Question
Hi, Everyone!
As mentioned in an earlier post (Thank You, Fountainhouse), for quite some time I've used a copy/paste html calculator in my auctions - less hassle than ebay's calculator - unfortunately, my old, reliable calculator hasn't updated to the new rates, and I don’t know what has happened to the originator.
Maybe with the new year, its time for a new change, eh?... What do YOU use?
If you use a shipping calculator, which one do you find works best?
Flat Rate Shipping? Is there a seller's "rule-of-thumb" on determining fees? A three pound item shipped PM from S. Fl to CA is $9.00, but is $6.40 to GA - being charged the extra $2.60 probably would not make a GA buyer happy. I’ve even backed out of auctions from a seller in the next county that was gonna charge me the same amount as the CA buyer.
Using a flat rate sure whould make my life easier, but I'm concerned about losing customers because of the flat rate fee?
I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts, comments and input on the calculator vs flat rate shipping.
Thanks for your time...
Answer
Hi Romarc,
Hope this helps....
The system I've used for several years (and have never heard any negative feedback) involves a bit of work up front but saves some trouble in the long run.
First, I sell a very eclectic range of items (and weights) and I have several auction templates tailored to them, though all templates are very similar with only minor changes to suit specific categories (such as automobilia vs ephemera). Though they really aren't necessary, one reason I've chosen to use many targeted templates is that it affords the opportunity to alert collectors who search among those specific categories, that I actively seek those items and may have them for sale currently or in the near future. Hopefully they will bookmark me and/or check my stuff now and later. By having these templates on hand to pick from it saves me from having to change, type in or paste such a statements in a single template.
To handle shipping charges on such varied items as a postcard or set of dishes, I actually have 2 templates for each category. One for [light] items, 2lbs or less, and one for [heavy] items over 2 lbs.
Let me say that for the vast majority of my items I use one of two templates explanitorily titled "general (light)" or "General (heavy)".
The former is simple, as it uses a rounded flat rate shipping charge based on USPS Priority Mail (which will now probably be bumped to $4.25). The extra few cents helps defray the $ I lose on shipping items over 1lb going out of my local zone by making a little extra on those 1lb or less items that do. Further, my 1-2 lb rate may look more attractive in a competitive situation with someone charging actual rates for that weight, so in the long run I feel it balances out in time, trouble and sales. BTW, for items like postcards, etc. I do delete the "Priority Mail" and change it to First Class as well as dropping the fee to whatever i feel is appropriate.
For the latter, Heavy items (over 2 lbs) My alternative template has a simple chart that first informs the buyer that shipping charges will be calculated according to the estimated weight (always noted for heavy items) stated in the description, and their postal zone relative to my [given] zip code. Handling charges ONLY if stated in the auction.
The chart then goes on to break down the method:
Under 3 lbs - Priority Mail - actual cost*
3 - 10 lbs - Parcel Post - actual cost*
10 lbs or over - USPS or UPS (whichever is most economical) - actual cost*
International shipping only for applicable items - email for quote
*The shipping charge is based on the ESTIMATED weight given in the auction ad. Any overcharge of $1 or more above the ACTUAL cost will be refunded along with your item.
Please feel free to email us for a specific shipping quote or visit the USPS shipping calculator at ******.
Finally, let me say that I seldom get emails asking for a quote. My sell through rate is very high (has always been) as is my customer satisfaction (100% + FB), so you'd have a hard time convincing me that my method represents a hassle for or deters buyers. On the contrary I think they feel confident that while they may not know the exact charge (on heavier items) right away they must still feel comfortable that they will not be gouged. I've had MANY enthusiastic compliments on the occaisional dollar or two refund (which is often mentioned in the feedback).
I shop on ebay myself, and with all the gougers there it's good enough for me if a seller promises "actual cost" shipping with the method stated.
Anyway, that's how I handle it. Like I said its a small amount of work up front but once it's in the templates it's pretty smooth sailing and easily up dated and maintained. If you only use one template, you could have each system prepared and ready to copy and paste in, just remember to mention the shipping weight (estimated or actual) for hevier items.
Answer
I pretty much do it the same way as long-gone. Items 1 lb. and under ship for $6. Items over 1 lb. up to about 10-12 lbs. go for anywhere from $10-15. I usually use actual shipping costs if I have anything heavier than that. The only exception to this is postcards/small paper items, which I send first class and charge a dollar or two for. I may lose a few dollars on the heavier items, but the lighter stuff compensates for it.
Works okay for me.
Answer
I've been using ebay's calculator unless it's 1 pound or less or is heavy and fits in flat rate box.
In those cases I give a flat rate in the auction.
I do add $1.50 generally for materials & DSI insurance.
Over 50% of our items end up not fitting in the free boxes.
If it's labor intensive or I know will use more than average materials I up the material costs.
The auction management system lets us do an auto preset for our average item.
I change the variables as needed with each auction.
ie: weight/materials costs/shipping method
There have been a few times the calc. hiccuped and shorted us.
That happened several times early on when ebay 1st offered it (1st 6 months).
I haven't noticed a problem in the last year.
chloe