Vinfolio and Winesearcher have been engaged in a discussion about the best way to list Vinfolio Marketplace listings on their site. As ultimately Winesearcher users should have a voice in expressing their preferences, I suggested we seek feedback from the users of this board (whom I'm sure overlap heavily with Winesearcher users), to which Winesearcher agreed (actually, they agreed to Squires board but the post was deleted within minutes). Adon Kumar, the General Manager of Winesearcher, should be adding his perspective after this post.

Vinfolio's position

1. Any wine listed for sale in the Vinfolio Marketplace should generate a Winesearcher auction listing (note: there are currently 246,731 unique wines owned by VinCellar and CellarTracker users of which 36,737 are marked for sale by at least one user).

2. To be consistent with other auction listings on Winesearcher, the price displayed should be:
-- Current high bid
-- If none, current lowest ask (amongst all sellers of same item),
-- If neither bid or ask present, then “NA” for “No ask” or just $0.

The Marketplace has no minimum bid amount and sellers are not required to pre-commit to a selling price or to sell at all.

To ensure Winesearcher users understand the basis of a Marketplace listing, each individual item listing would state the following text in the accompanying notes field:

"CA, San Francisco. Online bidding. No buyer's premium. Price is high bid (if any), else low ask (if any), else "NA" [or $0]. Sellers not obligated to accept any bid. Bids may be below price shown. No minimum order. Delivery charges apply."

Current status

1. Neither Vinfolio nor Winesearcher wants to confuse or inadvertently mislead Winesearcher users.

2. Vinfolio still believes every unique wine listed for sale in the Marketplace should translate into a listing (with some basis of displaying a price) on Winesearcher as it represents a buying opportunity that Winesearcher users would rather know about than not. Multiple sellers of the same wine would still mean one listing.

3. After some internal discussion, Winesearcher has agreed to list only those Marketplace wines with a current bid price or an optional asking price (which is always set by the seller). The price displayed in a listing is the greater of the highest bid (if any) and the lowest asking price (if any). As of today, applying this rule means displaying only 3,762 listings from 36,737 unique items marked for sale (about 10%).

Your opinion?

1. Would you rather see every listing for wine marked for sale (knowing that the seller is not obligated to sell)?
2. If so, on what basis would you prefer to see the price displayed?

I voted #2 but would strongly recommend nothing be listed without an asking price set by the seller. Bids by potential buyers should not be part of the equation. I know for a fact some people have listed their entire cellars on Vinfolio with no asking prices, figuring that theoretically everything is for sale. But Vinfolio's claim that every such listing "represents a buying opportunity that Winesearcher users would rather know about than not" is ridiculous under those circumstances - it is only a "buying opportunity" in the most limited, theoretical sense that it would be for sale if someone offered a million dollars for it. (By the same token, the bids they get are vastly undermarket, from people figuring "What the heck?") There is no real buying opportunity without some further indication by the owner that the wine really is for sale - an actual asking price (such that a buyer's acceptance of the price would consummate the terms of the sale) should be the minimum.

Any other policy will make certain functions of wine-searcher totally useless. Right now, when I get a wine-searcher alert, every bottle it alerts me to is actually for sale and able to be purchased by me for the listed price. If I start getting wine-searcher alerts on theoretical vinfolio listings, they're not alerts anymore. They're just a useless message that someone, somewhere in the world owns the bottle. This would also heavily dilute the regular wine-searcher listings. I guess these issues could be avoided by adding Vinfolio to one's personal list of ignored retailers, but then that would also ignore legitimate Vinfolio listings.

I agree that listing something without an ask on it is silly.

I think Vinfolio marketplace is great, and I think that integration with CT and WS are awesome as well, but I can also tell you that I already unconciously ignore Vinfolio Marketplace results in WS results, as I have yet to see a wine that is actually for sale for less than WS-Pro low...

So, I was going to respond to the question, then I saw what Keith said…. And, ummmmmm, he kinda said what I was going to only much better. So I got nothing else to add. Keith pretty much sums it up nicely…

I completely agree with this, Keith.

In addition, and just something else to note, I've placed a number of bids that have equaled ask prices for bottles showing in VF or offsite storage that display as available in the requested quantites and have received zero response. Perhaps this is due to the sellers having entered incorrect prices, or sellers simply changing their minds when a bid is made, or maybe people are posting inventory they just don't have anymore. Kinda strange.

