Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | cosmicray  | | Posted: | May 29, 2020 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Retail Pricing | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Packers5212 writes:
| | It would be be nice to be able to see the original retail price on the Lego sets.
Thanks
|
What you need to understand is that there is no one retail price. Whatever price
is displayed, even if it were correct in most stores, will not be correct at
all sales locations.
To give you a classic example, the NBA collector sets (issued 2003) were sold
for $6.99 in most stores, but sold for $7.99 at WalMart. When the normal outlets
finished their shelf run, Dollar General sold them for $1 each. So there were
many starting prices that year.
Nita Rae
|
 |
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | May 29, 2020 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Retail Pricing | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Packers5212 writes:
| | It would be be nice to be able to see the original retail price on the Lego sets.
Thanks
|
why?
My vote is no, sorry.
|
| Author: | Dino1 | | Posted: | May 29, 2020 07:33 | | Subject: | Re: Retail Pricing | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Packers5212 writes:
| | It would be be nice to be able to see the original retail price on the Lego sets.
Thanks
|
Which original sales prices do you want to know?
The US Dollar, Euro, German Mark, French France, Belgian France, Dutch Guilder,
British 'Pound, Italian Lire, Swiss Franc, Australian Dollar, Japanese Yen,
Brazilian Real, or another of the many other currencies?
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 23:20 | | Subject: | Re: Retail Pricing | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Packers5212 writes:
| | It would be be nice to be able to see the original retail price on the Lego sets.
Thanks
|
This idea was already tried here and it bombed in spectacular fashion. If you
want that information, try Brickset.
Cheers,
Randy
|
| Author: | Packers5212 | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 22:38 | | Subject: | Retail Pricing | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It would be be nice to be able to see the original retail price on the Lego sets.
Thanks
|
| Author: | CaseyAF | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 02:52 | | Subject: | Re: Option to update all stock prices | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I've heard of that, it would be nice if bricklink added in the option too,
they already have the sale options and increase/decrease price option so I dont
think it would be too much work to add in this as well. It would help keep everything
central instead of going here there and everywhere.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 21:17 | | Subject: | Re: Comments during instant Checkout | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| |
By the way, I see that Bricklink's descriptions are a bit off and need improvement
"Purchase Confirmation: Sent to a buyer who made a purchase with Instant Checkout"
Not true, only when it is paid onsite. Otherwise it is not sent.
"Order Invoice: Sent to a buyer who you issued an invoice to"
...or sent instantly by Instant Checkout, unless the order is paid onsite.
|
I reported the typo and the poor grammar on that page to BrickLink for 6 months
before I gave up. Even rewrote the whole thing correctly for them. No one was
interested.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 20:17 | | Subject: | Re: Stop marking incomplete sets as complete | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Roman.Colombo writes:
| | This gets really annoying. A seller will list something as complete, and then
in the description say "Doesn't include Minifigures," or certain parts. That's
not what complete means.
|
100% agree. I started coming here looking for some kits and found that you really
need to read the descriptions to be sure. If you are going to open kits to pull
figs, then you are selling incomplete, I don't care if you have the box and
the rest of the bags factory sealed.
|
|
| Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Tracyd writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
|
Agreed, it would require a change to the rules, was just citing my recommendation...
| |
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
|
Not at the national level, it may be the case in certain states, but not that
I've ever seen... In fact, almost every place I've traveled, there are
businesses you can walk in to and there are no prices posted at all...
| |
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices. I didn't mention it before, but it is unlikely that a business
will get even quantities, or maintain even quantities, and so when management
sees that an item has declined below the advertised lot quantity, they should
either strike the advertisement, or if there is an actual quantity discount,
offer the product at that cost savings.
James
|
When I open my store it will be buy 2 get 2 more for the price of 5. And if
I don't have the quantities for that it will be buy 1 at full price get the
second for full price. I guarantee I will sell more multiples than singles.
Tracyd
|
And will you be having a Grand Opening sale when the first 100 buyers can get
a -25% discount?
Sign me up... 
|
|
| Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | But transparency isn’t the silver bullet.
|
So true, there are no real silver bullets, at least not that I've ever found...
| | In France, showing prices is an obligation (and “TTC” all taxes included, too,
so the 20% VAT is invisible), and price per volume or weight too.
That doesn’t prevent stores (or brands or whoever defines the prices) to sell
“more for more”: some “family” packs are more expensive than singles or smaller
packs.
|
...I'm tracking with you...
| | So I always check the price/qty.
|
...we're old enough to know better, but...
| |
Some people have trouble understanding prices are free, that’s why I often quote
a pair of “mock commercials” from (very) old French comedians (they ran a parodic
newspaper and a radio show):
“A metallized corkscrew, 3 Francs 20” and then, “The same but more expensive,
5 F 30.”
People sometimes laugh but without getting that it actually works that way IRL.
