Profitable Until Deemed Illegal

December 11, 2008

I was fascinated to discover the auction hybrid site swoopo.com (previously known as telebid.com). It's a strange combination of eBay, woot, and slot machine. Here's how it works:

  • You purchase bids in pre-packaged blocks of at least 30. Each bid costs you 75 cents, with no volume discount.
  • Each bid raises the purchase price by 15 cents and increases the auction time by 15 seconds.
  • Once the auction ends, you pay the final price.

I just watched an 8GB Apple iPod Touch sell on swoopo for $187.65. The final price means a total of 1,251 bids were placed for this item, costing bidders a grand total of $938.25.

So that $229 item ultimately sold for $1,125.90.

But that one final bidder got a great deal, right? Maybe. Even when you win, you can lose. Remember that each bid costs you 75 cents, while only increasing the price of the item 15 cents. If you bid too many times on an item -- or if you use the site's "helpful" automated BidButler service, which bids on your behalf -- you'll end up paying the purchase price in bids alone. For this item, if you bid more than 305 times, you've paid the purchase price -- and only raised the cost of the item by $45.75 total.

OK, so bidding a lot is a bad idea, so maybe we only bid one time, or a few times, and near the end of the auction? Great plan, except the auction is extended 15 seconds each and every time someone bids in those final seconds. There are absolute end dates for the auctions, but they're usually so far in the future that the auction will end through attrition long before they reach their end date. I've often wondered if eBay would implement this feature, as it would effectively end last second sniping, a huge problem for auction sites. Well, beyond the obvious problem with auctions, which is that the most optimistic person sets the price for everyone else.

There's something else at work here, though, and it's almost an exploit of human nature itself. Once you've bid on something a few times, you now have a vested financial interest in that product, a product someone else could end up winning, rendering your investment moot. This often leads to irrational decisionmaking -- something called the endowment effect, which has even been observed in chimpanzees. So instead of doing the rational thing and walking away from a bad investment, you pour more money in, sending good money after bad.

It's pretty clear to me that swoopo isn't an auction site. It bills itself as "entertainment shopping". I think it is in fact a lottery; the only way to win here is sheer dumb luck.

Or, of course, by not playing at all.

wargames-quote-not-to-play.jpg

But wait -- it gets worse! Swoopo also offers

  • Penny auctions, where each bid only increases the price of the final item by 1 cent, while still costing you 75 cents.
  • FreeBids auctions, where the item up for grabs is Swoopo bids. Near as I can tell, this is swoopo printing their own money.
  • 100% off auctions, where the "winner" (and I use this term loosely) pays nothing for the final item, regardless of what the final price is bid up to. Imagine the bidding frenzy on this one at 75 cents a pop.
  • Cash auctions, where you win actual real money at the end. It's like they're not even trying to pretend they don't run a gambling site with these.

It's not clear that Swoopo even has the items they auction; they appear to sell first, then use the money they gain from the completed auction to buy and ship the item. Furthermore, they have a clause in their Help under Delivery and Shipping that lets them ship "equivalent" items:

On rare occasions we are no longer able to source the specific item detailed in the auction. When this happens, we will contact you and offer to send you an equivalent item of at least equal value. Many of the products we sell are high-technology items that have a short life-cycle, so often this will mean an upgrade to the newer version of the item.

There are also rumblings that swoopo silently pits users from the different territory websites against each other in individual auctions, such that UK users are unwittingly bidding against US users. This is done to ensure that there is around the clock bidding to extend auction end dates as long as possible.

In short, swoopo is about as close to pure, distilled evil in a business plan as I've ever seen. They get paid for everything up front, and as they drop ship everything there's no inventory or overhead to worry about. It is almost brilliantly evil, in a sort of evil genius way. You can't stop people from endowment effect fueled bidding when they have the individual chance, however small it may be, to win a $2,000 television for $80 -- while collectively sending the house $10,000 or more.

My admiration stops short of sites that prey on the weak and the uneducated -- and of business plans that are almost certainly illegal, at least here in the US.

As always, caveat emptor.

Posted by Jeff Atwood
331 Comments

If it wasn't illegal directly, it would be illegal to do this without a gambling license in the U.K.

philluminati on December 13, 2008 6:43 AM

A coworker of mine has actually fallen victim to this site. Snapping up his 8GB iPod Nano for a mear $120, but he had bid over 100 times.

And it's not that he isn't intelligent, but he is foreign.

I used to think puppy killers were evil... but no longer...

Jeremy on December 13, 2008 7:01 AM

great post!!!

rishi on December 13, 2008 7:23 AM

Ingenious, yes. Sleazy, looks like it.

But in the larger scheme of the world, our politicians, waste of tax dollars, lies we tolerate and so forth, this is very small.

Steve on December 13, 2008 7:37 AM

How sad. It's people's own greed pulling them down... if EVERYONE would just get together and stop fighting to win. We could put this immoral site out of business by getting them to sell most products for under a buck. Unfortunately, as we see, greed is a powerful thing.

Justin on December 13, 2008 8:22 AM

Nice to see user CaC03 biding the price up to over $1000 for a Pharos PTL600 GPS Phone on swoopo.com (Auction ID: 127325) and at the same time pushing an Apple iPhone 3G 8GB to over 500 on swoopo.co.uk (Auction ID: 127325)

No hint of anything amiss of course just a coincidence of course!

JCL on December 13, 2008 8:27 AM

You'd have to be very gullible (and there are a lot of gullible people out there) to fall for swoopo.

First question is, why should you (or would you) pay the store to shop there? If you have to pay to play, you are gambling not shopping.

As a business model, combination of gambling and shopping is brilliant but it is no different than lose weight fast and get rich fast industry.

It just goes to show how many morons can afford a computer today and have nothing better to do with their time but to sit on their fat butts and gamble from comfort of their own home.

