Poll: Is a regulatory body needed?
YES
NO
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Demand for Regulatory Body
#1
We are demanding for a regulatory body to regulate ecommerce marketplaces such as Flipkart, Amazon, Snapdeal etc who are covered under 100% Fdi according to latest DIPP guidelines.



The demand is because of the following reasons :

1) To monitor the guidelines framed by DIPP.

2) To set rules for policy changes which are being implemented over night by marketplaces.

3) To safeguard sellers and consumers money.

4) To create a centralised sellers and Consumer protection fund like SLR for banks, Insurance pool for Insurance companies

5) To maintain uniformity in business models of different marketplaces.

6) To create a grievance cell for sellers which becomes a quasi-judicial authority like SEBI

7) To maintain a competitive market and prevent monopoly and cartelisation.
8) To create accounting and auditing standards and disclosure norms to prevent a financial scam like Satyam.

What are your views on this?

Do you want to add any more points?
[-] The following 3 users say Thank You to admin for this post:
  • gopi_balaji, Salman, SENECIO™
Reply
#2
HI,

Please add one more:
9) To create clarifications about the various tax liabilities of sellers selling online
Reply
#3
10. Buyer contact details should be available with seller so that seller can contact with buyer during order return/cancellation
Reply
#4
What about skewed return policies.

E.g. For apparel, almost every marketplace is offering 30 days returns - which is not feasible for a category like apparel. Whilst for category such as Electronics(which are usually high value items), the return policy is 10 days. So, if an electronic item goes bad on the 11th day(as has happened with me as a consumer), there is nothing you can do, and the huge amount of money spent goes down the drain.

This is not even consumer friendly, let alone seller friendly.
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to ASG for this post:
  • Kush Agarwal
Reply
#5
11. To indulge seller during any policy implementation. It should not be solely marketplace's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Reply
#6
you need a regulatory body to stop this monopoly attitude of marketplaces
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to Faraz Ahmed for this post:
  • Kush Agarwal
Reply
#7
1) Buyers should be educated about reading the size & other information carefully 
2) Buyers should be educated that sellers are charged shipping fees & delivery to their doorstep is not free
3) Seller should have an option of cancelling orders without penalty, if not websites should be also charged penalty for non- delivery
4) in case of courier returns, websites should pay sellers 1.5% of sale value for damaged packing.
5 Buyer details of all websites should be transferred to a central database where sellers can verify the credentials of the buyers & decide whether to ship the order or not
6) COD deliveries should not be free. There should be a booking fees which should be deducted from their mobile recharge.
7) Buyers should be asked UID before placing COD orders & if they don't receive it at delivery their CIBIL rating should be affected

Someone of you should take it to media if you have contacts
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to saini.gagan for this post:
  • Kush Agarwal
Reply
#8
When new verticle emerge, that create competition. To make it fair, government can only look into taxes & funding sources and create rules for that. Regarding other policies, marketplaces and sellers need to meet and discuss on terms, commission or any penalty charges. If any marketplace is not ready to meet, jusy bycott them. Atleast this is in seller's hand.

From Admin points#, I wanted to know, can government really need to look into below points# which can be rectified between marketplaces and sellers with mutual understanding:

2) To set rules for policy changes which are being implemented over night by marketplaces.
>>>> This is contract between sellers and marketplaces. Marketplaces are private entity and they can force their users to follow terms and conditions. If anyone do not agree, they can leave.

3) To safeguard sellers and consumers money.
>>>> This is 50-50 situation. If marketplaces prefer consumer, sellers will always loose. If marketplaces become sellers friendly, consumer will loose. Better, sellers should meet marketplaces and create a team which will look into matters time to time but who will bear all expenses inbetween?

5) To maintain uniformity in business models of different marketplaces.
>>>> With uniformity in business models, how can 2 private firms compete each other. Eacy private entity create model to earn profit.

6) To create a grievance cell for sellers which becomes a quasi-judicial authority like SEBI
>>>> Same as point# 3 above, it is too early to involve SEBI or any other big authority in this industry. Still there are lot of scope in ecommerce improvement and with existing rules any new business model can be tested easily.

7) To maintain a competitive market and prevent monopoly and cartelisation.
>>>> Same as point# 5 above

If government really want to do for betterment, A policy list can be released to e-retailers which could include the points which should be complied by them. 

I am not a seller, I am representing a team who is trying to create a platform which can help sellers to compete with these marketplaces. Please comment that will help to improve AIOVA forum
Reply
#9
HI Vijay,

Please see below reply *
2) To set rules for policy changes which are being implemented over night by marketplaces.
>>>> This is contract between sellers and marketplaces. Marketplaces are private entity and they can force their users to follow terms and conditions. If anyone do not agree, they can leave.
* We say marketplaces are companies in which public are interested at large. They are carrying out business as a private entitiy just to escape reporting requirement. Further, even a public listed company can carry out business as it deem fits is good for its shareholder. Where we are coming form is Tarriff orders of Trai, or Insurance companies, where there are limits prescribed by the authority and amended from time to time. For Example, in 2002, incoming calls charges had a price tarriff mentioned, after which it was amended to 0, same for Mobile Number Portability. We are not against the contract of the marketplace, we are against the over night changes, thoughtless implementation and roll pack of policies which affect lakhs of sellers. Regulation bring accountability.

3) To safeguard sellers and consumers money.
>>>> This is 50-50 situation. If marketplaces prefer consumer, sellers will always loose. If marketplaces become sellers friendly, consumer will loose. Better, sellers should meet marketplaces and create a team which will look into matters time to time but who will bear all expenses inbetween?
* You are getting the point wrong. We are seeking measures of safeguarding the money which marketplaces have collected from consumers but not yet disbursed to vendor, and the money which customers are entitled for refund but havent claimed refund till now. As you may be aware, banks are required to keep a Statutory Liquid Ratio (SLR) Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) with RBI for which rules are framed from time to time.

5) To maintain uniformity in business models of different marketplaces.
>>>> With uniformity in business models, how can 2 private firms compete each other. Eacy private entity create model to earn profit.
* What we are demanding is uniformity of business model. Currently Amazon is working in Seller Fulfilled, Easyship, FBA, Seller Flex. However, Flipkart is working without Seller Fulfilled.
This is required for a model recognised marketplace. It is always there in all private entities. For Example, if Airtel says, i will not give incoming, use Idea for that, will you use 2 sims? No. TRAI says that with outgoing, incomoing also has to be given, later on you choose the best plan and service provider.

6) To create a grievance cell for sellers which becomes a quasi-judicial authority like SEBI
>>>> Same as point# 3 above, it is too early to involve SEBI or any other big authority in this industry. Still there are lot of scope in ecommerce improvement and with existing rules any new business model can be tested easily.
* Sorry, you are not well verse with the industry scenario. Already sellers have lost money with Askmebazaar.
SEBI wasnt created in one day. However, scams like Harshad Metha, Ketan Parekh, Satyam etc have strengthended SEBI over the years.


7) To maintain a competitive market and prevent monopoly and cartelisation.
>>>> Same as point# 5 above
* Monopoly and carteisation is against free market economies. No arguments can be held in support of the same.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)