I just did a wine-searcher search for Clos Rougeard Le Bourg. A Vinfolio listing of the 2002 came up for $55 - hey, I'd buy at that price! I clicked on it and found out that a person had bid $55 for the wine, but the "seller's" minimum asking price was $100. This kind of thing is going to kill wine-searcher. Nothing should be listed without a BINDING asking price.

If a retailer did this repeatedly it would be grounds for getting banned from wine-searcher, wouldn't it? Vinfolio listings should be held to the same standards.

I also voted for choice no. 2 and concur with the sentiment voiced by Keith and the others. However, so long as the Vinfolio Marketplace lists wines without sellers committed to selling at particular prices, I will likely include Vinfolio Marketplace as a vendor to exclude in my WineSearcher searches. I don't have an interest in pursuing bottles that have neither been inspected nor are necessarily available for sale at a stated price. The attractiveness of the auction format disappears when the bidder doesn't know that having the high bid will buy the wine.

Ditto

Well, you know my thoughts from previous threads on this. It's a total waste of time if sellers aren't serious.

well, if that's the case, it's a wine-searcher problem not a vinfolio problem as i'm sure you're aware -- and dan posner recently posted on the very topic -- that many retailers (and it seems to be a trend) are listing entire supplier catalogs of wines without owning or even have knowledge of whether they can in fact source the wine. so that aspect already exists.

in my opinion, vinfolio marketplace and integration with cellartracker is technology that is already eons past what wine-searcher currently offers.

i'm shocked that no one else has been able to come up with a better wine-finding service. now might not be the best time to seed something like this, but it's a huge opportunity.

Keith, Winesearcher already lists other auction listings based on high bid prices (e.g., WineCommune) so this is not precedent setting for them.

Part of the premise of the Marketplace is many willing sellers are not going to bother to set prices but will react to reasonable bids. The fact is the person listing the wine for sale will be proactively notified about a bid and have an opportunity to decide to sell it. Why would they want to opt in for that if they had no interest? I'm sure there are people testing the waters too but since when would people rather have fewer choices to buy (especially when in some cases, there many be few or no other alternatives?

Price education (for both bidders and sellers) is a key issue we have heard and steps are already being taken to address it. See this thread on our forum about coming enhancements (item 1 is already live and there's more to come).

As my initial post said, the asking price itself does not constitute a firm obligation for the seller to sell. We're adding "auto-accept" rules (see prior link) to create that Buy-it-now function but the seller can always decide not to sell (even if someone bids the asking price, again by design).

On your Winesearcher alerts, your statement is not correct that every bottle you get alerted on is available to be purchased at the listed price. ALL auction prices are no different from Marketplace listings. The Winesearcher auction price shown is either a bid price, a low estimate, or a reserve -- none of which are necessarily related to the final purchase price. Generally speaking, any auction price is only a starting price. In the Vinfolio model, you can bid below the ask and the seller can choose to accept it (or someone who owns it that has not even opted in to sell his wine can).

Even Winesearcher admits the alerts issue is not relevant. You can either exclude all auction listings or simply set a minimum price of $10 or something on your alerts to screen out ones where clearly no bid or ask has been made. Note that I can find plenty of $2 and $5 auction prices on Winesearcher now where the final price is likely an order of magnitude higher. E.g., there was a $2 listing for 1985 Dom Perignon where the low retail listing was over $200.

The listings won't "dilute" Winesearcher listings as there is only 1 listing per wine that is marked for sale even if there are 20 people selling it.

The listings are also all grouped into a separate Winesearcher account called Vinfolio Marketplace to ensure Winesearcher users know when the price represents a retail price from our "wine store" and when it is an auction listing (although all auction listings are marked "AUCTION:" in capital letters before it so as not to mislead Winesearcher users). So if the Vinfolio Marketplace listings annoy you but you'd still like to get Vinfolio listings, you can block one account and not the other.

That is a show-stopper for me.

The Marketplace listing you reference (1 of only 2 total listings) clearly was marked "AUCTION" so users should know that this is only ever a minimum price based on how every other auction listing on Winesearcher is handled. According to the rule Winesearcher is supposed to be applying now, when a bid and ask is present the greater of the two should dictate the price shown (which would put it at equal to the sole $100 retail price listing). So this is either a bug in the new script they rolled out or the seller might have set the asking price today and it will be updated by Winesearcher on their next update tomorrow (it's never real time on their site).

On the question of whether only binding ask prices should be listed, this would delete ALL Winesearcher listings on Marketplace as a fundamental part of the business model is that sellers are not required to pre-commit to a price or to sell at all.