BugFree on December 13, 2008 9:39 AM

To those claiming this is not based on chance:

It is based on unknowable variables. If this is deterministic, then so is a coin flip or a roulette wheel- both are based on physics.

Dylan on December 13, 2008 9:46 AM

So, you think capitalism is evil?

What's wrong with a business model centered on making money?


Foobar on December 13, 2008 9:59 AM

To those claiming this is based on chance, go back to school and take that probability course again.

Unknown variables is NOT chance.

A game of chance is where the same action can result in different results. A coin flip returns two different results with equal probability. A roulette wheel has more results with lower probabilities.

Swoopo is NOT a game of chance. It is merely competition with money tied into it. There is only one action: pay and play. It always results in the same result: increase by 0.15 cents. There are no other possible results!

Colin on December 13, 2008 10:05 AM

Another spooky website that does exactly the same rubbish: http://www.madbid.com , apparently registered in the UK. I wonder if this stuff is legal here.

Jerome on December 13, 2008 10:17 AM

This is an awesome site, an awesome real-life study in game theory, and it would be criminal to force it to shut down. (Does your condemnation extend to state lotteries?)

I've always wanted to run a dollar auction in real life. Here's something that did happen in real life, and I wish I could find a reference to it to back me up:

A magazine (Money?) offered a contest that you'd enter by writing down a number. The prize went to the highest number. The prize was a million dollars divided by the sum of all submitted numbers.

Obviously they were at no real risk, but it was interesting that they got entries which, even if they were the only entry in the contest, would have invalidated the prize. Like 3x5 cards covered with small-font 9's.

Trav on December 13, 2008 10:24 AM

Of course, they can be losing money on 70% of the auctions and still be Making Money Fast, just so long as they lose small when they lose and win big when they win.

Just another Mathematics Tax.

-----sharks

sharks on December 13, 2008 10:28 AM

Good grief!
http://www.swoopo.com/auction/ds-nintendo-ds-lite-black/129451.html

Savings:
Worth up to: $129.99
Placed bids (220): $165.00
FreeBids (0): $0.00
Final price: $94.80
Savings: $0.00

David on December 13, 2008 10:37 AM

Online gambling is illegal in the US and this is definitely what Swapoo or other lowest unique bid auctions are (even if not yet busted by the authorities).

To be considered online gambling, you need 3 criterias:

1) A consideration. Here you pay to bid. It is like purchasing a lottery ticket and you are most likely to get nothing in exchange but 1 chance out of N to win.

2) A game of chance, which will determine who the winner is. While some may argue that bidding requires some skills and determinism, many states actually don't make any difference in their online gambling definition between skilled games and chance games. (Poker requires skills).

3) A Prize or the ability to win something of value. (or get nothing but wasting time and money).

This should be regulated as any other gambling business and not allowed to spread on greed and foolishness.

Many will pay to learn and eventually too much scam will kill this scam until a new variation or evolution of the scam comes around for new and fresh victims or short minded people.

Most scams are based on smart and sleek mechanisms. It does not make them right.

It reminds me of the guy that placed an ad in the news paper with:

How to become a millionaire?
Send 0.99 cents to receive the incredible secret. Success guaranteed or your money back.

I sent the 99 cents and received a letter saying: Just do like me! :-)


By the way, the stock market could fit the definition but at least it is supposed to be regulated. You pay, You Play and most of the time you loose.


Rick Marcus on December 13, 2008 10:42 AM

Wow, this site must be crazily profitable. After reading your article I decided to watch a couple of auctions while I ate lunch. I watched a $130 Nintendo DS gross them $186.30. Which was a pretty impressive profit, but paled into comparison as I watched one of the freebid auctions. The concept of 100% off auctions is simply brilliant on their part, there's no cap to the bidding. In about 30 minutes of watching the auction of 50 bids (worth 37.50) it has been under a minute to go the whole time. It finally sold at a bid of $125.40, meaning people had spent $627, a profit of 1672%. Furthermore I saw an auction for $80 cash, that had brought in over 800.....These guys must have become millionaires in the first month, off of simple human greed and stupidity.

Dan on December 13, 2008 11:18 AM

The key difference between being a lottery and being an auction is that in a lottery system you cannot guarantee yourself a win, no matter what you do or how many tickets you buy. Here, to guarantee a win, you simply keep bidding til everyone else stops. This may increase the price of the product beyond what you had hoped, but you ultimately have the final say as to whether or not you will stop bidding. This means that there is no chance involved in the process - unless, of course, you consider auctions lotteries as well.

Dan G. on December 13, 2008 11:22 AM

I see it like a carnival game. In a carnival game, you pay $1 and get three balls. With these three balls you have to knock down 3 pins off a pedestal. If you succeed, you win an item that is worth far more than $1.

If you check the catalogs, should be a internet site also, you will find that the standard carnival prizes cost less then the $1, or whatever they are charging for the game. The ones that allow you to trade up are of less value then the min number of items you would need to trade up with.

will dieterich on December 13, 2008 11:42 AM

What they are doing is illegal in most (all?) of the US.

The three elements that qualify it as an illegal lottery are all present. Chance. Prize. Consideration.

You pay to bid = Consideration
You may not win = Chance
You are bidding for an item = Prize

This isn't even close to a grey area, it's just illegal.

Scott on December 13, 2008 12:21 PM

I mainly saw swoopo's ads on gmail. I got intrigued by the ad and clicked on it.

of course swoopo is too good to be true.
just search for swoopo scam, you'd see tons of complains

kai on December 13, 2008 12:25 PM

Sligthly off topic: Last second bidding is NOT a problem. It's a solution, and the problem is sellers trying to up the price by fake proxy bids. This is *extremely* common on eBay. In fact, it seems more common than not in my experience.

I haven't bought anything in a long time of eBay, but I would not do it without a sniper software. In fact, I think eBay should introduce this as a service in their site.