You can easily find this type of things: a “premium” version that has everything
the “basic” version has and nothing more! and there’s still people to
buy it, and be happy with it
|
...precisely.
And toward that end, if the system used to autonomously "hide" tiers when appropriate,
I'm certainly okay with that, it's a way to strike the advert, but I
think store owners should have the option to configure their stores according
to their own business and marketing strategies?
|
|
| Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | 1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
|
Sure, I have no issue with price tiers. They make sense if it helps sell a lot
of the same items. The thing I think weird is ...
| | 2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
... this. Sellers shouldn't tell a buyer they can buy 10 for a discount if
they only have 9.
It would be simple for BL to remove the tiered pricing from the buyer's view
when it cannot be met, even though it stays in the seller's inventory. Better
still would be a warning in the inventory page that highlights the issue to a
sell, so they can either reduce the number needing to be purchased in a tier
or increase stock numbers if they can fulfill it.
|
Agreed, I'm not advocating for any particular change, just bringing a different
perspective.
Solid conversation, good points by all.
James
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices.
|
Of course.
But transparency isn’t the silver bullet.
In France, showing prices is an obligation (and “TTC” all taxes included, too,
so the 20% VAT is invisible), and price per volume or weight too.
That doesn’t prevent stores (or brands or whoever defines the prices) to sell
“more for more”: some “family” packs are more expensive than singles or smaller
packs.
So I always check the price/qty.
Some people have trouble understanding prices are free, that’s why I often quote
a pair of “mock commercials” from (very) old French comedians (they ran a parodic
newspaper and a radio show):
“A metallized corkscrew, 3 Francs 20” and then, “The same but more expensive,
5 F 30.”
People sometimes laugh but without getting that it actually works that way IRL.
You can easily find this type of things: a “premium” version that has everything
the “basic” version has and nothing more! and there’s still people to
buy it, and be happy with it
|
|
| Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:09 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
|
Agreed, it would require a change to the rules, was just citing my recommendation...
| |
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
|
Not at the national level, it may be the case in certain states, but not that
I've ever seen... In fact, almost every place I've traveled, there are
businesses you can walk in to and there are no prices posted at all...
| |
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices. I didn't mention it before, but it is unlikely that a business
will get even quantities, or maintain even quantities, and so when management
sees that an item has declined below the advertised lot quantity, they should
either strike the advertisement, or if there is an actual quantity discount,
offer the product at that cost savings.
James
|
When I open my store it will be buy 2 get 2 more for the price of 5. And if
I don't have the quantities for that it will be buy 1 at full price get the
second for full price. I guarantee I will sell more multiples than singles.
Tracyd
|
|
| Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
|
Agreed, it would require a change to the rules, was just citing my recommendation...
| |
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
|
Not at the national level, it may be the case in certain states, but not that
I've ever seen... In fact, almost every place I've traveled, there are
businesses you can walk in to and there are no prices posted at all...
| |
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices. I didn't mention it before, but it is unlikely that a business
will get even quantities, or maintain even quantities, and so when management
sees that an item has declined below the advertised lot quantity, they should
either strike the advertisement, or if there is an actual quantity discount,
offer the product at that cost savings.
James
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 10:08 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | 1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
|
Sure, I have no issue with price tiers. They make sense if it helps sell a lot
of the same items. The thing I think weird is ...
| | 2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
... this. Sellers shouldn't tell a buyer they can buy 10 for a discount if
they only have 9.
It would be simple for BL to remove the tiered pricing from the buyer's view
when it cannot be met, even though it stays in the seller's inventory. Better
still would be a warning in the inventory page that highlights the issue to a
sell, so they can either reduce the number needing to be purchased in a tier
or increase stock numbers if they can fulfill it.
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:44 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
It's worth mentioning that some stores like myself don't list all our
stock at any one time so being able to see the tiered pricing may prompt the
buyer to ask the seller about their stock situation which could result in one
of two things....
It could prompt the seller to adjust their stock allowing the buyer to proceed
at discounted pricing or it could mean that the seller decides to adjust the
bulk quantity down to whatevers left in stock in order to help the buyer out
and get rid of their remaining stock i.e if tiered price is 20x and seller only
has 18x left they may choose to make 18x the new bulk price so if it prompts
buyers to question bulk quantity discrepansies it probably helps to do more good
than harm
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:01 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
|
| Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Unless BL isn't functioning properly, one should be able to buy the full
quantity available regardless of the "multiples of" feature.
