attached to the sale after the
| tracking number shows delivery.
|
| By default eBay will close undelivered item cases because the
| tracking number shows the item was delivered.
|
| Appealing the closed case is possible, but the link to appeal
| is difficult to find and the level of proof required is high.
|
| I know because it happened to me and it took going to my
| local post office, talking to the postmaster, and getting the
| USPS internal tracking log. And that required convincing the
| postmaster I would not try to recover the package from the
| home where it was delivered.
|
| I assured the postmaster that this was a scam, and it helped
| my post office serves an affluent zip code,
|
| It was a ridiculous amount of time and effort for the amount
| involved.
|
| This is not to dig on eBay. I still prefer it to Amazon. But
| that's the scam you can use if you are so inclined.
|
| Not that I am suggesting you are.
| NavinF wrote:
| Yeah I don't understand how it's even possible to get
| scammed. eBay always sides with the buyer and refunds them if
| the seller doesn't do it first. In the extremely unlikely
| chance that a buyer somehow loses an eBay dispute, they can
| still file a chargeback with their credit card.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Honestly, it's been damn near impossible to scam someone
| via eBay (as a seller, at least) since around 2008
|
| This is not true. Several sellers sent me broken version of a
| device I was looking for recently. In fact, it turned out
| that, for the device I was seeking recently, pretty much
| everyone who was selling around _slightly_ (say, ~25%) below
| what I thought was the market price (for a used item!) was
| selling broken versions of it. The ones that were slightly
| more expensive actually worked.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Go to your purchase history here (substitute .com.au for
| your local site):
| https://www.ebay.com.au/mye/myebay/purchase
|
| You should see a button that says "Return this item" for
| your faulty product. Click it, go through the prompts and
| complain that it wasn't as described. In the description
| field, write "broken". If the seller hasn't set up a proper
| RMA process, the system will automatically generate a
| return label. Once you lodge the return using that label,
| you win the case (regardless of hwo well the fault was
| described by the seller). The seller will also be billed
| for the label.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It's plenty easy to scam people on eBay if you're smart.
|
| I collect movies - and eBay has sent me bootleg DVDs and box
| sets countless times. They're pretty convincing - even with
| stickers on the shrink wrap - but they are bootlegs
| regardless (sometimes poor printing, single instead of dual
| layer discs, no copy protection, etc.). eBay almost always
| makes me send them back despite my evidence, so I
| unfortunately know someone else will get scammed next time,
| but what else can be done?
|
| Counterfeit Nintendo 64 cartridges are also becoming very
| widespread. eBay also sent me counterfeit AirPods Pro once.
| Very convincing box and look and feel, but the atrocious
| noise cancelling was the giveaway. It even made the little
| AirPods pop-up on your iPhone.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| This is fair - they don't fight counterfeits as well as
| they possibly could (and frankly never have. 15 years ago
| it was the same thing with counterfeits).
|
| That's not normally what people are talking about when they
| mention online scams, though.
| scarface74 wrote:
| How does this stop someone from setting up a virtual address,
| phone number, EIN, etc to hide behind?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Or the classic: a corporation or LLC.
| cobertos wrote:
| You have to provide government issued ID if you are a high
| volume seller that is a business and not an individual.
| There are also different rules about address disclosure for
| corporations. Per the blog post
| scarface74 wrote:
| This from the article
|
| > However, sellers that are not individuals (businesses)
| must provide a valid personal government ID on behalf of
| the seller (business) _or provide a valid government-
| issued record or tax document that includes the business
| name and physical address._
|
| This is easy to do.
|
| https://ipostal1.com/virtual-business-address-plans-
| pricing....
|
| I use 1Postal as my "virtual mailbox" now that my wife
| and I fly across the US six months out of the year and
| our "home" the other six months is a unit in a "Condotel"
| in Florida that we own that doesn't accept mail.
|
| It specifically shows up as a physical address for post
| office coding and lookup purposes and not a PO Box.
|
| Setting up an LLC is also easy to do and relatively cheap
| using sites like nolo.com.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| Most regulations just screw up average people while being
| completely toothless against the actual criminals.