Lennart Regebro on December 14, 2008 1:02 AM

Let's put the two threads here together: 1) quick seat-of-the-pants calculations tell us that swoopo is making an insane amount of money, and 2) swoopo is rigging the game by including not-real bids in the process.

I think swoopo is making money off of this, but not nearly as much as it seems from the alleged activity on the site, since much of that activity is almost certainly fake. There does exist some number of people out there that are so stupid that they dump their money into this hole, but that number is mercifully not as large as it seems when you look at swoopo.

MusiGenesis on December 14, 2008 1:15 AM

There's a ton of these sites in Sweden at the moment. Several of them have been running for more than a year, taking out ads in TV and papers. There's been talk about trying to shut them down over legal issues, but so far nothing. And no doubt, they're making a TON of money.

David on December 14, 2008 1:50 AM

I wonder how long will it takes before people realize they are wasting their time and money.

Still, it is an awesome idea.

Vu Nguyen on December 14, 2008 1:53 AM

In theory, some competitor will emerge with better terms, like 50 cent bids. This will repeat until some economic break-even point is reached.

Let's see how long this takes...

Mark on December 14, 2008 3:04 AM

ok, so you pay for your bids, and then you pay the final price?
Why would anyone ever do that? At least with a lottery you know, what you're paying and you only pay it once, and then you win what you win... with this thing even when you win, you still have to pay.

Mark on December 14, 2008 3:26 AM

If people are actually falling for this, then I think I'll start charging admission to the box office at the movie theater

Mark on December 14, 2008 3:28 AM

i'm systematically stuffing grapenuts cereal into the head of my erect penis. i'm going to attempt to jack off, have my load mix with the grapenuts, and shoot a granola bar out when i cum

Douglas on December 14, 2008 3:48 AM

I think the best entertainment value of this show is for the person who knows what a ripoff it is, and just watches other people fall victim, sorta like a bar with a VIP room on the other side of a one way mirror (or whatever those cop-interogation-room mirrors are called) You get to watch other people pick things out of their teeth and fix their boobs...

Frank on December 14, 2008 3:56 AM

My lord -- they did implement the dollar auction.

They will actually sell off $1000.

Bill on December 14, 2008 4:20 AM

I found this a couple days back and thought to myself wow, what an incredible idea. The fact of the matter is that you're unlikely to win, but if you pick your auctions right and get lucky, you can get some great deals. I notice you're not too familiar with the site, as I spent a mere ten minutes reading through their FAQ and yet I'm able to spot several bunches of half-truths or even blatant misinformation in your article. For one, the extension time isn't 15 seconds. It starts at twenty, and at certain points (in either time or bid amount-- I'm not sure which), it decreases by five second intervals to a minimum of ten. Additionally, I've yet to see a Free Bid Voucher auction that wasn't a 100% off auction. As in, it's free if you win. Your whole they're printing their own money thing is absolutely bullshit. Have you never bought a gift card? Is Target printing their own money? This business plan is considerably less evil than any casino or lottery that has ever existed, namely because your chances of winning are more than likely in the whole number range. Is it a good idea to do your Christmas shopping on Swoopo? No. It it a good idea to bid on Swoopo at all? Probably not. Is bidding on Swoopo a much better idea than dumping money into your local lottery? Without a doubt.

John on December 14, 2008 4:30 AM

Interesting article. We have a similar site here in Australia (www.realbargain.com.au) that advertises keenly on google. It works in a very similar way, except the bid system works slightly differently:
- You purchase bids in bulk (same as swoopo)
- The winner looses his bids on the current item, BUT
- Losers regain their 'lost' bids as credit against any successful purchase within 30 days.

Rip-off in my opinion, but makes for a great add. People picking up Nintendo Wiis for 'less than $75'... False advertising in my opinion.

Joseph on December 14, 2008 4:39 AM

When I worked at the now defunct Crocker Bank, a fellow once told me, Son, if you're going to commit crimes for a living, start with the legal ones.

These folks, at least in their jurisdiction, seem to have taken this advice to heart. Of course, they are as nothing compared to the current crop of Bankstas and hedge fund managers, but they are clearly the logical outcome of that 80s-2000s mindset (Checkout the book Liars Poker for a clearer example).

ThatGuyInTheBack on December 14, 2008 5:38 AM

How is this any different than a live auction?

This is how auctions have been traditionally done, excepting the bidding fee. Tracking and monetizing that (whereas live auctions TYPICALLY have a fixed price to attend) is in no way illegal or even misleading.

Jack9 on December 14, 2008 7:33 AM

so what? it's just like poker sites or anything else in life where you pay to get entertained; it's exactly what they advertise, Entertainment Shopping.

they aren't lying to anyone, you pay for entertainment, this seems very fair to me and i don't see what's wrong whatsoever.

Z on December 14, 2008 7:38 AM

addendum: yes you'll never win anything but that doesn't change the fact that you got entertained; you didn't pay to win auctions but for entertainment.

Z on December 14, 2008 7:41 AM

This is a fantastic post. I saw this site a few weeks ago, and on the outset it looks like a novel way to do an auction site. I can see how some people might get suckered into it. A few minutes looking around though, and it comes across as a bit of a scam.

Joel Hess on December 14, 2008 8:57 AM

Reminds me of some crackheads who would come into the bar with this guitar and sell raffle tickets for it. Nobody ever won or claimed the guitar [no raffle occurred] and they would be back a week later selling raffle tickets again and people would buy more tickets.

Jet on December 14, 2008 9:00 AM

Maybe I am a little bit sarcastic, but I kind of fail to see the stated pure evilness.
Swopoo offers stupid people to get rid of their money, completely transparent and fair.
The harm inflicted to anyone in the process is exactly the harm that person inflicts willingly to himself.