In other words, you should be able to buy all nine, though I'm not 100% sure
what would happen if you tried to buy 8. My guess would be that the system might
block that quantity.
| | Or the one that gets me... sell in quantities of 10. 9 remaining. Can’t buy what
I’m there for.
|
|
|
| Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 21:20 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jbroman writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
Or the one that gets me... sell in quantities of 10. 9 remaining. Can’t buy what
I’m there for.
|
I agree that this can be confusing for buyers, here's my $.002 worth:
1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
3. Regarding 9 of 10, I have found that I can order the remaining stock without
issue, not sure if this a seller enabled feature, but I've not had an issue,
just some early on confusion. Not sure if this is mentioned in the seller's
store "Terms" or BL "Help", I just decided to try and wasn't rejected; and
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each". This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
James
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 13:17 | | Subject: | Re: Disable Buyer's Ability to mark order Paid | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BasKrie writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, BasKrie writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, SezaR writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, SezaR writes:
| | In Suggestions, sparesleftovers writes:
| | In Suggestions, SezaR writes:
| | | | - Buyer placed an order and made a payment without getting an invoice
|
Hmmmm, so the buyer paid (via PayPal offsite) without getting an invoice? How?
How was he even able to pay you?
|
He used the email address of my store, which is the wrong address anyway.
|
Yes great! That is what I did too, because one buyer paid a wrong amount (ex.
$50 Canadian dollars instead of $50 American dollars) another buyer decided to
pay via friends and family,...
I changed the email of my PayPal and now buyers cannot mess up with payment.
|
They can't? When they send it, isn't it up to you to figure out how to
collect it?
|
No it is not! If they send it to a wrong email address, I would not even get
any notification that they paid. So I send them a remiander to pay and if buyer
says he paid, I would request more information....and then explain that they
were supposed to pay via PayPal onsite as instructed and this is the only payment
method I accept. I believe mostly would understand their mistake but if they
insist, NPB is upon them 
|
Well seems the system works differently here... it's kind of up to the seller
to figure out how to claim it. If the alias system would work properly that would
be no problem, but right now I don't know how to fix this.
|
Why is it up to the seller to figure it out?
Buyer sends to an incorrect address, nothing the seller can do about that. The
buyer should contact PayPal about it.
When payment is done to an address that PayPal doesn't know, a mail is send
to that address from PayPal and the receiver can open up an account with PayPal
and claim the money. When the address doesn't exist the mail with bounce,
but PayPal doesn't do anything with that. Only after the money hasn't
been claimed for a period of time (that can be the 2 months mentioned below)
it will be returned to the sender of the money.
|
Well, that's pretty much what I mean. It does not bounce if the address exists.
So the seller will either need to figure out a way to claim it, ask the buyer
to cancel it, or wait 2 months and then instruct the buyer to send it again.
There are no other options for the seller, the only way to turn down the payment
is by not claiming it, which takes 2 months. I guess you're right you could
consider it the buyer's problem, but I just don't like it....... It is
a clumsy situation because I want to provide service and don't like taking
my customers' time with requests. Especially if that involves them having
to contact PayPal customer support which is a pretty tedious process because
they've hidden themselves pretty well. I rather do such things myself.
| | And why wait for it to bounce? Buyer could
have send the money to the correct address right away. It's the buyers choice
to wait, no obligtion.
|
Well, I don't know what it looks like from their side. I've had a buyer
refuse to do that in the past because they didn't know how to cancel it and
I could not help either. They did not want to send it a second time before the
first one returned to them (which makes sense), so the only option left was to
wait.
Right now I just hope that I can add the alias email address to my account once
their "problems" are over. As long as PayPal doesn't provide any kind of
"refuse" button, that seems to be the only viable option for avoiding these situations.
|
If they have sent it to a mail address you also use, then I can imagine they
won't send it a second time. But still, it's their problem, not yours,
from PayPal's point of view, you are not even part of the transaction, so
you can't do anything to get it corected.
Same if the buyer paid to the wrong IBAN account, only the buyer and IBAN account
holder can do anything.
I agree that you want to provide service, but you can only do that for the things
that you have some control over. And buyers sending money to incorrect places
isn't that
|
Well, I got some instructions from support and now it's fixed, I managed
to add the email address as an alias The reason it didn't work is that
apparently I have sent that address (myself) a payment request (probably someone
asked me to use that feature and I wanted to test it). I had go over my activity
history and cancel the request before I could add it. Seems it's a rare enough
situation for PayPal to not have a scenario or an error message for this
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Florida
Luxembourg
New Zealand, Auckland
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Utrecht