reverb.com scam?

[Lesfunk]

Since this thread has gotten away from the original topic of identifying potential scammers, I’ll say this.
I have the same bass listed here and also on reverb. It’s priced $100 more on reverb, cuz fees, income tax etc..
It costs money to sell on reverb, so price accordingly.

 

[Gorilla Monsoon]

The tax is based on and goes to the state of the buyer. And it's not like Reverb wants to add all that additional accounting to their system for no benefit to them. It's the law. Go along with it or not, but get your facts straight.

I stand corrected here- since 2018 - South Dakota vs Mayfair, this, indeed is true. Still, this is a fee that is avoided here on TB. Look- my whole thing here is not necessarily a damnation of Reverb, it’s more a thing that they pretty much BEG users to deal outside the system, and I for one cannot blame anyone for taking advantage of what I consider to be inept site management. Anyone defending Reverb’s business model is likely the type of person who puts an entire bowl of candy on the doorstep at Halloween and then gets mad when the first kid ringing their bell takes the entire bowl of candy. Let a smile be your umbrella, and you end up with wet teeth...

 

[Jack Butler]

This is a darn good perspective. I always try to be an ethical person but it sure does seem like a one way street with these corporations.

This. I'm surprised how many people put the ethical ball 100% in the end-user's court given the climate of corporate behavior and policies.

Yes, a buyer and seller are "choosing" to use the platform. No, this does not mean they want to - it is a result of a lack of options/competition since CL is local, TB is niche, and ebay is a dinosaur. Aren't we seeing the same thing in Reverb that we did from ebay monopolizing the online sales platform for so long? Increased fees, declining customer service, less protection for users, more scams, more huge businesses using it and getting perks you mentioned, etc...

I don't understand why so many humans are so willing to apply ethical and moral value judgements to themselves and their peers, without batting an eye at the fact that large companies/corps have no desire to adhere to the same set of rules. In fact, they'll often leverage their scale/power/money to ensure policies don't get in their way and often become more favorable for them. If someone sees my listing on Reverb as well as TB/Ebay/Instagram/Facebook, and they hit me up on the latter platforms, I'm happy to use whatever route I deem safe and cost effective for the two parties doing the negotiating. If Sweetwater, Guitar Center, and some other sites become major players in the P2P/used gear market in the coming years, that could change my decision as it drives real competition.

 

[vvvmmm]

Who is lashing out and being hostile?

There are opinions and viewpoints being discussed, but I didn’t notice anything particularly hostile in the thread.

In addition to agreeing with others posting after you, I will add that passive-aggressive is hostile, as is disingenuousness, and whataboutism is both because it's a failure to acknowledge the original point by attempting to raise false equivalencies.

And do let me add that I refuse to engage in that stuff not because I find it intimidating or hostile, per se, but because I find it lazy, boring and the tactic of someone not worth engaging, particularly when they double down on their poor discussion skills.

 

[9c1ny]

In addition to agreeing with others posting after you, I will add that passive-aggressive is hostile, as is disingenuousness, and whataboutism is both because it's a failure to acknowledge the original point by attempting to raise false equivalencies.

And do let me add that I refuse to engage in that stuff not because I find it intimidating or hostile, per se, but because I find it lazy, boring and the tactic of someone not worth engaging, particularly when they double down on their poor discussion skills.

But how do you really feel?

 

[Grahams Groove]

In addition to agreeing with others posting after you, I will add that passive-aggressive is hostile, as is disingenuousness, and whataboutism is both because it's a failure to acknowledge the original point by attempting to raise false equivalencies.

And do let me add that I refuse to engage in that stuff not because I find it intimidating or hostile, per se, but because I find it lazy, boring and the tactic of someone not worth engaging, particularly when they double down on their poor discussion skills.

Let's break that down...

1) If you're throwing stones about passive-aggressive behavior, this is the first substantive comment you made in the thread. The rest were throw-away comments disregarding dissenting points and discussions, along with a post letting everyone know you blocked someone instead of engaging with them.

2) That's weird behavior from someone who claims they argue and mostly win for a living:

I argue for a living, and I mostly win - I have no need to indulge a mindset that I find far too common in ... those over whom I prevail.

It's especially weird, because your post quoted above is the epitome of "lazy, boring and the tactic of someone not worth engaging, particularly when they double down on their poor discussion skills." Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? (It also reminded me of this...)

3) You fail to answer why it's acceptable to violate other contractual obligations we engage in, but this one is indisputably worth defending and everyone who argues about it is lazy, wrong, or worth blocking. You can engage in discussion, and (only speaking for myself) I'm happy to see and hear both sides. Maybe I change my mind - maybe we agree to disagree - maybe we all learn something. Could be neat, right?