If the swopoo-owners just spend the money on sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, i would even go so far to consider it pure good, because they prevent that the money the customers so desperatly want to loose goes to someone where it can do real harm, say, for example in politics.

Maybe it is indeed illegal in some countries/states, but the thought, that people who are allowed to vote actually need to be protected from schemes like this by laws is kind of frightening.

keppla on December 14, 2008 9:12 AM

The world is a crazy place.

Preeti Edul on December 14, 2008 10:29 AM

To those claiming this is based on chance, go back to school and take that probability course again.

Perhaps you should. Although the distinction you're making is valid in a practical sense, it's not theoretically correct. Probability is about information and is not dependent upon a physical definition of chance. Asserting that it is pushes it into some very murky territory where, using contemporary physics, you'd have to appeal to quantum mechanics and, at that point, nothing is deterministic.

Anyway, whether this is a lottery for legal purposes depends simply upon the legal language used in the relevant law and the precedents involved. It doesn't depend upon an understanding of probability or physics or game theory or common, non-legal, language usage. We're not going to decide the argument about whether this is a lottery without consulting some particular law which arguably applies in a particular jurisdiction.

Keith M Ellis on December 14, 2008 11:41 AM

A raffle+auction; talk about eating your cake and having it too!

Karthik on December 14, 2008 12:30 PM

Down here in New Zealand, we don't have eBay. Instead, we have TradeMe:

http://www.trademe.co.nz/

and TradeMe does auto-extend auctions, by two minutes after the latest bid. Sniping still occurs, because bidding early is still a great way to encourage someone else to keep bidding until they're in the lead. There's still a flurry of activity in the last fifteen minutes or so, and I'd wager that sale prices are probably a little higher.

TradeMe also offers the seller the chance, after the auction has ended, to offer a fixed price to users who'd added the item to their watchlist. Quite often you'll see auctions terminate with no bids, or not meet reserves, as vultures circle, waiting to swoop on a fixed-price bargain.

Not sure if eBay offers this -- it's been a while.

Chris on December 14, 2008 12:40 PM

No, I do not think this is illegal in any legal sense. Similar companies have been operation this sort of services for some time now. In Finland we have had a similar auction site operating for at least one year now.

I have some other evil business plans which are also perfectly legal it seems. Here you go:

-pay-day loans, SMS-loans and similar schemes to provide easy short-term credit, for which you can charge 1000% interest annually.

-SMS-based knowledge competitions where you ask questions and the winner is, for example, the fastest person to answer them. Charge 3usd / SMS and select easy questions to get as many answers as possible. This is not a lottery (which would make it illegal in many countries, like here in Finland).

dr. evil mastermind on December 15, 2008 1:58 AM

@Jack9: How is this any different than a live auction?

This is how auctions have been traditionally done, excepting the bidding fee.

Errrm, it's different because of the bidding fee. The bit where everyone pays, not just the winner. The bit that makes it a gamble.

Schmoo on December 15, 2008 2:27 AM

@keppla: If the swopoo-owners just spend the money on sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, i would even go so far to consider it pure good, because they prevent that the money the customers so desperatly want to loose goes to someone where it can do real harm, say, for example in politics.

I see a book deal coming: How to do good through scamming the stupid.

Schmoo on December 15, 2008 2:30 AM

Proxy Bidding assumes that there is some magic number that one penny less and you're willing to pay, but one penny more and you're not.

This simply isn't true for most real-life, personal, purchases.

The type of auction most people WANT is an interactive, traditional auction. (And optional proxy bidding is completely compatible with this, but a hard-and-fast ending time is not, because it encourages sniping.)

Wedge, you are describing a system that already exists, and are trying to convince people that it's what they want, even though many are actively complaining about it. (I know this is a very natural instinct for us Computer Science types, but we're supposed to fight it.)

AndyL on December 15, 2008 2:32 AM

I enjoy swoopo. I have won 8 times, that's the limit in one month. The great thing is I didn't spend much at all.Actually im ahead $3000.00.

NNGGMM on December 15, 2008 3:46 AM

@Schmoo

As I mentioned, traditionally everyone pays in live auctions as well. Some entry fees are quite steep. This commoditizes the bidding as a dynamic fee IF you want to participate. I've gone to a couple auctions where I paid 25$ (small auctions) to end up not bidding on anything, I eventually went to other places and currently use Ebay/Craigslist/etc. I still don't see how this is special. People want to pay it? I'm watching these auctions and I KNOW people this stupid can't want some of this crap or be that frivolous with money. So what? I don't click on the free Ipod banners either. YMMV

Jack9 on December 15, 2008 3:55 AM

OK, I checked this out in its UK version and came across an auction for an iPhone which cost 40p (=c) to make a bid which raises the price by...1p. Yes, you read that right. See URL below.
http://www.swoopo.co.uk/auction/apple-iphone-3g-16gb-black-/130691.html
If all the bids are genuine, they've made 1,200 on a single iPhone auction that's still at 28! If all the bids are genuine...
It's a scandal almost on the scale of everyday banking, distinguished only by displaying its bankrupt morals right there on every page and *still* attracting customers.
Imagine this at a real auction house.
What am I bid for this lovely silver vase?
100
Thanks for the money, the price is now 2.50.
What more am I bid?
200
Thanks for your 200 sir. You might win the auction if you're lucky.
The price is now 5.
Any more bidders?
300
Thank you so much sir! The 400 you've spent could get you this lovely silver vase for the bargain price of 7.50!
But wait...I've just had a phone call. A phone bidder is bidding 10!!! Care to drop another 100 to up the price by 2.50? You decide :)

Andy W on December 15, 2008 4:17 AM

This is about as evil as the win a free ipod crap!!
Most definitely.

Nick Masao on December 15, 2008 4:53 AM

This is exactly why idiots shouldn't have money.

And exactly why they won't have it long.

