cigar auction - overbidding is fun!

[jgohlke]

Cbid linky

Check it out....then look here:

CI linky

There are circumstances where overpaying is understandable. Being too lazy to use Google isn't one of them...

 

[NullSmurf]

Its definitely an example of "I WIN" mentality on CBID. Know your limits, Brothers!

 

[smokelaw1]

DUMAS!

Doesn't CI OWN CBID? There should be some kind of idiot, customer protection program in place wherein it will not allow one to big higher than current price on in-stock items.

 

[Devil Doc]

For some people, it's about winning.

Doc.

 

[Rob_k]

DUMAS!

Doesn't CI OWN CBID? There should be some kind of idiot, customer protection program in place wherein it will not allow one to big higher than current price on in-stock items.

customer protection... are you nuts, and CI would loose its huge profits on CBid.
Certainly a case of getting caught up in the frenzy of an auction.

 

[MiamiCubano]

DUMAS!

Doesn't CI OWN CBID? There should be some kind of idiot, customer protection program in place wherein it will not allow one to big higher than current price on in-stock items.

customer protection... are you nuts, and CI would loose its huge profits on CBid.
Certainly a case of getting caught up in the frenzy of an auction.

Exactly...as if CI, or any for-profit business, would ever implement a system in which they make LESS revenue. :laugh:

Yeah, either this guy is (a) a total moron or (b) he's swept up in the whole "I'll outbid that SOB and get this sticks if it kills me" mentality...in which case, you can revist possibility (a).

 

[AVB]

Cbid is strange some times. I picked up a 10 pack last month for $13. I liked them and bid on a 5 pack last week. The 8 fivers went for $28 each ???

 

[smokelaw1]

Exactly...as if CI, or any for-profit business, would ever implement a system in which they make LESS revenue. :laugh:

Only if they feel that it might be in their best interest to do so. Bad publicity, potential liability of some form, things along those lines very often cause businesses to choose a path that brings in less revenue.

Or, of course, if they are just decent human beings like some of the BsOTL here that are also vendors.

 

[MiamiCubano]

Exactly...as if CI, or any for-profit business, would ever implement a system in which they make LESS revenue. :laugh:

Only if they feel that it might be in their best interest to do so. Bad publicity, potential liability of some form, things along those lines very often cause businesses to choose a path that brings in less revenue.

Or, of course, if they are just decent human beings like some of the BsOTL here that are also vendors.

Well, first, CI and Cbid are not at all similar to the fine brothers we have here that are also merchants. Total apples and oranges.

But, CI and Cbid aren't going to ever see it "in their best interest" to do such a thing, as long as they are having their books written in black ink vs. red. Otherwise, they'd never have a need for an auction at all because the most a product would ever go for is the same price they are selling it for in their storefront. The reason the auctions are in place is because they are extremely profitable, they are not there to dole out cheap goodies, though they also can have that function.

And "liability" of some manner is virtually non-existent. Auctions are what they are and, to put it in our terms of art, its participants often assume the risk of paying more for something the moment they place their bid (especially if they select the feature of the auto-bid increase up to whatever price point they select). So, it's the nature of the animal. A wise bidder/customer will only submit a bid less than (or at worst, the same) price as that which he/she can buy it outright/directly from the merchant. But, there are all kinds of idiots out there and who are CI/Cbid to not take advantage of people willing to pay more? Why should they police themselves or, essentially, "legislate/regulate" responsibility to/upon its customers? CI/Cbid has no obligation to save their customers from their (i.e., the customers') own stupidity. The ability to capitalize on ignorance, or more specifically, laziness, is one of the many great attributes of the greatest nation on the planet.

The same reasons why you'll see a $15 iTune card go for $25 on eBay.

God Bless America!

 

[tone-ny]

Well it seems that a $15 iTune is a good deal for $25. I just have to post more of them on e-bay :laugh:

 

[MiamiCubano]

Well it seems that a $15 iTune is a good deal for $25. I just have to post more of them on e-bay :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[jgohlke]

My sister told me a story about her uncle in-law...He made money on Ebay selling the Sacagawea (when they first came out) dollars for $3 each! He is retired and wanted to to something on the internet. He decided to sell something on Ebay and his wife told him that it would never work and besides he didn't have anything to sell. He is kind of a jokester, so he wrote this ad copy that spoke of a golden coin, minted by the US Government, perfectly legal tender...yadda, yadda, yadda and put them for sale on Ebay. He sold hundreds of them and some of his customers even bought from him more than once!

 

[smokelaw1]

Agreed on all points. That is it current state of affairs. And I MOST SURELY see the apples/oranges between them and our favored vendors/members.