As noted already, you cannot assume with any current Winesearcher auction listing that the price means anything (because it doesn't as the starting price is not necessarily realistic, and the final selling “price” is a moving target and unknown -- unlike a retail listing).

In essence, therefore, the main benefit to Winesearcher users from auction listings is the knowledge that a wine is being offered at all for potential purchase (as you are not guaranteed to complete the purchase of any other auction either).

This is correct but, I think, the source of the problem. My view is that the price WineSearcher brings up for an auction listing is essentially meaningless because it doesn't reveal what the wine will sell for. The only value to me of the listing is to inform me that the wine is up for auction and can be acquired if I am the high bidder. I can then decide if I want to try to become the high bidder.

A WineSearcher listing of a wine available on the Vinfolio Marketplace is going to be similar in that the price listed has little or no meaning, and dissimilar in that it will not tell me if the wine listed is truly available for sale or at what price it may be acquired. I suppose that if there is a truly rare bottle that I really want to pursue, I can go through the effort of bidding and hoping that the "seller" in fact wants to sell and at a price that makes sense to me. But how many such bottles are there going to be? Not many I think.

I respect Vinfolio's business and its wine-related technology, but I think the Marketplace is not going to succeed until potential buyers know that listed wine is in fact for sale and the minimum price for which such wine might be acquired.

I'll agree with Keith and the rest. I don't want to waste my time following a link on winesearcher.com that doesn't lead to a reasonable possibility of buying the wine.

The whole point of winesearcher is to find the wine you want, to make sure it's available, and to check prices based on what's actually available. Ease and transparency are key. So adding listings that may be just theoretical bottles for sale is a waste of my time as a winesearcher user.

Bruce

Remember, the Marketplace is like a stock exchange (although a lot less liquid - no pun intended). Just because someone is trying to sell stock at an asking price doesn't mean they won't end up selling it for a lower price (perhaps a much lower price in less efficient, thinly traded stocks which is this more akin to).

Most Winesearcher prices displayed for Marketplace wines are going to be asking prices (given the rule at the moment) and those are really only ever the ceiling price because you can bid lower (why would anyone ever bid higher than the ask?). Every other auction listing on Winesearcher only ever goes up, not down. So you need to keep this in mind when looking at prices.

Chris, with regard to your bids. I just checked them.

Several of the asking prices on items you bid upon look very low and are likely mistakes. I've having Customer Service email the sellers to ask.

On another item, you bid exactly what a prior bottle sold for and there is one bottle with an ask price that matches your bid (and the prior sale value). Turns out you helped us find a bug. That one bottle is the same bottle showing in the transaction history. It got added there on bid acceptance but the available seller wine was not reduced (apparently, the seller table is currently set up to reduce available quantities after receipt and inspection when it should reduce after bid acceptance as well). So in this case, there is no current seller of that wine so nobody was notified of your bid. However, there are 17 more bottles owned by 6 others so if one of them sees that bid and likes it, he/she may decide to accept.

In general, I do not expect the Marketplace to be a clearing house for wine at a fraction of the price of alternative channels. Sellers will make mistakes in setting ask prices but most of them will probably catch themselves before hitting the final Accept Bid button. We are building tools to educate both buyers and sellers as to current pricing levels so there is complete price transparency to encourage convergence at fair market pricing for both sides. Bidders are now reminded of current market pricing in step 1 of the bidder pop-up.

Also, remember that no response can easily just mean that sellers don't like the bid. Nothing wrong with that. Sellers are perfectly entitled to ignore bids they don't want to accept. We may need to come up with some notion of acknowledging a price is unacceptable but setting an asking price they intend to accept at is really the desired response we want to encourage. A new bid notification template is already making that easier for sellers.

in my experience, wine-searcher does not meet these goals.

Several people have flagged the issue that the lack of an obligation to sell as a key one. A "reasonable possibility" of a purchase opportunity seems to be sufficient for Bruce and we certainly deliver that (at least as much as others with different business models).

Regardless of how the seller marks his wine for sale (item by item or by category or the entire cellar at once), a few things need to be kept in mind:

1. The fact is the seller has demonstrated some interest in selling by having taken a proactive step.

2. The chance of purchasing any item is a function of the bid value. Purchasing a first growth Bordeaux for 20% of current auction prices is never going to happen (either in the Marketplace or in any other auction, online or offline). If the bid price is within range of auction averages or the low end of retail pricing, the "worth the effort to bid" test will easily be met.