Daniel Cassidy on December 15, 2008 4:58 AM

For my former state (FL), and probably many others this would be considered a lottery or raffle. Which is decidedly illegal. I'm not sure how it is in other countries but if you have to pay for consideration. Then it doesn't matter how the prize is decided (Chance, final bid, or position of the sun). In fact, I don't think they consider anything else except for the pay for consideration part to decide if it's a lottery or not.

Where I can see them skirting around this is the fact that you have to buy your bids beforehand. I know some organizations got around gambling laws by making you pay flat entrance fee $20 or $50, in return you got tokens to play games, and at the end of the night you would exchange tokens for prizes.

Joe Chin on December 15, 2008 5:37 AM

Last-second sniping is never a problem on EBay if you understand how the site works. You enter your *maximum* bid on EBay, not your actual bid. EBay then updates teh bid price so whoever is willing to pay the most has the current top.

Example: You want a widget. The widget is currently set at a $10 bid. You're willing to pay up to $100 for the widget. On most auction sites, you would bid $11, since that's close to $10. On EBay, you're actually better off bidding $100 in the beginning. Here's why:

For that $10 bid, EBay will raise the price until someone is bidding the highest, without going over their maximum. So if there's one other bidder, who set his current maximum at $20, the bid will go up to ~$25, and you will have the highest bid. Note that your initial maximum bid was still $100, but you currently have a $25 bid on the item.

So when those last minute 'snipes' occur, if you placed the maximum amount you're willing to pay for the item as your initial bid, one of two scenarios occurs:

1. You win the item, without having to worry about trying to snipe someone, for less than your maximum bid, or

2. You lose the item, which is really OK, because the item cost more than you were willing to pay.

If people simply knew how EBay worked, they would never have to worry about being 'sniped' again.

Crazy Ivan on December 15, 2008 5:39 AM

@Jack9: On a practical level, an attendance fee is a fixed price with no opportunity, let alone enticement, to buy more. On a moral level, an attendance fee is to cover the use of the venue, and will accordingly be comparable to other events held in similar venues.

Swoopo's bid fees are a clever way of getting themselves paid by people who lose an auction. I can't see how you can hold these equal on either criteria?

Schmoo on December 15, 2008 5:40 AM

The only people that consider eBay sniping a problem are those that actually want to be part of an auction. If, like me, all you want is get a good deal, then sniping is the *only* way to go, regardless of proxy bidding.

If I, a deal seeker, consider 100$ is a good price for a widget and an auction seeking individual bids 75$, they will realize that somebody else bid higher and they might, in a fit of irrational auction frenzy, keep bidding higher and higher until they bid 105$ and outbid me.

The result is I didn't get the item, the auction seeker got his thrill but overpaid for the widget.

If on the other I bid 100$ at the very last second, the thrill seeker won't have the time to outbid me. Result: I win but I've ruined the fun of auction seekers.

Thus, if you're just looking for a good deal on eBay, the only rational course of action, WHICH TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBLE IRRATIONAL ACTIONS OF OTHERS, is to snipe.

QED

W on December 15, 2008 5:40 AM

@Crazy Ivan: Better still is to combine both approaches. Bid $11 early on so that a) you get notified on other bids and b) the seller is less likely (or not allowed, depending on the site) to cancel the auction.

Then leave your maximum bid as late as possible, so as not to encourage other bids. It's counter-intuitive, but people seem to ignore items with a low bid price until late in the auction. Too-good-to-be-true thinking I'd guess, but who knows?

Schmoo on December 15, 2008 5:46 AM

In times of economic crisis, this information of this site is most disheartening. Normally I would respond with something quite like Daniel Cassidy posted. However, it seems these days, even the idiots in this country are affecting the smart ones.

So instead of sounding off and saying our population will work itself out in terms of natural selection, I will say the idiots will be the ball and chain around the ankles of the people that keep this country (and themselves) afloat.

On a completely different note, they took an auction site (like ebay) and charged people to bid. How dumb do you have to be to realize you could bid for free on ebay?

::Looks down at idiot ball and chains and sighs while drowning::

Russ on December 15, 2008 5:54 AM

I heard about Swoopo a few months back. I quickly Googled swoopo clone and found that nearly every result was somebody trying to hire a programmer to build them a clone.

So I built my own and now I'm grossing around $3 million a year (profit 30%). It's nothing too big compared to Swoopo (because I'm lazy), but a pretty good deal for a 22 year old.

I don't know if it's evil. I would have agreed when I was younger but giving it more thought, I've concluded that I either bank off people's stupidity, or spend my life in a cubical listening to a pointy headed boss who's banking off people's stupidity.

Please update the article with your views and facts on why this is illegal exactly, in the US or UK.

Den on December 15, 2008 6:07 AM

wow, ... now THIS is profit! - http://www.swoopo.com/auction/sony-vaio-vgn-fw140e-16-4-core2duo-vista/128836.html

Sony VAIO VGN-FW140E 16.4 Core2Duo Vista Laptop (Penny Auction)

Sold for $255.57

255.57 = 25,557 Bids @ .75 each - !!$19,167.75!! + the final price of the laptop (255.57) = $19,423.32

minus the cost of the laptop to swoopo (1,149.99)

==== $18,273.33 Profit for Swoopo... Just damn, holy damn!

Nick on December 15, 2008 6:36 AM

The problem with this kind of sites is that they can much too easily cheat. In Romania we have similar auction websites with 30 cents/bid, and I spent hours watching the bids: the result was: the website was cheating, using automatic bots to outbid human bidders; they even had several bots outbidding themselves, thus keeping the bid alive inspite of no real user actually adding any bid. Once in a while, the bots got renamed with some other nicknames, but keeping their bidding pattern.

To sum up, this kind of websites make a too big risk for the casual bidder - until some kind of authority can vouch for their fair-game, I'd recommend to keep an eye open for any kind of suspicious behavior.