 

[vvvmmm]

1. a brilliant if incomplete attack/analysis that you find entirely accurate and persuasive, I'm sure (how's that for passive-aggressive?);

2. are you (passive-aggressively) calling me a liar? And all whatever else you think said (sorry, couldn't resist), and yet, you do engage with me ...;

3. I'm afraid that I can't help you (well, I haven't the time) with your reading comprehension issues (there I go again!) but I will note that I did not try to "answer" a question I was not asked, did not say anything like what you claim about "everyone who argues about it", and pointed out that my criticism was about indulging in bothsiderisms (as opposed to arguing in good faith) - which I'll note again is an entirely illegitimate approach to a constructive "discussion". Seriously, if that approach is something that you are happy about, that may change your mind, that you feel could in anyway lead to agreement or learning or even that you find "neat", well, as stated, it does nothing for me and in fact results/resulted in my blocking someone who doubled down on their disingenuous intellectual failure of an attempt at calling others out.

 

[Grahams Groove]

How is this?

I feel justified in tip-toeing, and perhaps occasionally stepping over, the line that is Reverb's ToS. My thought process is...

1) They have collected hundreds (perhaps thousands) of dollars in fees from facilitating the advertisement of gear I have sold during the last 5.5 years. That collection of fees has not led to improvements in their services. Over time I've experienced less sales, more scam offers, higher seller fees, and poorer customer service from Reverb.

2) I choose to still occasionally use their services as a last resort to broaden the potential list of buyers for my gear if/when my attempts to sell on preferred platforms are sluggish.

3) I have very occasionally completed the sale of items located on Reverb through another platform with more beneficial terms to me and the purchasing/selling party.

4) I feel justified in doing so because of the money I have paid into Reverb, which has apparently not been used to maintain or improve the quality of their services over the duration of my use.

5) I do not feel a strong sense of ethical or moral obligation to stringently adhere to Reverb's terms of service, as a result of what I have paid into using their services with the understanding that the platform would maintain or improve in quality because of those fees. I understand the ToS do not specify the money will be used to maintain the platform's quality/function, but that strikes me as a reasonable expectation we can (and should) have as users.

6) I see two choices. 1) Boycott Reverb, and allow the primary online global music gear market place to thin down to a set of users who will continually agree to increased risk and prices in the face of declining services. Or, b) continue to use the service in a way that suits/benefits me until Reverb folds and/or a new, better market place arises.

7) Bonus round - I think it's crazy to pay taxes to sell items I was already taxed on as the purchaser, when I am not an entity that makes a living or net profit on my gear flipping. I understand this is not Reverb's choice, but it is another factor persuading me to use other platforms that do not penalize me in that way, if/when the opportunity arises.

 

[Sands]

A person who successfully conquers the fundamental aspects of “discussion” will advance to the far more effective use of “dialogue” if they’re a truly skilled communicator.

 

[Sands]

How is this?

I feel justified in tip-toeing, and perhaps occasionally stepping over, the line that is Reverb's ToS. My thought process is...

1) They have collected hundreds (perhaps thousands) of dollars in fees from facilitating the advertisement of gear I have sold during the last 5.5 years. That collection of fees has not led to improvements in their services. Over time I've experienced less sales, more scam offers, higher seller fees, and poorer customer service from Reverb.

2) I choose to still occasionally use their services as a last resort to broaden the potential list of buyers for my gear if/when my attempts to sell on preferred platforms are sluggish.

3) I have very occasionally completed the sale of items located on Reverb through another platform with more beneficial terms to me and the purchasing/selling party.

4) I feel justified in doing so because of the money I have paid into Reverb, which has apparently not been used to maintain or improve the quality of their services over the duration of my use.

5) I do not feel a strong sense of ethical or moral obligation to stringently adhere to Reverb's terms of service, as a result of what I have paid into using their services with the understanding that the platform would maintain or improve in quality because of those fees.

6) I see two choices. 1) Boycott Reverb, and allow the primary online global music gear market place to thin down to a set of users who will continually agree to increased risk and prices in the face of declining services. Or, b) continue to use the service in a way that suits/benefits me until Reverb folds and/or a new, better market place arises.

7) Bonus round - I think it's crazy to pay taxes to sell items I was already taxed on as the purchaser, when I am not an entity that makes a living or net profit on my gear flipping. I understand this is not Reverb's choice, but it is another factor persuading me to use other platforms that do not penalize me in that way, if/when the opportunity arises.

If you and others feel justified in avoiding paying your share, then others like me will pick up your share. I’d rather not.

 

[9c1ny]

If you and others feel justified in avoiding paying your share, then others like me will pick up your share. I’d rather not.

