A AuctionBot
Sign up
🦔

A small essay

A case study in how to leave money on the table.

800+ lots and no way to sort by recently added?

AND THEY KEEP ADDING LOTS THROUGH THE WEEK? AND THEY'RE NOT IN ORDER? 🤯

The economics of bad decisions

Clearly, this is a charity and they're not trying to make money with these operations.

Surely, if they actually cared about optimizing their revenue they wouldn't add lots when there's only 2 days left in the auction… right? Right?

According to auction theory (Milgrom & Weber, 1982), items need 5–7 days of exposure for optimal pricing. Items added with less than 48 hours typically sell for 20–30% less. But who needs Nobel Prize–winning economics when you have… whatever this is. 📉

💸 Money left on the table

Conservative estimate based on auction theory and observed practices.

~450
Items added late
per week
$65
Average item
value
20%
Price reduction
per research
Estimated loss per week
$5,850
Annual donation to the bad-decisions foundation™
$304,200

450 items × $65 avg × 20% reduction = $5,850/week × 52 weeks

The compound-inefficiency effect

Adding items after the auction has already begun doesn't just reduce exposure — it compounds. Every day an item is added late, it loses potential bidders, competitive discovery, and price optimization. The later it's added, the worse the outcome.

This is Economics 101: opportunity cost. But apparently that concept didn't make it into the operations manual. 🎓

The inefficiency timeline

1
Day 1 — auction opens
Initial batch listed. Many more items still waiting to be added throughout the week.
2
Days 2–4 — trickle effect
Items slowly trickle in. No way for customers to know. No notifications. No sorting.
3
Days 5–7 — maximum loss
Final items added with minimal exposure. Customers miss them. Prices suffer.

The later an item is added, the less it sells for. Not opinion — auction theory backed by decades of research.

The search-cost premium

Nobel laureate Peter Diamond (Economics, 2010) proved that when buyers spend excessive time browsing to find what they want, market efficiency collapses and prices drop. The harder you make discovery, the less money you make.

When customers have to scroll through 800+ unsorted lots, many give up. Those who persist often miss items they'd have bought. This isn't speculation — it's documented economic theory with a Nobel Prize attached. 🎖️

Current browsing experience

  • ✕800+ lots with no ability to sort by recently added
  • ✕No price sorting, no date sorting, no popularity sorting
  • ✕Primitive search that misses keywords beyond position 50 in titles
  • ✕Inconsistent categorization makes filtering unreliable

Result: willing buyers can't find what they'd pay premium for. 💸

The sniping problem

Research by Roth & Ockenfels (2002) on eBay vs Amazon auctions found that last-minute bidding ("sniping") reduces final prices by 7–12% because it prevents competitive bidding wars.

When you add items with 24–48 hours left, you're forcing every bid to be a snipe. No time for bidding wars. No competitive discovery. Just less money. 🏷️

The solution

Less scrolling = 🚀 to the 🌕

(Also: maybe list all items on Day 1? Just a thought.)

Disclaimer: No economics PhDs were harmed in the making of this page.

All economic principles cited are real. Revenue-loss calculations are conservative estimates based on published research.

Pointing out inefficiency > watching money vanish.