Alex Brie on December 15, 2008 6:47 AM

I agree absolutely. Its 100% gambling period.

fregas on December 15, 2008 7:19 AM

...and the UK site has exactly the same prices, in pounds, as the US one in dollars. (check swoopo.co.uk against swoopo.com) What's that all about?

chrism on December 15, 2008 7:21 AM

@chrism

Haha, well I suppose they did not bother to get rid of the bugs, when they are just ripping people off anyway.

Practicality on December 15, 2008 7:39 AM

While swoopo seems to be doing something obviously Illegal with it's auctions, what about it's insane refresh rate of 1 second, even on the main page. That's gotta kill bandwidth on both ends over time.

David on December 15, 2008 7:44 AM


This reminds me of a fantastic book I have. It makes very interesting and thought-provoking reading if you're interested in this kind of game:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/019285321X?ie=UTF8tag=ajsstufflinkCode=as2camp=1634creative=19450creativeASIN=019285321X

AJ Finch on December 15, 2008 8:33 AM

I think there actually is a way to win at this. Unfortunately, it involves a DoS attack... :P

Ryan on December 15, 2008 8:44 AM

Uh, you're all idiots if you think it's illegal, or going to be illegal at any point in time.

It should leave no worse a taste in your mouth than a raffle for a sports car in the mall where you buy x tickets for $10 each. You put in a little money and you have the chance of walking away with something you could never afford.

A raffle isn't obliged to stop anyone from buying all the tickets, even if someone was stupid enough to do so and pay more than the item was worth. About the only thing these guys might have to do is make it more obvious to the punters of the world exactly how much they are paying.

Swoopo doesn't force you to keep bidding. There's no lock-in. No coercion. Just stupid people.

What's your next target: Credit cards? Mortgages? Bloody reds...

raffler on December 15, 2008 8:45 AM

I'm surprised about all this defense of auction sniping. In particular, this comment:

There's nothing wrong with sniping! Sites like eSnipe etc. essentially turn ebay into a 'silent auction' site, where the bidders figure out the absolute maximum they want to pay, and bid just once.

... um, isn't that how eBay's proxy bidding system is _supposed_ to work? In the _absence_ of sniping?

JS on December 15, 2008 8:55 AM

This is brilliant.

Like a casino, this service exploits a well-known bug in human thought processes, but in a way that doesn't *look* like a vice people have learned to avoid. (ie: It doesn't look like a casino.)

It's also horrible and evil, of course. But like most brilliantly evil schemes, I can't help but wish that I'd thought of it first.

AndyL on December 15, 2008 9:27 AM

Sites like eSnipe etc. essentially turn ebay into a 'silent auction' site,

Yes, they do. The problem is that ***PEOPLE DON'T LIKE SILENT AUCTIONS***. They prefer the more traditional type of auction where people can be against each other.

Sellers prefer traditional auctions because prices go higher.
Buyers prefer traditional auctions because, except for commodities with a well established market price, there is often no magic number that you would pay for an item but not fifteen cents more.

eBay tries to provide traditional auctions, but their failure to come up with a way to deal with sniping has made their service a sort of hybrid auction with all the worst features of a traditional auction and a silent one.

AndyL on December 15, 2008 9:34 AM

I posted earlier about the lack of inherent chance, and yes, some people need a good dictionary - such as the meaning of stochastic - as well as a refresher course on probabilities. Considering the meaning of a priori and a posteriori probabilities in this context would be a good start.

Also, to the comments about the definition of online gambling:
'To be considered online gambling, you need 3 criterias [sic]:

1) A consideration. Here you pay to bid. It is like purchasing a lottery ticket and you are most likely to get nothing in exchange but 1 chance out of N to win.

2) A game of chance, which will determine who the winner is. While some may argue that bidding requires some skills and determinism, many states actually don't make any difference in their online gambling definition between skilled games and chance games. (Poker requires skills).

3) A Prize or the ability to win something of value. (or get nothing but wasting time and money).'

Insert 'online stock trading' for 'online gambling' - I don't see that it reads any different: there's 'a consideration' [you pay to both buy and sell shares], there's 'chance' [companies choose to announce chapter 11 while you hold their shares, they go 2-for-1 split, they announce a dividend/ acquisition/merger, etc. which are all hidden variables unless you're Martha Stewart] while still requiring _some_ skill to make money from the market, and finally a 'prize' [the money you make from selling at a higher price than your initial investment.]

Regardless of the state of Wall Street ATM, it _definitely_ will never be considered online gambling. Methinks you need to actually look at the statutes.

Finally, I'm not passing any judgement on the inherent evilness or whatnot of the site...that would be imposing my own _moral_ evaluations on not just the site, but those who use it and those who run it. I don't like those sort of judgements being made on me - I certainly won't do it to others.

Mark on December 15, 2008 11:02 AM

Here's another one up this alley.

A danish service provider (Unotel) is having a christmas contest: The person who sends the most MMS messages in december wins an iPhone 3G.

This can easily be translated into an auction where every bid cost 25cent and the one who places the most bids, wins, the rest get screwed and the house wins big!

Worst part, it doesn't seem like its illegal according to danish law...

ErikJ on December 15, 2008 11:05 AM

Re: last second auction sniping

Auction sniping is really only an issue in automatic proxy auctions, like eBay, when bidders don't understand how to properly bid. For a proxy auction you don't have to enter more than one bid. Simply determine the maximum amount you want to bid, bid that, and walk away. The system will do all the rest. If someone else bids higher than the current bid the system will increase your bid until it exceeds either your or their maximum bid, at which point you will have either outbid them or they will have outbid you, there is no need for your personal intervention at this point.

I suspect that people find it difficult to let go to the degree required for proxy bidding.

Wedge on December 15, 2008 12:43 PM

Uh-Oh Hot Dog!