Good thing no ones forcing you or anyone else to use them <shrugs>

 

[Grahams Groove]

If you and others feel justified in avoiding paying your share, then others like me will pick up your share. I’d rather not.

Consider the fact that there is a spectrum of this behavior - from people who adhere completely to the ToS to people who attempt to violate it outright at every single opportunity.

After 2+ years at the increased seller rate, Reverb's stated reason for the increase has not come to fruition:

The increase from 3.5% to 5% “will enable Reverb to make substantial additional investments in marketing, customer support, and seller tools aimed at attracting more buyers to the site and raising the visibility of Reverb’s sellers.”

In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the opposite has happened during the last two years.

So, that means a breaking point will likely come one way or the other. Either a) all of the remaining users will be 100% compliant and Reverb will continually raise their fees over time while decreasing quality of services until it is no longer viable for even the most strict adherents of their ToS to sell/buy there; or b) users will violate the ToS to avoid fees until Reverb is no longer a viable company due to lack of profits or lack of users as they jack the fees to compensate for those losses.

I think the evolution of the music industry (and aspects of the tech industry more broadly) are good indicators of how this would go. Either Reverb will evolve and adapt in a way that makes them so undeniably good that they can charge whatever they want, or they will crumble and a hydra of competitors will emerge to fill the gap.

 

[Gorilla Monsoon]

If you and others feel justified in avoiding paying your share, then others like me will pick up your share. I’d rather not.

Who even remotely suggested that people who choose not to pay in excess of 25% in fees and instead go elsewhere cost you a dime? Where do you come up with this pretzel logic?

 

[Gorilla Monsoon]

Consider the fact that there is a spectrum of this behavior - from people who adhere completely to the ToS to people who attempt to violate it outright at every single opportunity.

After 2+ years at the increased seller rate, Reverb's stated reason for the increase has not come to fruition:

The increase from 3.5% to 5% “will enable Reverb to make substantial additional investments in marketing, customer support, and seller tools aimed at attracting more buyers to the site and raising the visibility of Reverb’s sellers.”

In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the opposite has happened during the last two years.

So, that means a breaking point will likely come one way or the other. Either a) all of the remaining users will be 100% compliant and Reverb will continually raise their fees over time while decreasing quality of services until it is no longer viable for even the most strict adherents of their ToS to sell/buy there; or b) users will violate the ToS to avoid fees until Reverb is no longer a viable company due to lack of profits or lack of users as they jack the fees to compensate for those losses.

I think the evolution of the music industry (and aspects of the tech industry more broadly) are good indicators of how this would go. Either Reverb will evolve and adapt in a way that makes them so undeniably good that they can charge whatever they want, or they will crumble and a hydra of competitors will emerge to fill the gap.

Consider the fact that there is a spectrum of this behavior - from people who adhere completely to the ToS to people who attempt to violate it outright at every single opportunity.

After 2+ years at the increased seller rate, Reverb's stated reason for the increase has not come to fruition:

The increase from 3.5% to 5% “will enable Reverb to make substantial additional investments in marketing, customer support, and seller tools aimed at attracting more buyers to the site and raising the visibility of Reverb’s sellers.”

In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the opposite has happened during the last two years.

So, that means a breaking point will likely come one way or the other. Either a) all of the remaining users will be 100% compliant and Reverb will continually raise their fees over time while decreasing quality of services until it is no longer viable for even the most strict adherents of their ToS to sell/buy there; or b) users will violate the ToS to avoid fees until Reverb is no longer a viable company due to lack of profits or lack of users as they jack the fees to compensate for those losses.

I think the evolution of the music industry (and aspects of the tech industry more broadly) are good indicators of how this would go. Either Reverb will evolve and adapt in a way that makes them so undeniably good that they can charge whatever they want, or they will crumble and a hydra of competitors will emerge to fill the gap.

Clearly, Reverb is currently run by imbeciles. The old business model put them in the cats’s seat and whether the sale to Etsy erased the previous administrative structure or not, the ability for anyone to use the site to advertise for free has to be recognized as shrinkage and dealt with, and it isn’t. They need to charge for ad space and eliminate any fees and run the site hands off from that point, and that ain’t gonna happen any time soon. Pride comes before the fall. I think their revenue will eventually shrink as their clientele moves on. I think it’s happening now. I’ve noticed a steep decline in any gear I’d be interested in, and the bulk of the tastier gear is being sold by shops instead of individuals. THIS site right here is the direct beneficiary of Reverb’s failure to grasp the obvious.

 

[Sands]

I sold a Martin guitar today for full asking price under a week listed. Reverb is awesome. Fees are under 10%.