BUT, there is this (little) part of me that still wants to say that there might be something there...if a business posts a price, is it their responsibility to not charge a customer MORE than that price? It's not the same as miscounting change on purpose, or overcharging a card...but allowing someone to pay you more than what you charge for an item...seems wrong. Now, of course morally worng and legally wrong are two VERY differnt things. It is morally wrong to take advantage of a moron like this...but legally? I agree that on its face it is not. Not to say that there are not some (albeit tenous) recent events that make me think that there might be SOMETHING that could be done. Bestbuy was recently nailed, were they not, for offering goods at price X on the internet, and then people would go to the store, and find the same goods for more money. I believe that the store was forced to pay restitution. Could the person not have asked for the lower price? I don't know...(I am not aware of the specifics). the fact is, the person PAID the higher amount. Then afterwords they got all upset and fought it.

I am NOT saying the two situations are the same...just that there is a line when it comes to fleecing (the willing) customer. Where is it?

Now--the reason the auctions are in place is indeed because they are extremely profitable...what portion of this is becasue of volume...and what portion due to idiots paying more than regular retail CI prices? I'm not sure I want the answer to that question!

 

[MiamiCubano]

Agreed on all points. That is it current state of affairs. And I MOST SURELY see the apples/oranges between them and our favored vendors/members.

BUT, there is this (little) part of me that still wants to say that there might be something there...if a business posts a price, is it their responsibility to not charge a customer MORE than that price? It's not the same as miscounting change on purpose, or overcharging a card...but allowing someone to pay you more than what you charge for an item...seems wrong. Now, of course morally worng and legally wrong are two VERY differnt things. It is morally wrong to take advantage of a moron like this...but legally? I agree that on its face it is not. Not to say that there are not some (albeit tenous) recent events that make me think that there might be SOMETHING that could be done. Bestbuy was recently nailed, were they not, for offering goods at price X on the internet, and then people would go to the store, and find the same goods for more money. I believe that the store was forced to pay restitution. Could the person not have asked for the lower price? I don't know...(I am not aware of the specifics). the fact is, the person PAID the higher amount. Then afterwords they got all upset and fought it.

I am NOT saying the two situations are the same...just that there is a line when it comes to fleecing (the willing) customer. Where is it?

Now--the reason the auctions are in place is indeed because they are extremely profitable...what portion of this is becasue of volume...and what portion due to idiots paying more than regular retail CI prices? I'm not sure I want the answer to that question!

I see what you're drivin' at, but there's a difference between CI's auction house (Cbid) and CI itself. It's an ingenious set up really. Much different than Bestbuy-dot-com and Best Buy's storefront. The ultimate price a product goes for at CBid in something entirely beyond CBid's control really...it's the market that sets it. It's not as if they are setting a lower price somewhere else and deliberately setting a higher price in the auction (even though the item goes for a higher price in the auction, driven up by the bidders...not by Cbid). CBid would never come in at the end of an auction and say...now that you morons have totally over-bidded this product, we'll go ahead and sell it cheaper. That screws all the saps who "lost" the auction when they were overbid and decided, reasonably so, to stop bidding.

Now that we've discussed this...did you not say something a short time ago about giving your current employer all you had during your final 2-week tenure there? I suppose this discussion is what qualifies as that? :sign: :sign: :sign:

 

[smokelaw1]

I see what you're drivin' at, but there's a difference between CI's auction house (Cbid) and CI itself. It's an ingenious set up really. Much different than Bestbuy-dot-com and Best Buy's storefront. The ultimate price a product goes for at CBid in something entirely beyond CBid's control really...it's the market that sets it. It's not as if they are setting a lower price somewhere else and deliberately setting a higher price in the auction (even though the item goes for a higher price in the auction, driven up by the bidders...not by Cbid). CBid would never come in at the end of an auction and say...now that you morons have totally over-bidded this product, we'll go ahead and sell it cheaper. That screws all the saps who "lost" the auction when they were overbid and decided, reasonably so, to stop bidding.

Now that we've discussed this...did you not say something a short time ago about giving your current employer all you had during your final 2-week tenure there? I suppose this discussion is what qualifies as that? :sign: :sign: :sign:

It really is quite the set up. Transparent, but likely legally unassailable. I agree with everything you've said....the whole thing just fails the "smell test" you know?


THe actual quote was

will give my employer as much as I can until I leave

All I can is exactly this much....

 

[AngryFishH]

A thing is worth only what the next guy/gal is willing to pay for it. If people want to overbid on CBid then let 'em. It's like natural selection for smokers.