Case Study: The Auction Squirrel needs to go cash flow positive

This is part of an ongoing examination of The Auction Squirrel, a penny auction site I decided, almost at random, to analyze on Penny Auction Insider.

The Auction Squirrel has been bustling along for a while now after launching last Wednesday and now has 202 ended auctions. As a new site, The Auction Squirrel suffers from two problems, 1. convincing users that it can be trusted and 2. getting enough traffic to make the business cash flow positive.

I have been informed The Squirrel is not shill bidding and quickly shipping won items. Most people who are bidding at the site probably know this, meaning they will become repeat customers. Since I've been informed of this by a credible source, I am willing to confirm the legitimacy of The Squirrel on this blog, meaning my readers should feel comfortable bidding on the site also. This helps to solve problem 1 above.

For problem 2 - getting enough traffic - The Squirrel is clearly struggling. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they've only been live for a week, however by looking at ended auctions anyone can see that most items don't have much bidding competition and are selling at a loss for The Squirrel. To solve this problem, I think The Squirrel is going to have to think outside the nut shell. If The Squirrel goes the way of Bidcactus - that is to be really good at being average while spending thousands per day on AdWords - then they're going to struggle. There are already a half dozen good penny auction sites with significant traffic and positive reputations with bidders. The Squirrel is either going to have to take significant, month after month losses from ad spending to get site traffic, find a way to differentiate its self, or be content with coasting along staying cash flow neutral (if it's lucky).

I doubt The Squirrel has the cash reserves to start a massive AdSense campaign, most penny auction sites don't. Competing with the big guys is not a good strategy for The Squirrel, they need to find a way to differentiate themselves. My next Squirrel post will address this issue, but I should say upfront, I certainly don't have all the answers.
Read more!

Sunk cost

Remember The Sting? There's a scene where Robert Redford eyes his nemesis, Robert Shaw, from a distance. "He's not as smart as he thinks he is," Redford says to buddy Paul Newman. Newman retorts, "Neither are we."

Washington Post columnist Mark Gimein isn't as smart as he thinks he is. Here's what he says about us poor fools who bid on penny auctions:

What makes [penny auctions] so fiendishly compelling is the tendency of people to think of the bids that they have already put in as a "sunk cost" -- money that they have already put toward buying the item. This is an illusion. The fact that you have already bid 200 times does not mean that your chance of winning on the 201st bid is any higher than it was at the very beginning.

That's a good story, but it isn't true. The money a bidder has already put into an auction is submerged, but not sunk. It served two purposes: first, it drove up the price of the auction, making it less attractive to other bidders. Second, and arguably more important, it demonstrated the bidder's seriousness. "Sure," you are telling the world, "you could jump in and overbid me, but you're just wasting your money. I'm here to win."

I'd like to play poker against Mr. Gimein. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

Of course, neither am I.
Read more!

Something for nothing, nothing for something

Like my co-blogger, I'm a big fan of Penny Auction Watch, and like him, I was amused by the win of a Honda Insight for $1.24. Amused but a little dismayed.

The truth is, a penny-auction site makes money so long as the average product goes for 2% of the the purchase price (given the usual arrangement of a 50¢ bid and a 1¢ increment). That is not a very high bar and it's bad for everybody (except the winner) when a site can't maintain even that standard. First of all, it sets up unrealistic expectation in unsophisticated users, and a more-realistic skepticism in the sophisticated ones.

Second, if a site gets itself into financial jeopardy (as the aptly named Rocky Bid seems likely to do), its investors might very well pull the plug. When that plug gets pulled, what do you think the people who have bought big bid-packs will get? Let's not always see the same hands. That's right, Bobby: nothing. Bupkis, zip, nada, niente. And that's bad for all penny auctions and all penny-auction bidders.

And I wonder what's going to happen in with this auction of Michael Jackson tickets. I'm guessing that the King of Ped-- oops, I mean the King of Pop, I'm guessing that the King of Pop is not going appear, so: does the winner get his bids back? Do all the other participants get their bids back? What about people who bought bid-packs just so they could participate?

Probably, the bidder who paid $8.59 for a pair of tickets worth $12,000 is not going just accept his money back. If I were him, I would be all about, "Give me the $12,000 refund that the auction house is getting from the promoter!"

Otherwise, some lawyers are going to be getting rich.
Read more!