| googlryas wrote:
| Will Amazon 3P sellers be subjected to this? It will be
| interesting to see how many of the made up brands like HORDUSY
| and ASCALFT are backed by the same parties.
| richbell wrote:
| Relevant discussion:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32195987
| hooverd wrote:
| If you can bear the shipping times, the same crap is a lot
| cheaper on AliExpress.
| jorvi wrote:
| But without the regulatory shield.
|
| If an AliExpress-ordered charger burns your house down, good
| luck getting any money from the seller based in Asia.
|
| If a dropshipped charger burns your house down, the European
| 'entity' (usually just some dude in Europe making a buck) is
| on the hook, and either his legally required liability
| insurance makes you whole, or you can garnish his income for
| decades.
| kristopolous wrote:
| In this case, the premium you pay for is service, warranty
| and returns.
|
| Sometimes you don't care. Choose wisely.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I just self-warranty and self-return AliExpress items into
| the garbage can. I assume that will happen ~10% of the
| time, which is much less than my savings.
|
| Ok, I'll admit, sometimes I warranty claim and get a
| refund.
|
| What I like about aliexpress reviews is that they seem to
| mostly be by well-intentioned Russians evaluating purchases
| on a strictly technical basis. Ali's auto-translation is
| sloppy but it's nothing like the wasteland that is most
| Amazon reviews.
| Animats wrote:
| Well, yeah. That should have been required years ago. In general,
| you're not allowed to run an anonymous business. Arguably, it
| already was in the EU, under the European Electronic Commerce
| Act.
|
| If Amazon doesn't like this, they can be the seller themselves,
| and take responsibility for product liability. They've fought
| that in court. They lost in Pennsylvania, appealed, and then paid
| off the plaintiff to avoid an adverse decision on the record.[1]
|
| [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-
| toxics-l...
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| This was what I was thinking as well, the whole freight
| forwarded "fulfilled by amazon" thing where a "company" is none
| existent so that liability is not a problem (if anyone gets
| serious in their complaints the company goes "poof" and a new
| version shows up).
| crote wrote:
| How could the company be nonexistent? Does Amazon not check
| that the company you claim to be actually _exists_?
| Animats wrote:
| No, they don't. In the Pennsylvania case, Amazon claimed
| they were unable to find the seller. That's why they
| couldn't pass the buck to the seller.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Animats is correct, ask yourself the other question "Do I
| need to be an 'official' company to do business as one on
| Amazon?" The answer is no, very little data has
| traditionally been required to be presented as a business
| on Amazon and that practice has been copied to Walmart,
| Newegg, and elsewhere.
|
| All Amazon needed was for you to ship product to their
| warehouses, and a place for them to send payments. In the
| US there is something called a "DBA" which are initials for
| "Doing Business As" and you can register it with the county
| and then use that name to create a bank account. There were
| a number of tutorials out there about how to create a
| "company" where you wired money to some factory in China
| that would then drop ship your "product" to Amazon, set up
| a DBA and a checking account, and then create a bunch of
| ads for AdWords/Twitter/Facebook etc to sell your gizmo for
| 5 - 10x what you paid for it. Amazon handled all the
| logistics, you collected cash, and when your stock ran low
| you wired some more cash to the factory to send more
| product. Instant side hustle that brought in revenue.
|
| There are literally thousands of these companies out there.
|
| Because Amazon wasn't required legally to validate you were
| officially a business, they don't. This tries to plug some
| of that loophole with the trick that when you buy your
| product they have to tell you to whom the money is going.
| With that, a private investigator, and $10K you can often
| get to the individual involved. Now whether you can recover
| any money from them? That isn't really answered.
|
| It just ups the risk for the "fly by night" vendors.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| And FB marketplace and craigslist?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'd expect FB to be affected, since they're acting as
| intermediary. CL doesn't do any payment handling though.
|
| Although the volume requirements may moot that.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Fb marketplace and cl only list ads, the transaction itself
| happens offsite
| rootusrootus wrote:
| CL yes, FB Marketplace no. FB handles the payment for
| things you sell on Marketplace.
| colinsane wrote:
| and so does the seller here act as the "anonymous business"
| (OP's words)? cash transactions w/o asking for ID or
| anything isn't uncommon on CL. and there are CL users out
| there making a living from it (admittedly, they're usually
| multi-platform sellers). at what point are such sellers
| breaking the law?