Bobby Lee on December 16, 2008 6:19 AM

Why bother arguing about whether it's gambling or a scam and instead talk about whether you think the company's practices are defensible, or wrong, or whatever you think they are?

This post has a lot of potential for talking ethics and it's losing a lot of steam on semantics.

My problem with the company, irrespective of whether it's legal, is its exploitation of precisely the phenomenon Jeff Atwood names above: the endowment effect.

I don't know that I'd say people are being duped into employing the site, but I do think that whether those people are aware of this effect, and of the risk, doesn't speak to its justifiability.

Oh, and those people chalking the popularity of this site up to greed and/or stupidity ought to stop typing and pick up a book on behavioral economics.

M on December 16, 2008 7:59 AM

I probably shouldn't feed into Mark, but...


I posted earlier about the lack of inherent chance, and yes, some
people need a good dictionary - such as the meaning of stochastic -
as well as a refresher course on probabilities. Considering the
meaning of a priori and a posteriori probabilities in this context
would be a good start.

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant, as well as
intentionally insulting.

Stochastic is not a legal definition, so a priori it is meaningless to
this discussion.

I find it ironic that you've set up Stochastic is the standard in a
computer programming discussion forum. Random is an ideal, not
achievable standard. Stochastic is, in fact, normally used in
precisely that context, events that are, **in theory** completely
determined, but in practice cannot be practically determined, so we
treat them, for terms of analysis, as random. Comp-sci random is
usually referred to as pseudo-random because it is in fact totally
determined, but a decent enough implementation, and we can treat it as
random. Again though this is immaterial to the this discussion.

IANAL, but I suspect Joe Chins comments about FL law, and the comments
you were responding to regarding Consideration reflect a much better
understanding about how the law works then anything you've posted.

Finally, though Wall Street clearly has a Casino flavor, in *theory*
what's being sold has intrinsic value. It is *not* identical in any way
with Swoopo. When I purchase a share, it's trade value may rise or fall
over time, but it maintains an intrinsic worth as a share of the company
in question. While the Casino elements tend to dominate in peoples mind,
purchasing stock does not trigger any of the standards set up by Scott
and Rick. It's a purchase of ownership, through and through. It's casino
elements only enter as a byproduct of repeated sales. A single purchase
is just that.

I do not know if Swoopo is in fact illegal, but I believe a decent
prosecutor could make a strong case.


Joe on December 16, 2008 10:56 AM

Lol. Loved this:

But, FYI… Swoopo loses money on about 70% of the auctions. So, we take a bit of a gamble in hopes that the remaining 30% of the auctions cover the costs of the products and our overhead.

I guarantee he is defining losing money as the winning bid price being less than their official MSRP value for the item. The 12x the cost that they got from unsucsessful bids? That doesn't count.

T.E.D. on December 16, 2008 11:43 AM

Uh, you're all idiots if you think it's illegal, or going to be illegal at any point in time.

It should leave no worse a taste in your mouth than a raffle

Bit of transferrence here I'm thinking. An actual smart person would probably know better than to try to pass themselves off as worldwide legal expert.

Perhaps such raffles are legal in the UK (I'm guessing from your vocab). However, for profit raffles are illegal in quite a few places in the USA. Here in Oklahoma for profit raffles are illegal unless they are run by one of the Indian tribes. Try reading over http://rafflefaq.com/united-states-raffle-laws/

T.E.D. on December 16, 2008 11:53 AM

All I can say after reading this post that it is a gamble, some one created this site to attract the gamblers, and making money. It is same like entering a casion, I suppose you have to pay some entry fee or something, I am not sure, then you 'play' and try to win.

Anand.V.V.N on December 16, 2008 12:20 PM

I'm thinking 70% of the auctions could lose money even though it looks like they should be raking it in if they do internal bidding to keep the auction alive, since they wouldn't get any revenue on those.

Of course, they wouldn't be so evil as to do something like that, would they?

arima on December 17, 2008 1:01 AM

I don't get this bit about losing 70% of auctions. Dont forget that every bid has cost someone 40p (sorry i'm from uk) but only increased the bid by 8p. If you divide the winning bid by .08 (or in some cases .01) and then multiply that by 40p you will see that they are making a killing on almost every auction. If people are stupid enough to take part, then good luck to them. Hi from the UK to all.

Alan C on December 17, 2008 2:47 AM

I got sucked in to a similar site. The difference being that if you are not successful in the bid they refund the tokens to you but give you a limited time in which to use them. After I wasted my first 10 on the site I gave up and got a real brain .

Zoe on December 17, 2008 10:22 AM

My problem with the company, irrespective of whether it's legal, is its exploitation of precisely the phenomenon Jeff Atwood names above: the endowment effect.

You might as well bash companies for selling things with sexually-charged ads. Salesmen who use psychology to sell shoddy products. Any other business practice that tries to hack human behavior... Social networking sites? Political parties? WOW?

I for one welcome our behavior-exploiting overlords.

Akos on December 18, 2008 3:14 AM

http://whois.domaintools.com/swoopo.com

who runs that site on December 18, 2008 5:49 AM

The only way to beat this site would be with a collective agreement with ALL bidders to only bid once on all things on the site, thus winning everything for $0.75. Which would actually be kind of an awesome way to stick it to 'em.

Meredith on December 18, 2008 7:10 AM

But, um, would obviously never work. I like to dream big. :) Also, I guess not everything has the same starting bid? I dunno. Complications, complications. Whatever. It's a nice idea. Thanks for the post.

Meredith on December 18, 2008 7:12 AM

You purchase bids in pre-packaged blocks of at least 30. Each bid costs you 75 cents, with no volume discount.

Holy mumble jumble, purchasing bids?! You have to be MAD! Crazy! Insane in the MEMBRANE!

To be buying bids to buy items that YOU MAY NOT GET.

