Hayley buys and sells quite a lot of stuff on Vinted. I leave her to it, largely because I can't be arsed. She enjoys finding bargains, getting rid of things we no longer need and occasionally making a few quid in the process. All perfectly sensible. However, she's recently noticed something rather peculiar. Some of her items are being bought before they've apparently finished being uploaded. The little wheel is still going round on her screen, and somebody has already snapped them up. Now, I know the internet is fast, but this is ridiculous. There are quick shoppers, and then there are shoppers who apparently possess the ability to buy something before it exists.
Naturally, I became suspicious. A little investigation revealed an entire industry devoted to what is called Vinted sniping. There are businesses selling software that monitors newly listed items, identifies bargains and buys them automatically. Some offer one-click purchasing, while others advertise systems capable of completing the entire transaction without human intervention. One even advertises technology designed to detect listings that are still being processed and purchase them the moment Vinted's systems make them available. Which might explain Hayley's spinning wheel.
The buyer in question has a Vinted Pro account with an enormous inventory, so we're dealing with a commercial trader rather than somebody who simply happened to want another cardigan. Whether he's actually using automated software, I don't know, but the circumstances are certainly suggestive. Aha, I thought. We've found the villain. Some technologically sophisticated operator using software to hoover up bargains before ordinary people have a chance to see them, presumably selling the goods at a profit. Outrageous!
Except, on reflection, it isn't. Hayley has decided what she wants for an item, advertised it at that price and received exactly what she asked for. Almost instantly, in fact. No haggling, no waiting around for somebody to offer half the asking price, and no wondering whether it will still be cluttering up the house in three months. More importantly, Hayley isn't trying to run a second-hand clothing business. She's getting rid of unwanted possessions. She might well be able to obtain a higher price by researching the market, advertising elsewhere and waiting for the right buyer, but she has better things to do.
The buyer, on the other hand, has a business to run. Presumably he believes he can sell the item for more, so he pays Hayley's asking price and takes the risk. He might make a handsome profit. He might discover that nobody wants it. Either way, it's his money tied up in the stock, not hers. That's commerce. Hardly a revolutionary concept. Indeed, I spent enough years in business to recognise that identifying opportunities, investing capital and accepting commercial risk are generally considered desirable activities. So why did I instinctively regard this particular entrepreneur as a villain?
Presumably because he's using technology to gain an advantage. But businesses have always used technology to do things faster and more efficiently than their competitors. We don't expect them to abandon computers and return to quill pens in the interests of fairness. And then I remembered eBay. For years, people have used auction-sniping software to place bids in the final seconds of an auction. I've used it myself. It's perfectly permissible under eBay's rules, although sensible bidders can protect themselves by entering their maximum bid beforehand and letting eBay's own system do the work.
There is a difference, of course. An eBay sniper intervenes at the end of an auction, whereas a Vinted bot can intervene the moment something goes on sale, potentially before ordinary buyers have even seen it. But both are exploiting technology to gain a timing advantage. And the Vinted buyer isn't trying to suppress a bidding war. He's simply accepting the price the seller has chosen. There is one complication, however. Vinted's rules prohibit unauthorised purchasing bots, whereas eBay permits auction sniping. If our mystery buyer is using such software, he may be breaking the rules. That's a legitimate objection. A marketplace ought to enforce its own conditions consistently, and if some traders are using prohibited software while everyone else plays by the rules, there's a question of fairness. But that's an argument about the rules of the game, not evidence that Hayley has somehow been cheated.
What interests me more is how quickly I fell into the trap of confusing a commercial advantage with an injustice. Somebody else might have wanted Hayley's item at the bargain price, but they weren't entitled to it. And if our reseller subsequently finds somebody willing to pay twice as much, good luck to him. That's rather the point of running a business. We have a peculiar attitude towards capitalism. We keep telling people to be enterprising, spot opportunities and make a few quid. Then somebody actually does it, using a computer rather more efficiently than the rest of us, and suddenly we're complaining that it isn't fair.
I began this investigation convinced that somebody was using sophisticated technology to take advantage of my wife. It turns out he may simply be using sophisticated technology to give her exactly what she asked for. Hayley gets her money, the reseller gets his opportunity, and somebody else gets the cardigan at a price they're willing to pay. Capitalism appears to be functioning more or less as advertised.
Rather disappointing, really. I was looking forward to being indignant, but I've probably spent more time investigating this particular transaction than Hayley spent selling the bloody thing. I shall now return to not being arsed.
No comments:
Post a Comment