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| And why are we trying to invade the privacy of the
| sellers? They are as much as ordinary people as you and
| me
| Animats wrote:
| Craigslist doesn't act as an intermediary. They never handle
| the money. They just put you in direct contact with the other
| party. Amazon doesn't want customers and sellers to
| communicate directly.
| notjoemama wrote:
| I just want country of origin listed somewhere. There's a big
| difference between shipping from Michigan to California versus
| Hong Kong and California. Shipping estimates have been really
| wrong since before the pandemic.
|
| Maybe put flags next to brand nanes in filters? I don't
| recognize 90% of the brands on Amazon and that filter is
| useless to me, unless I could tell is was a domestic or foreign
| brand. Again, just trying to determine if I can wait 2 weeks or
| 2 months for things like birthday gifts.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| Not sure why you are bringing up Hong Kong on this, most
| unknown brand names on Amazon are Chinese companies selling
| Chinese products marked up by 300% to Western customers who
| are unable to notice the red flags.
|
| Then again, it is not so different for Chinese companies to
| register in US and continue their scam anyway.
| fgsgfsdgfdg wrote:
| [flagged]
| nexus7556 wrote:
| That is not at all what this law does unless you're selling
| more than $20k of goods via Craigslist.
| fgsgfsdgfdg wrote:
| [flagged]
| borski wrote:
| " Also, the language in the bill continually refers to High-
| Volume Sellers. The bill defines such sellers as having at
| least 200 or more discrete transactions, totaling $5,000 or
| more in gross revenues over any continuous 12-month period
| during the previous 24 months."
|
| "Individuals that are high-volume sellers will only need to
| provide their name. However, sellers that are not individuals
| (businesses) must provide a valid personal government ID on
| behalf of the seller (business) or provide a valid
| government-issued record or tax document that includes the
| business name and physical address."
|
| " There are exceptions to the contact disclosure requirement
| if the seller does not have a dedicated business address.
| That means sellers that only operate out of their residential
| home address or have a shared residential/business address
| will only have their country and state (if applicable)
| disclosed. However, shoppers will be informed that no
| business address exists for this seller and the only
| communication available between the two parties will be
| through phone (personal numbers exempted from disclosure -
| again shoppers will be told), email, or the platform's
| messaging system."
|
| Literally all of the concerns you keep bringing up are
| addressed in the bill.
| etchalon wrote:
| The high-volume requirements sort of kill the intent of the bill,
| since scammers will just jump to new profiles once they've hit
| certain thresholds.
|
| I assume 3P "mule" accounts will become a thing too, with
| individuals recruited, or their PII stolen and used, to act as
| the seller.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| (OP) I'm reading conflicting articles on how available seller
| details will be.
|
| Going by this quote from eBay, it seems that seller info will be
| very available: " _And if you reach an annual total revenue of
| $20,000, we're required to include your name (or company name)
| and full physical address in purchase confirmation emails and
| order details, but there are some exceptions._ " ref:
| https://www.valueaddedresource.net/what-sellers-need-to-know...
|
| Meanwhile Etsy was warning it's sellers that they would be at
| some risk. Etsy users on Reddit were wondering if Etsy was
| overblowing the issue. ref:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/EtsySellers/comments/nilj9n/the_inf...
|
| Lastly: A June analysis of IA considered how the bill's language
| will aid small minded autocrats seeking to unearth people they
| don't like. ref:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743375
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Article says that if it's your home address, only your
| state/country would be published. Boohoo.
|
| And it doesn't have to be in the listing, it could just be on
| your order confirmation.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| Disclosing seller details is a great idea, but "disclosing buyer
| details" would be, too.
|
| If you put an item up for sale on craigslist, you're fairly
| likely to have someone say "Your price is acceptable. My agent
| will pick it up tomorrow and give you a cashier's check."
|
| There's a time window of a few days in which the bank _seems_ to
| have accepted the cashier 's check, but then they discover it's
| fraudulent, and by then you've already given away the item. If
| you fell for it.
| mgliwka wrote:
| The DAC7 directive mandates a similar thing in the EU starting
| next year:
| https://home.kpmg/mt/en/home/insights/2021/04/dac7-new-repor...