 

[Gorilla Monsoon]

I sold a Martin guitar today for full asking price under a week listed. Reverb is awesome. Fees are under 10%.

Good for you. I bought something I’ve been looking for on this site last week. It cost me $800 and I paid $23 to PayPal...That same piece of gear is currently listed on Reverb for $1300. No lie, and I don’t see it being relisted on Reverb anytime soon. A couple of months back, I found an instrument on this site that listed for $3800. I paid $3900 for it. That same instrument will never see a Reverb listing again. There is currently one similar to it on Reverb that is going on a year there, languishing with several others that will likely only sell elsewhere. The instrument that I bought here with the 5% plus 3 1/2% processing plus 7% state tax would have cost me an additional $550 on Reverb. The gentleman who sold it to me had it listed here for less than a day....See? I can do that, too...

 

[Sands]

Good for you. I bought something I’ve been looking for on this site last week. It cost me $800 and I paid $23 to PayPal...That same piece of gear is currently listed on Reverb for $1300. No lie, and I don’t see it being relisted on Reverb anytime soon. A couple of months back, I found an instrument on this site that listed for $3800. I paid $3900 for it. That same instrument will never see a Reverb listing again. There is currently one similar to it on Reverb that is going on a year there, languishing with several others that will likely only sell elsewhere. The instrument that I bought here with the 5% plus 3 1/2% processing plus 7% state tax would have cost me an additional $550 on Reverb. The gentleman who sold it to me had it listed here for less than a day....See? I can do that, too...

Well yes TB is a great marketplace. Yesterday I referred a fellow who was trying to sell a great 5er on Reverb to TB. I also told him it’s a great community... and I think it’s rotten the states collect sales tax on private used gear sales.

 

[Wilmingtonian]

Who even remotely suggested that people who choose not to pay in excess of 25% in fees and instead go elsewhere cost you a dime? Where do you come up with this pretzel logic?

If you still think this is about choosing not to use Reverb versus choosing to not consummate the deal you started via Reverb and steal their service, after pages and pages of this, I don't know what will get you to understand the basic argument here.

 

[Gorilla Monsoon]

If you still think this is about choosing not to use Reverb versus choosing to not consummate the deal you started via Reverb and steal their service, after pages and pages of this, I don't know what will get you to understand the basic argument here.

I’ve never listed on Reverb. I’ve been entirely acquisitive, my entire career of sorts involving online and used purchases has been one that has me collecting rather than jettisoning gear. I’ve had two dealings with Reverb, the first saw me paying in excess of $300, the buyer losing Reverb’s cut, he listed the instrument for $4k, I offered $3500, and we operated within Reverb’s TOS. The second arrangement was done off site at the seller’s recommendation and he got what he wanted at a price I wanted to pay. I don’t feel like I’ve done anything wrong at all, and to be honest, I think the seller in the first arrangement was naive to this site, as was I. It never dawned on me to avail myself to the classified portion of this site even though I’d been casually lurking here for years. Do as you wish. Buy with your feet, I won’t condemn nor praise you. You are you, I is me. I’ll likely never buy on Reverb again, though, I can tell you that much. See how this works? Another very important thing- since about last January, I’ve noticed a relative dearth of what I’d consider quality gear on Reverb, yet right now, if I had the space to put stuff and the arms of an octopus, I’d fill my garage with the finery advertised here. A good example would be Bergantino gear. I think there might be something like 70 listings on Reverb, much of it redundant, with only three or four pieces actually available today. It’s all dealers tryna book future sales if and when they get what they are advertising. They don’t even have it in their possession. Come here, though, and you can find a cabinet any day of the week, and heads come up about twice a month. Reverb is going the way of the Dodo, and my thought is this is entirely due to their leadership’s incompetence. I’m not sure who actually owns Etsy, but they’ve overstepped their abilities and grossly misjudged the used musical market. You simply cannot introduce unnecessary fat into what is a lean and competitive market. Who is the idiot who thinks it acceptable to throw 25% in fees on a transaction that has the seller looking to recoup 75% of his original investment and a buyer not willing to pay more than that?!?...

 

[Gorilla Monsoon]

So...A cursory examination of Etsy’s stock history shows an all time high of nearly $300 a share in November of 2021 when “Pandemic Buying” reached an all time high to a current listing of $140. Motley Fool as of yesterday suggests a possible 7% gain, and Bloomberg posted an article earlier last week that incorrectly indicated a 78% surge, and the whole thing suggests to me that the company is lying through their teeth about their earnings. The company replaced their CEO, there appears to be restructuring and my guess is they are buying their own stock in order to inflate their value. This is the Wild Wild West. I don’t believe for a second that Etsy adheres to any sense of morality nor ethos that you seem blindly attached to.