3. The chance of winning a bid is also a function of the number of sellers. There are 40-50 sellers of 2000 Lynch Bages representing 465 bottles of wine. Remember, only one of them has to accept your bid (for the moment, they need to have the full quantity of your bid to accept but we're changing that before the end of August so all sellers will be eligible to see any bid).

In summary, while we have not forced sellers to precommmit to sell, we have assumed economically rationale sellers who should realize they cannot expect to sell for premiums to auction or retailer alternatives. We've also aggregated sellers so a bid is not necessarily against a single seller (as in all other auctions where it is 1-to-1) but ours is a 1-to-many model where potentially multiple sellers simultaneously see the bid and compete to be first to accept. Moreover, bids are also available (not pushed to them as alerts though) to any other owner of the wine (because they could become a seller at any time).

In short, this is not an apples and apples comparison with other auction houses. Dismissing buying opportunities as "theoretical bottles" for sale is unfair and ignores the many advantages of the model in other areas.

Wine Searcher has an ignore function.

I agree with Yaacov. Wine Searcher allows numerous retailers to list "phantom" stock. The difference is that they are retailers.

Wine Searcher also allows auction houses to list their RESERVE prices on its site.

Under Vinfolio's current stance, VF Marketplace is doing neither. They are listing wines for sale at an arbitrary min price of $8 that 99% of the time ( I assume, otherwise less people would be complaining) is absolutely useless.

Current auction houses have a reserve price and use that for guidance. Marketplace should come up with a reserve price as well, otherwise it is pretty useless for many consumers, IMO.

I am not flaming anyone, nor amI bashing a retail competitor. I have great respect for Steve, Eric L and others involved on this project. I only wish it success, but I am glad that wine searcher has set some sort of guidelines for VF Market to improve upon.

Dan, you didn't read my initial post in this thread. We're not listing wines at $8 on Winesearcher. Winesearcher voluntarily originally agreed to the $8 default price as that is the minimum selling fee per bottle. They later changed their mind and now any "for sale" wine without a bid or ask is not listed on Winesearcher at all. So that is why only 10% of "for sale" wines are there and the other 90% are not currently showing (a mistake in my view, hence this thread).

The $8 is arbitrary, just as every other auction starting price is that is listed on Winesearcher. That's exactly why I said in a prior post that any auction listing is really just a notice of a possible buying opportunity just as all "for sale" listings in Marketplace are possible buying opportunities (the price shown is not relevant).

By the way, the "type" of price shown by WS varies between auction houses -- in our case, WS told us what they were willing to do so I presume they dictate it in other cases too. It is high bid for WineCommune but initial reserve for WineBid. It is low estimates for offline auction houses.

The Marketplace is delivering an unparalleled level of access to wine. The pricing guidance to buyers and sellers is based on market pricing (transaction history in the Marketplace as it grows, retail pricing and auction pricing data from WinePrices.com, plus current bid/ask pricing activity at any moment in time). Sellers who wish to declare publicly the price at which they would firmly commit to selling will be able to do so within a few weeks but that will be an option not a requirement (one which I suspect many choose to use to gain an edge having their wine sold ahead of others). Sellers who elect this option will still be able to accept bids at below their "buy it now" price.

Again, the Vinfolio Marketplace is about creating options for all parties using it. The tools exist from us and from Winesearcher to manage the data any way a user wants to do so. Given that, I find it hard to believe that users would not prefer more choices (i.e., seeing all "for sale" listings) over less choices.

"The $8 is arbitrary, just as every other auction starting price is that is listed on Winesearcher. That's exactly why I said in a prior post that any auction listing is really just a notice of a possible buying opportunity just as all "for sale" listings in Marketplace are possible buying opportunities (the price shown is not relevant)."

Steve this is just not the case. The other auction reserve prices listed on Winesearcher are binding. The reserves there are set a best attempt to determine a market floor for a wine prices. $8 accomplishes neither of these things. The price that is listed for an auctioned item on WS is either the reserve or the current bid, whichever is higher. In the auction case this represents a very good approximation of what I would have to pay to get that wine. Sure there's a chance I get outbid but generally the probability that I get the wine for the price listed on WS is very high. From personal experience I would say more than 70% of the time. My offers on wines that don't have an asking price on the Marketplace have a much, much lower probability of resulting in my receiving the wine and I don't think anyone can seriously say these two things are comparable.

It sounds like the Winesearcher team reached a similar conclusion and are doing the ask / bid whichever is higher approach which is the best option for now I think.