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's pretty weird how they were able to _not_ do this so far.
| Think about it: company presents shop front, sells you goods,
| handles the payment and instructs some nebulous third party to
| ship goods (or sometimes they ship them from their central
| warehouse). Goods arrive, or not, and quite frequently are either
| broken or in some other way deficient, not the article advertised
| or they don 't arrive at all.
|
| And then ... _poof_ legal magic ... the company that presented
| the shop front and sold you the goods, handled the payment and
| probably instructed the nebulous third party says they have
| nothing to do with the whole matter and the nebulous third party
| - assuming they exist in the first place - disappears only to
| reappear a day or so later under a different name.
|
| Either the company (Amazon, Ebay, Etsy and many others) should
| accept responsibility for any merchandise where they handle the
| transaction or they should get out of the loop and allow you to
| transact with the third party directly, so Amazon would only
| serve as the means of discovery.
| pishpash wrote:
| Means of discovery like Google Shopping? They are getting more
| into the intermediation also, where do you draw the line?
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| If I use Google Shopping to search for something, all it does
| is redirect me to the actual retailer, there's no way to
| purchase from Google themselves. Retailers might pay for
| priority placement in the search listing, but that's the
| extent of Google's financial involvement in the transaction.
| It's not like I pay Google and they hide the details of the
| seller from me.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Actual Title: _eBay, Etsy and Other Marketplaces on Brink of
| Having to Disclose Seller Details with INFORM Act 'Hidden' in
| 4,000+ Pages Federal Spending Bill Before Congress_
|
| The bill passed since publication and I changed " _on Brink of
| Having to_ " to " _Now Have to_ " (and trimmed the end to fit).
| csande17 wrote:
| I wonder if this creates an opportunity for "seller privacy"
| services to establish the minimum viable LLC, PO box, etc on
| behalf of sellers. Like domain privacy, but with more paperwork.
| kube-system wrote:
| These services have existed for a very long time already.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I am just concerned about the privacy implications we do not see
| yet.
|
| I am also super confused by the definition of "high-volume"...
|
| > any continuous 12-month period during the previous 24 months,
| has entered into 200 or more discrete sales or transactions of
| new or unused consumer products and an aggregate total of $5,000
| or more in gross revenues.
| aksss wrote:
| What's confusing about that?
|
| * you sell new or unused products,
|
| AND
|
| * you have more than 200 transactions in any prior 12 month
| period within last two years,
|
| AND
|
| * you have gross sales GTE $5000.
| lstodd wrote:
| Anyone saying that 20K year revenue is a "high-volume business
| seller" is out of his mind (this might be sponsored though).
| tptacek wrote:
| Presumably the distinction is between people who use eBay like
| a virtual garage sale (selling only sporadically) and people
| who use eBay as an ongoing source of income.
| lstodd wrote:
| Etsy isn't a garage sale.
|
| When we with my ex started selling handmade stuff there, we
| had revenue above 20k in the first year knowing almost
| nothing about anything.
|
| Mind you, handmade isn't IT, margins are thin.
|
| Yes, we had that as an ongoing source of income. Why is this
| a reason for doxxing us?
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Etsy can be a garage sale. It may be dominated by
| dropshippers at the moment, but the average person selling
| real DIY things on Etsy is not making anywhere near 20k/yr.
| You two must be very skilled at your craft to be able to do
| that within your first year, even if revenue != profit.
| Either that or you're selling a couple things that cost
| 10k+ to make (Which actually wouldn't count as high volume
| because you also need 200 sales)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-26 23:00 UTC)