4 ms·
Well the easy, non-controversial way to do this is to just introduce it as an easy and awesome new product, that stands on its own and let people opt-in at thei
by josephjrobison 7y ago
Well the easy, non-controversial way to do this is to just introduce it as an easy and awesome new product, that stands on its own and let people opt-in at their own discretion.
By auto-enrolling everybody and requiring them to opt-out, that’s creating a huge controversy just asking for backlash. And then forcing anyone who makes over $10k to now be required - that’s a strong hand they’re playing.
Can only point to some desperate times? Seems to be a sure way to alienate your most successful sellers.
- nordsieck 7y ago> By auto-enrolling everybody and requiring them to opt-out, that’s creating a huge controversy just asking for backlash. And then forcing anyone who makes over $10k to now be required - that’s a strong hand they’re playing. I assume the logistical reason they're doing it is because they need ad volume for negotiations. That doesn't make it "right" or even good corporate strategy (although I suppose it might be), but I can see why they'd do such a thing.
- mreome 7y agoI can't image they're going to negotiate on a per-seller basis though. They're going to negotiate as Etsy, and simply rotate their advertisements through items sold by their sellers. The only realistic reason to force the largest sellers into the program is that those are the sellers already moving a lot of volume, thus they must present the most popular goods which would lead to the greatest profits for Etsy.
- blueboo 7y agoIndeed. If the ads were effective and appealing, sellers would trip over themselves to sign up. If they're not, the only way to enroll would be this approach. Their strategy doesn't preclude the possibility of the former, but it sure signals the latter.
- josephjrobison 7y agoExactly - they’re showing that Etsy is getting the upper hand here in an ad fee arbitrage play.