Your thoughts on "I am having a sale, please make an offer" approach

[Panelfan1]

So far in this thread, the sellers reasons/methodology for pricing/not pricing has been discussed - but what about on the buyers side.

 

All this discussion makes me wonder about the affect a known price has on your descision making. In other words, is your perception of value skewed in any way by the asking price?

 

For example; you see an item for X $ today. Then you see the same item pop up again a year or more later at 2x or 3x. Do you now pass up that item again because you regret passing on the original X $ opportunity?

 

Or vice versa, lets say you saw an item previously for X $, but now you find it for 1/2 X. Does the item seem cheap or was it too high before? Is it easier to justify at the new price? Art being somewhat subjective when it comes to value means that its always hard to judge an items worth.

 

What are your (anyone reading this) thoughts on price psychology?

[malvin]

All this discussion makes me wonder about the affect a known price has on your descision making. In other words, is your perception of value skewed in any way by the asking price?

 

For example; you see an item for X $ today. Then you see the same item pop up again a year or more later at 2x or 3x. Do you now pass up that item again because you regret passing on the original X $ opportunity?

 

Or vice versa, lets say you saw an item previously for X $, but now you find it for 1/2 X. Does the item seem cheap or was it too high before? Is it easier to justify at the new price? Art being somewhat subjective when it comes to value means that its always hard to judge an items worth.

 

What are your (anyone reading this) thoughts on price psychology?

 

It's subjective and we all have different opinions. The average of all our opinions of course is the market.

 

In general, I ignore both your examples and try to value based on "market value" but if there are no comps it is hard.

 

For items that are priced lower than before (that fits my collecting interest), I do watch and sometimes pull the trigger early (fearing that if I gamble and wait when he relists it lower I will lose out). Thankfully I have not had to do that often.

 

Malvin

[JadeGiant]

So far in this thread, the sellers readons/methodology for pricing/not pricing has been discussed - but what about on the buyers side.

 

All this discussion makes me wonder about the affect a known price has on your descision making. In other words, is your perception of value skewed in any way by the asking price?

 

For example; you see an item for X $ today. Then you see the same item pop up again a year or more later at 2x or 3x. Do you now pass up that item again because you regret passing on the original X $ opportunity?

 

Or vice versa, lets say you saw an item previously for X $, but now you find it for 1/2 X. Does the item seem cheap or was it too high before? Is it easier to justify at the new price? Art being somewhat subjective when it comes to value means that its always hard to judge an items worth.

 

What are your (anyone reading this) thoughts on price psychology?

 

Interesting question. I don't think I would pass on a piece based on regret alone. Bigger factors for me would be my assessment on current FMV, how much I want the piece. communication with the seller, etc. I have many pieces that have slipped through my hands only to go up later. It is going to happen if you are in this hobby - you can't buy everything (even if you like the price).

[Panelfan1]

Hey Malvin,

 

Since you have a bunch of experience with Ebay - whats your opinion on the following tactic: List an item for a crazy buy it now price.post 2-3 times , then realist at auction starting at 99cents. Not saying you have done this, but seen it a few times. May have been a simple change of selling method when it didnt sell? Or maybe it was deliberate. Either way, for anyone who watches stuff on ebay - thats got to have some kind of effect.

[malvin]

I have seen that. I can't quite recall what happened. I think its basically the seller preferring to get a certain price, and when it was not met, he/she just listed it at 99 cents to cash out at whatever he can get.

 

I'm not sure what effect it has. I don't think you can really game the initial list price to "guide" a result, although I can see how the psychology can lead you to bid close to the previous asking price if you don't really know the market.

 

But as it has been mentioned before, there are pieces that sit on well known dealer sites or CAF unsold, and when auctioned, it fetches more. Likely because once in an auction people who were on the sidelines know they have to bid if they want it. But only really applies when the asking price was close to market and the auction result was slightly high FMV. That won't work when the BIN price is 2x 3x market.

 

Malvin

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

 

. . . as it has been mentioned before, there are pieces that sit on well known dealer sites or CAF unsold, and when auctioned, it fetches more. Likely because once in an auction people who were on the sidelines know they have to bid if they want it.