I would also think a positive byproduct of that change would be to motivate sellers to take the time to set asking prices (so you show up on W-S) and perhaps to set aggressive asking prices to attract Winesearcher buyers. A lot of the asking prices I see are set to Retail averages or higher. If I'm a Winesearcher user you can bet my goal is not to pay retail average for a wine, it's to pay lowest retail. I think showing users the retail average for their wine is not the best coaching. You will rarely find buyers at that price.

Charles beat me to it. Thanks.

Steve:
You asked for opinions, and I gave you mine, which I stand by - I wasn't aware you would attempt a point-by-point refutation if it wasn't the opinion you wanted to hear. You basically asked people to describe what information they want and what information they don't want, and people responded. But rather than come up with a way to deliver only the information people want, you're instead trying to convince us that we really should want the information most of us told you we don't want.

the original format of vf listings on WS was spam in my opinion. the fact that every possible wine was listed at the lowest price, only supports the unreality of the listings. a bid price should not be listed, only an ask. the site is called wine searcher, not buyer searcher. if someone wants to find a buyer go to vf.

mktplace has great potential, but defending spam/garbage data is no way to get ahead

It may be that the other auction prices on Winesearcher present a useful approximation in many cases, but as pointed out before, there are plenty of examples of $2-5 prices on wines which will ultimately sell for $100. So for any given auction price, one doesn't really know if it is "realistic" or not (or perhaps the issue is limited to certain auction houses such as WineCommune who have no reserve auctions).

I would agree that a bid on a wine without an asking price has a lower probability of a positive outcome (note our model as offsetting elements as mentioned in a prior post yesterday such as potentially multiple sellers which increases odds). Keep in mind that the very fact an offer is made sends an email notification to all sellers which is part of what gives the seller the motivation to set an asking price. So it's a bit of the "chicken and the egg" problem.

We are working on ways to make it easier for sellers to set asking prices although we want to maintain the principle that they consciously set a price which represents the actual price they would sell for (or something close enough to negotiate from). Sellers already have the ability using filtering rules to screen out notifications on low ball bids so should not be using the asking price to set a minimum threshold for considering bids.

I happen to agree with you that a retail average is not a realistic selling price for people to assume. Certainly auction averages are an excellent representation of arms length, actual transactions and those are made available on the Marketplace wine detail page on our site (and WinePrices.com). The Marketplace itself will create pricing comparables over time too. Currently, showing a low retail price is fraught with issues of outliers and potential data mismatching that we are working on. There will be a new all-encompassing price reference "widget" within another 6 weeks or so which puts all of this info at both bidders and sellers fingertips to create equal access to the same info.

If I didn't want to hear opinions, I would have never have initiated the post (or invited some of the most vocal people on this issue from the Squires board to join in the debate which I did). The feedback on this board and other boards on Marketplace issues has been an invaluable source of input into our product and model design. In fact, as a direct result of the past few weeks of debate, we are working on putting defining a customer advisory board (name TBD) to be in a better position to systematically gather just this sort of input.

My point-by-point response is partly a function of my personal style to ensure I don't let issues slip through the cracks (as a former investment banker, I was trained to note all details). But part of my response was to correct some items which were factually inaccurate (not opinions) that I would not want people to retain as correct (when they weren't).

And "yes", I have an opinion too and want to ensure all of my arguments supporting it are heard. If they don't convince you or others, then so be it. We'll adapt (as we're in business to satisfy our customers). Our own WinePrices.com site (where we haven't yet added Marketplace listings) will likely offer the alternative to see all Marketplace "for sale" wine along with third-party retail listings for those that care to see them together.

This nails it. Well said.

There were no factual inaccuracies in what I said. The fact that some other types of listings may be governed by principles similar to the principles you are urging for Vinfolio listings doesn't change the fact that applying those principles to Vinfolio listings would yield a ton of garbage data. Also, I don't accept your premise that there's no material difference between a Vinfolio listing and a true auction.

I plan on blocking the Marketplace the second I am able to do so. It will join corp wines, sokolin and others in the wasteland.

Err, are you reading? Steve has already pointed here (and a few weeks ago on eBob) that the "Vinfolio Marketplace" is listed as a separate merchant from "Vinfolio". If you are a Wine-Searcher Pro user you can block any merchant you wish to.