I agree with Jacob from the third comment, they may be using a BOT just to get you to bid. And basically, we are just throwing money away to them.

However, when is there a good person who is rich?

I think it is about time to turn evil.

Thanks for a great read!

Anraiki on December 18, 2008 9:34 AM

You need to realize though that it costs 75 cents to everyone bidding, not just you, and usually the starting price for each item is pretty low, only between $1-20. So some people will give up after spending around $5 at bidding, and you could get a $250 ipod for about $40-50 and thus make a profit, while the owner of the site also makes a profit.

Also, in your above example, I HIGHLY doubt that only 2-3 people made the entire 1,250 bids. They were likely made by many people and none of them spent more than $5-10 individually. Hence, the winner obviously still got a great deal. I would consider it a win-win-win idea.

And its completely irrational of you to say that this 'exploits' people. If you really think someone will get irrational and bid a lot just so they don't lose, i think you're talking vastly about yourself and you have some self discipline issues. This is just like saying casinos and gambling is unethical and should be banned.

Ali on December 18, 2008 10:14 AM

I'm thinking 70% of the auctions could lose money even though it looks like they should be raking it in if they do internal bidding to keep the auction alive, since they wouldn't get any revenue on those.

that. They should only be loosing money on bids that fail to make 1/6th of the retail price. However, if every second big is internal, they will loose money on auctions that make less than 2/7th of the retail. If 4 out of 5 bids are phony, they loose money on auctions that make less than half of the retail. Not counting overhead here, but that should be negligible (they can just order the item from amazon after the winner pays them, amirite?).

If we assume that the 70% info was a moment of honesty, we could guess the amount of fake bidding that happens by comparing the (retail price) / (auction end price) historical data and looking at what the bottom 70% is. For instance, if 70% of the items go at below half price, we can surmise that 4 out of 5 bids are fake.

Akos on December 18, 2008 12:05 PM

Bunch of crooks...
The owner of this should share jail with Madoff.
Interesting competition to see who steals more from the other one.

Carlitos on December 18, 2008 12:26 PM

Wow. I'm gonna go sign up for this site. yehaw!

Timothy on December 18, 2008 12:41 PM

Without a complete explanation, I can see the potential for someone to think they have it all figured out and spend their first $30 all for nothing.

Daniel Massicotte on December 20, 2008 2:49 AM

this site is just a website to ascertain intelligence.
those who dont play are very intelligent
those who lose 10 fairly intelligent
those who lose 30 pretty dumb (me)
those who lose 50 thick
those who lose more.......... BRAIN DEAD

LOLOLOL

copper1 on December 20, 2008 3:36 AM

I don't know which is sadder: Ignorant, sad, desperate people throwing thier money away at this site, or religious people (who are mentally similar) throwing their maoney away to their cult of choice.

Bob on December 20, 2008 5:03 AM

This site demonstates survival of the fittest. Hurray for sites like this which take the money (power) away from those stupid enough to play.

El Mutante on December 20, 2008 5:08 AM

@akos:

I *do* condemn those companies.

Hacking human behavior to sell people things, or to hook them on WoW, is a separate issue from hacking human behavior to give them absolutely nothing in return for buying bids. Swoopo's bread is that many people will compete for an item (and, of course, can loosely predict a direct relationship between an item's popularity and the competition that will follow); its butter is loss aversion.

Even those companies that hack people's behavior to sell them something I think is crap doesn't speak to the utility their crap provides the customers. For those people for which Swoopo is profitable, great. Those people who consistently bid on items they don't wind up should write on this forum about enjoying it; otherwise, I'll remain convinced that far more people are unhappy with their experience with Swoopo than are happy. Why would a business with that kind of record *stay* in business?

I guess because of those of us stupid enough to play.

Finally, calling this survival of the fittest is myopic, trite and one of the most irritating phenomena regularly appearing in blog comments today.

There needs to be a __________'s rule of natural selection analogies, a corollary of which needs to be tarring and feathering of the perpetrator.

M on December 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Also: using survival of the fittest to justify any behavior is engaging in the naturalistic fallacy, punishable by expository sandwich board.

M on December 20, 2008 12:28 PM

Re: Michael Wales: My thinking is - you may be able to come away with a few deals on this site if you had a lot of historic data. If you knew an iPod sold for $100 the past 100 auctions, you could then immediately bid that amount and hope it was too high for others to bid, thus getting that item for $100.75 (with the price of your bid).

That's not how I understand this to work. From what it seems to be, you just buy a right to increase the price by 15 cents, by paying the 75 cents. So for instance if the item started at say $10, and you wanted to increase it to $100, you'd have to buy 600 bids as soon as it started, for a total of $540. That's why they make so much damn money off this thing regardless of what the final price is. The reason that people get sucked in is they're spending 90 cents each tick, but they only see the 15 cents that the final price increases, and aren't comprehending that they're also spending an additional 75 cents EACH BID. That's why it's so bloody evil!

If I'm misunderstanding this, someone correct me.

kronchev on December 21, 2008 4:30 AM

Re: Akos: Any other business practice that tries to hack human behavior... Social networking sites? Political parties? WOW?

It's a fact that the people who play WOW the most are those who are the worst at it. Blizzard (the creator of WOW) did nothing more than create an absolutely gigantic game with the promises of advancement in a thousand different ways. The reason a lot of people seem to have problems and get hooked on it is because they are so bored with the rest of their crappy lives, that a totally different life where they cannot lose, where there are really no devastating consequences to messing up, and where they can be who they want to be, is just overwhelming for them. The reason that its so damn obvious that it happens to all kinds of people with WOW is because the game was created to be accessible to everyone (aka easy), while most other games downright required the investment of time to get anywhere.

kronchev on December 21, 2008 4:34 AM

«Back | More comments»

The comments to this entry are closed.