More on The Auction Squirrel

I don't know what happened but The Auction Squirrel doesn't have any live auctions right now. They ended all auctions last night and then earlier today posted a message on the site that said they were switching to a new server. After a period of down time they are now back, but still with no live auctions. I spoke with two people yesterday who said they won items on The Squirrel, and for extremely low prices, which makes me think they have no shill bidders. However, I don't know what the lack of auctions means.

The Squirrel, which opened for business on Wednesday, has sold 92 items so far with a total cost to the site of approximately $3,400 (assuming they buy at retail and bidpacks cost nothing) and collected about $39 in auction fees. Since all Auction Squirrel auctions are of the 1 cent variety this means about 3900 bids were cast. Each Auction Squirrel bid costs $0.80 (slightly less if larger bidpacks are purchased), meaning The Squirrel collected at most about $3120 (rounding). Total bids + auction fees = $3159. However, I believe The Squirrel made much less than this because it gave away three free bids to every new user and because about 1/3 of all auctions were for bidpacks, meaning many placed bids were actually won not purchased. Based on these calculations I expect the site made very little money from bidpack sales, maybe $1000.

If my assumptions are correct, The Squirrel took a hit of over $2,000 from their first two days in operation. Given that they paid $800 for the SwoopoClone software, maybe $80 for a month of hosting + domain registration and $20 for the Squirrel graphic, that would bring total costs to date to $4,300 on revenues of $1,039 ($39 from auctions and $1000 from bids).

As I have previously stated, there are two major problems with penny auctions. 1) They can easily cheat you by using shill bidders and 2) They could go out of business and never send you any of your winnings or refund your money. The Auction Squirrel falls into the second category. If The Squirrel folded up shop today and never came back there is nothing anybody could do about it. No one is going to sue the owner of the Squirrel for a $300 XBox 360 (the most expensive item sold), which means the owner of The Squirrel could simply walk away today. Of course they would suffer a loss of $800 spent on software and maybe $100 on other miscellaneous things.

The real question is whether the owner of the Squirrel thinks they can turn their losses these first two days into a sustainable profit going forward. After all, the sunk cost fallacy applies to auction players as well as site owners.
Read more!

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Penny auction critics say these auctions exploit the sunk cost fallacy, ie "throwing good money after bad." I don't know if the average user experiences the pitfalls of sunk cost (irrational) psychology, but Zorro2612 certainly did in this recent auction over at Swoopo. This user spent $108 on bids and $155.40 on this iPod Nano worth $199 retail. Swoopo gives users a hand by automatically calculating their savings on an auction (retail price - (bids +cost)). Too bad this calculator only goes to $0 because you can have negative savings, they're called losses. Zorro2612 had savings of $199-$155.4-$108 = -$64.4. Didn't exactly slash a bargain now did we Zorro?

Here is what I bet Zorro was thinking:

Aye corrumba, i've already spent $100 on this auction, now I have to win it no matter what. If I back-off now, I'll have wasted that $100.

The problem with thinking about sunk costs this way is that it leads to irrational decision making. Having "sunk" $100 worth of bids into an auction does not make you more likely to win, therefore Zorro would have been best off to walk away after his total money spent on bids + cost of the item passed the retail price of the iPod. However, he did not do that, and in this case did end up winning the auction. Note that the outcome he received ie paying $263.4 for an iPod (including bids) is a better outcome than walking away at say $90 in bids and then buying the iPod at the street price of $199. However, when he made the decision to "go for it, all or nothing," there was no way of knowing he would be the winner. There very well could have been only one competitor on that auction who's strategy was also "go for it, all or nothing," and who got nothing. Zorro could have easily been out $200 with no iPod, instead of out $90 with no iPod as in the hypothetical situation I construct here.

To maximize value in all things; cars; houses; investments; penny auctions, users need to ignore sunk costs. As many critics point out, this seems especially hard to do in penny auctions, institutional investors (who I'll assume to be more sophisticated, but perhaps undeserving of the distinction) are known to be more likely to sell portfolio holdings that have appreciated in value by a certain amount to "take some profit," then they are to sell holdings that have declined in value by a similar amount, which they should do to minimize downside risk if the same standard of logic is to be applied evenly. This comes from a field called behavioral finance, which I find to have much in common with penny auctions, and is part of what initially drew and continues to hold my interest in these types of auctions.

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!