I will be the first to point out that Steve is a vigorous debater, but he and his team ARE LISTENING. And he is here to solicit feedback. Please also keep in mind that the Marketplace is all of 4 weeks old and is being actively improved on a daily basis to try and tighten the loop between buyers and sellers. So all we can ever ask for is your patience and firm guidance. It really, really is helpful and greatly appreciated!

No hijack, but is Corp Wines still in biz? I see Wine Searcher booted them off.

Marc, I am not defending garbage data. Remember, Winesearcher sets the rules for how wines are listed on their site and they willingly agreed to the original approach which you're defining as spam, probably because they were already providing listings to some parties on a similar basis (which everyone seems to be ignoring). E.g., view this listing of Winecommune - Wine Auction prices on Winesearcher now. Is this garbage data or spam? Or does that fact that you know it will be sold (they're "no reserve" auctions) change your view? It sure seems inconsistent to me to condone the WineCommune listings and to complain about the Marketplace listings as having misleading pricing.

My bottom line is we can live with how Marketplace is being handled by Winesearcher now and will work towards helping sellers set realistic asking prices so listings can appear on their site.

Eric, thanks for the snide remark. What about my post led you to believe I couldnt read?

I understand you have a vested interest. Still, no reason to be smarmy when responding to others opinions.

Sorry Peter. I guess I didn't understand your comment. You said you look forward to blocking this when you can. Well you CAN. And you can separately block the Marketplace without blocking Vinfolio Retail listings.

So help me understand your comment?

Eric

I think a lot of good feedback has been given. I would so far to say that this thread has run its course and everyone who participated should be banned.

Seriously, what more could Steve want? 70+% voted in a certain way.

Many disagree with Steve's assertion that VFM lists like an auction house. It most certainly does not. When it corrects that, then we can move into phase II. Till then...

Daniel, I agree, the feedback has been very clear.

One more point Steve - I imagine you'll be the first to agree that Vinfolio has invented a completely new way of selling wine (and the potential of that innovation is immense!). But because it's something new and different, that means the rules wine-searcher applies to other methods of sale might not be good to apply to Vinfolio.

Yes but working within existing rules in the short term is better than being excluded. Also, legally, the Marketplace operates under CA auction house rules. Arguably all auction listings and alternative selling channels might be handled in some different manner than how it is done today on Winesearcher (to avoid co-mingling with fixed retail prices) but that is a site design issue which takes time (and probably from Winesearcher's point of view, doesn't justify the investment given relatively few players to charge).

Thanks for the feedback.

Steve--I think we may have different ideas of what a "reasonable possibility" means. [g]

Bruce

Not sure if this is the correct thread for this Marketplace comment, but I think it would be better if the bidder were charged for the wine only AFTER the wine is received and inspected, not upon bid acceptance.

MK

What happens if the Seller ships their wine to Vinfolio at their expense, it is inspected, and then when charging the bidder the credit card fails?

Touche. All I know is I have a bill in hand from Citibank for 2,190 and nothing to show for it, not even a Premiere Cru prearrival receipt!

I would imagine you should have an email confirmation and a record of the in-process transaction in your Vinfolio account. Steve can speak much better to that than me.
As is covered in the Marketplace FAQ, the seller has 2 weeks to get the wine to Vinfolio, and inspection can then take up to a week. If in doubt, you should feel free to call or email Vinfolio customer service. They are quite good.

The difference is that Wine Commune will sell the wine to the highest bidder at the end of the auction. Hence the reason everyone is asking for the asking price to be the one listed. We don't care to waste our time bidding on wines that will not sell. You asked for the boards opinion and received it. Being argumentative after the fact does not help your case and is frankly annoying. Most people here read both boards that you have been asking for advice/advertising on. You are lucky to have been able to receive the feedback that you have. No other retailer has had the luxury to do so.

When a bid is accepted, you are sent an email listing all the details. The subject line is "Your bid was accepted." You are also able to log into your Vinfolio account at any time, go to the My Account page, and review Open Orders under Marketplace which has the details as well. Please feel free to call our Customer Service (800-969-1961) or email them at service@vinfolio.com if you need assistance.

I would love a way to give Vinfolio feedback on those bidders that make these insulting lowball bids.

See a post I wrote in our Marketplace forum called Bid Feedback: Ideas on Getting it and Giving it. This is essentially a specification for something we'd like to implement and user feedback (in the forum) is welcome.

On the topic of bid pricing, you might also want to review Preview of Marketplace Enhancements Coming Soon. Item #1 in the post went live on Friday so the current market pricing is now right next to the bid price entry field.

Impossible.

If dissatisfied, you return it for a refund.