The "buzz" this week is that on line  auctions are falling to the wayside in favor of fixed priced venues. Is it possible that the CEO of eBay has access to a crystal ball (or medium), which told him that the future of on line auctions is not in eBay's future? Or, is all this "buzz" the result of eBay sellers simply being maneuvered to leave eBay on their own accord and/or adapt to a 100% fixed price format?

It would be unreasonable to think that eBay sellers would wake up on June 1, 2008 and find an eBay announcement proclaiming that eBay will no longer be an auction venue by the end of 2008. Then again, eBay recently made an announcement that eBay Live Auctions will close by the end of 2008 and while it's not known how much revenue eBay Live Auctions generated for eBay in 2007, their partner, Live Auctioneers, LLC reportedly earned $100M in 2007. If this number is true (as reported by Live Auctioneers, LLC) one has to wonder how much of Live Auctioneers revenues contributed to eBay's bottom line. The next question would be, "what Fortune 500 company gives up any part of $100M in revenues", especially in these uncertain economic times?

The changes to eBay during the past few months have been dramatic. eBay sellers have responded to these changes by posting negative You-Tube videos, blogs, articles, posts, organizing boycotts and sharing their negative experiences with both eBay and PayPal. The CEO of eBay has referred to all of the negative press as "noise". However, the "noise" has elevated to a point where eBay sellers are spreading their wings and flying the coop!

Is this what eBay wants?

In my humble opinion, eBay is strong enough (financially) to withstand eBay sellers who refuse to adapt to change. If the end goal is to move eBay to a "pure" fixed price format venue, eBay sellers who adapt to the current changes and those who sell exclusively through BIN (Buy it Now), may benefit in the long run.

Could their be a culling of eBay sellers in progress? Culling is the process of picking out others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality. In other words, the "herd" of eBay sellers may be being thinned out in order to move forward with a grander plan.

The name "eBay" can stand for anything..

While the brand has come to designate eBay as the on line auction giant, what's in a name? eBay has methodically acquired and/or launched mini-venues (within its own venue) for quite some time. Half.com, Shopping.com and StubHub.com are good examples of what a venue can do to cull the herd from within.

There are some benefits to eBay in moving to a "pure" fixed priced format:

• Increased buyer satisfaction.
• Reduced fraud.
• Reduction in labor force.

Can eBay morph itself into another Amazon?

While eBay could begin building fulfillment centers across the United States, this process would take some time. Those holding eBay stock (in long positions), might have some patience but, it's might be unreasonable to expect shareholders to "watch and wait" while eBay reinvents its business model. This may be where the help of others is needed. 

The deal (partnership) with Buy.com may prove that eBay can open its core to partners, who can flood the marketplace with merchandise. Buy.com did just that by listing 500,000 items for sale on eBay, however, their sell-through rate of 5% was a bit disappointing.

Who suffered from the Buy.com flood?

eBay sellers offering merchandise in the same categories. What eBay may or may have not overlooked is that sellers are buyers, buyers become sellers and it can be one glorious food chain - if balanced correctly. The invitation to Buy.com to flood eBay core with BIN's, upset that delicate balance.

What's NOT fair?

Those selling on eBay have little recourse against bad buyers. Sellers can no longer leave negative feedback against those buyers who abuse, berate and threaten to leave negative feedback if the seller does not bend over backwards to please them. Those who worked for years to build their eBay feedback did so for nothing.

eBay decided that only the last twelve months of feedback makes a difference. In addition, eBay sellers quickly learned that neutrals turned into a "new kind of negative" and many found their overall feedback percentages had declined to the point of the last straw. Just how many straws can placed on the camels back before it breaks? 

Why include neutrals into the equation at all? What was the purpose? Who did it help, who did it hurt? Here's some speculation..

There was nothing to be gained by calculating neutrals back into overall feedback percentages. Neutrals are just that "neutral". The transaction was neither good nor bad. No doubt, the decision to count neutrals into the overall scheme of feedback percentages was bad for the sellers (only). There was absolutely no purpose (no foreseeable gain) to eBay in upsetting its sellers - unless you want to "cull" the herd.

How does it ALL add up?

Judging from what could only be described as a "Seller Exodus" off of eBay (coupled with the major changes), one might think that eBay has a long-term plan. It may be that the plan for the future was concocted when Amazon leap frogged over eBay with stellar earnings reports.

Meg Whitman retires and Bill Cobb is on his way out. The eBay seller conference for 2009 has been canceled and eBay's new CEO (for better or worse) has taken hold of the helm of the ship with a map in hand, however, he may be in need of a GPS for a more accurate read on eBay's final destination.