 

 

Yep. I think collectors can grow complacent about dealers' inventory that shows no sign of shifting until the art eventually gets consigned to auction (which then prompts movement).

[koollectablz]

If you put art out for sale then it should be priced. No ifs, no buts. Anything else just smacks of ignorance or profiteering.

 

If the art doesn't sell then you're overpriced, if you list it again and accept offers but don't get any within a couple weeks then you're hideously overpriced.

 

If you state NFS, then the interested party should make a FMV or over offer, with no onus whatsoever on the owner to come up with a price or indeed negoitate a figure. If you want it bad enough to inquire on a NFS piece be prepared to pay for it.

 

Simples.

 

 

[JadeGiant]

If you put art out for sale then it should be priced. No ifs, no buts. Anything else just smacks of ignorance or profiteering.

 

 

I don't necessarily prescribe to such a black and white perspective. I do think every seller has the right to list as they desire, even with the make-an-offer method.

 

My whole point of this question/thread was to better understand why this practice seems to be growing and to shed some light on how most buyers perceive it.

 

It seems apparent that this method does more harm than good in terms of maximizing your chance to sell artwork.

[Mighty Hal]

If you put art out for sale then it should be priced. No ifs, no buts. Anything else just smacks of ignorance or profiteering.

 

If the art doesn't sell then you're overpriced, if you list it again and accept offers but don't get any within a couple weeks then you're hideously overpriced.

 

If you state NFS, then the interested party should make a FMV or over offer, with no onus whatsoever on the owner to come up with a price or indeed negotiate a figure. If you want it bad enough to inquire on a NFS piece be prepared to pay for it.

 

Simples.

 

 

I prefer to see things priced, but a failure to do so doesn't mean the seller is a profiteer. He may not intend to gouge me; he'd simply prefer not to leave any coins on the table.

 

On the theory that art must be overpriced if it doesn't sell, it ain't necessarily so. Last month, I finally purchased a piece that's been on the boards for two years. I wanted it during that time, revisited it often, I just couldn't come up with the scratch to buy it. Most of the artist's stuff goes for about about 25% over what I paid, but the subject matter was outside of her usual work. I liked it better, so I'm delighted.

 

Which brings this up: On making an offer, the problem for me is, how do you determine FMV when there are few comps -- or no comps? On the piece above, I paid what the seller asked, but if I'd had to make an offer, I'd have been lost. The artist hadn't done any similar pieces, before or since. On one of the first covers I bought, the artist had never sold one of his covers before. He's never sold one since (and has pretty much left the field, doing animation now). As far as I can tell, FMV on that cover is going to be whatever I ask. Or I can ask people to make an offer.

 

When I see a "make an offer" approach, I usually ignore it, unless I can get a good feel for what a reasonable offer would be. Even when there are comps, the variables (the artist/the image/the story line/the condition, and on and on), all have to be considered. If there aren't any comps to find, I feel uneasy. I don't want to insult the seller, but I don't care to lose most of my investment when I put the piece up for sale in twenty years from now.

 

 

[John E.]

I agree with everyone in that I just move along when I see the "make offer" label. The last time I inquired, I thought the asking price was too high (the artist's market was already softening) so I declined. The seller kept pressing me to make an offer, and I declined to 2-3 times to do so. When I finally did I was hurled an insult. So I told myself, Never again.

 

In the OA market, buyers are out to get the best deal possible, while sellers want the most money possible. I think this often results in an impasse, most likely because of unrealistic expectations on both parties. I think the "make offer" designation should be reserved for pieces that really hot in the current market, say, for example, an Infinity Gauntlet page or a Walking Dead cover a few years ago. Even if there aren't any comps, like in Hal's case, I would rather control the price, even if that price is arbitrary, then let someone else do it by providing his own comps or slide show or something as to why their offer is "FMV."

 

Lastly, I think a lot of OA purchases are based on impulse, and the "make offer" designation doesn't tap into that compulsion that can result in a sale faster.