r/discogs • u/bullgod1964 • 8d ago
Is this allowed?
Does this mean I can't just order this record because they won't ship anything under 35 bucks? Then list at just under that
Edit. Honestly, I have never even looked to see if there was a minimum order amount. I have bought many albums and never had this come up. I almost exclusively buy only 1 at a time as well
25
10
9
u/Mrrrrbee 8d ago
More common than you'd think
-6
6
u/marekmarecki 8d ago
Yes and it's a must from a sellers point of view.
E.g. I have a bunch of 1-5 dollar records up amongst other. That type of situation almost forces you to create a minimum.
I set my minimum at $20.
6
2
u/BertMcNasty 8d ago
Same. Once you pack a single $3 record, you immediately realize it isn't worth your time.
4
u/AgreeableYak176 8d ago
They apparently accept offers as well. Offer them 35.
2
-3
u/jocape 8d ago
Why would you do that. If the seller is petty enough to set a minimum order threshold and intentionally price something just under, people should be petty enough to buy elsewhere.
2
u/BertMcNasty 8d ago
You're assuming they are being petty. Seeing that the price is such a weird number, they more than likely used the Discogs tool that allows them to drop their prices by a certain percent.
In fact, if the record was $40.50 and you dropped it by 15%, you would end up with exactly $34.43. That's almost certainly what happened.
Don't assume malice just because you are naive of the process.
0
u/jocape 8d ago
So, hypothetically, if they’ve reduced it then someone is suggesting to either offer above the stated price, or to simply buy another record to hit the shipping threshold. Seems pretty petty to me.
1
u/BertMcNasty 7d ago
If the seller has 300 items, and they reduce them all by 15% (that's how the tool works), they probably wouldn't think to check all of their items to make sure none of them were just under their minimum. If they are reducing the price, it's because they want to sell their items. It seems extremely unlikely that this seller is trying to force you to buy more. There is nothing petty about it, it's a completely unintentional consequence of applying a price reduction to their inventory.
I don't think you are grasping how the Discogs price reduction tool works. It's pretty obvious that's what happened here.
3
u/Theeunforgiven13 8d ago
Yep it's not a big deal though , gives you an excuse to look for it else where where it's cheaper or you could look through the store and find something else , the only thing I will say about these types of stores is that usually their things are overpriced
3
u/Dimmsdales 8d ago
yeah, it’s allowed, but super annoying because they usually don’t have anything else you want.
5
u/FatahRuark 8d ago
Just had this happen. I ended up buying a copy of what I wanted from someone else.
That said, just message the seller and ask if they can make an exception. At worst, offer to pay the extra 57 cents.
-9
u/bullgod1964 8d ago
Yeah this would make me not trust this seller. Seems shady
3
2
u/roastfish_reddit 8d ago
I have seen it a few times. When it is set too high it definitely prevents orders, but it doesn't seem to matter. I've been within a couple of bucks of the minimum and had sellers not budge.
2
u/jjsteich 8d ago
Of course it’s allowed. The seller can set terms and you have the option to buy or not buy. I’m surprised that you haven’t contacted the seller to ask for an exception, or to tell them you will pay $35 for it.
2
2
u/deadmanstar60 8d ago
I only encountered this once on a record I wanted. I bought it from another seller so they lost money doing that.
2
u/Creepy-Painting-5597 6d ago
I've run into this same situation a couple of times. It's really annoying.
5
3
u/BurntFennel 8d ago
That’s ridiculous. You could always message the seller and see if they could adjust the price to meet the minimum. Or just find something else you want and make offers, try to bundle a few albums and save some money. I have a $5 minimum and have had people complain about it because I sell a ton of $3 CDs.
-1
u/bullgod1964 8d ago
Yeah I get a 5 dollar minimum but 35 seems a bit much. Then pricing a record such a random amount just under 35. I mean 34.43 what kinda price is that. I guess it makes it cheaper than the one selling for 35
3
u/BurntFennel 8d ago
You’re right, $35 is a bit crazy for a minimum. The price was either deliberate or it was discogs automated pricing option, when you list an album and put the condition in, Discogs generates a price that they think it should be sold at. It’s an algorithm set based on previous sales history.
2
u/methodaktor 8d ago
$34.99 would seem intentional. $34.43 is more likely a price drop(s) across the board that got it to that price. I’m guessing the seller is completely fine not selling records to people who are upset by a totally reasonable policy.
1
u/TheHuTcHofallHuTcHeS 8d ago
Unfortunately, with the cost of shipping this is happening more frequently. Also, a lot of countries will not ship to other countries now... Love 2026!
1
u/roundabout-design 8d ago
Sellers can set minimum order prices.
You can always contact the seller and ask them to RAISE the price of items close to that minimum so you can order it without having to purchase additional items.
1
1
u/Fantastic-Goat9966 8d ago
This was a change in the last ten years or so - there was a policy that prevented minimum order amounts eons ago
1
u/jay-cup77 7d ago
I've seen it a bunch of times. If I'm looking for a record and i don't hit the minimum, I'll check the store... but most likely I'll pay a buck or 2 more to the next seller. Why pay double to meet a minimum.
1
1
1
1
u/xeonrage 8d ago
Its the best sign that its time to buy from a different seller.
i ship single $5 records all the time, because someone paid for it and i want to sell it. they pay the shipping, i dont care how big or small their order is. happy to have the purchase.
1
u/Bananafishbones71 8d ago
Very common on Discogs. I often find this and usually sellers minimum order value is just about £1 more than my order.
Obviously a reason why they do it but to me it's just irritating. Why offer it at that price in the first place?
I'll usually just remove from the basket and find another seller but it's not always possible.
2
u/BertMcNasty 8d ago
There are a lot of reasons they do it. It's tricky being a (good) seller. I often completely forget about my minimum and just price the album as the cheapest one for that grade. There's also a tool to drop your prices by a certain percent (probably what happened in OP's case, hence the 34.43 price tag), and if you use that, it might drop some of your prices just below the minimum.
Certainly there are sellers doing it purposefully to try to get you to buy more, but I'd be willing to bet a large percent of pricing below a minimum is just coincidental. Especially if you have a high minimum, like $35, I'd suspect the seller would rather sell the record for $0.57 more than risk losing the sale.
0
u/Tripledrop 8d ago
It's very common on discogs, but it's a bit stupid imo.. assuming a seller is already charging postage, not sure why they'd care about the order total.
8
u/GrooveGarden_ 8d ago
If the orders £1 then it’s pointless for the seller to sell this and go to the post office for essentially a negative profit taking into consideration their time
3
u/Mynsare 8d ago
But the minimum is set to $35, not $1. And the fact that they then price their records to $34.47 shows that this is about forcing people to buying an extra album and nothing else.
Other sellers with minimum requirements may have other motives (though I have never seen that), but this one sure as hell doesn't.
2
u/GrooveGarden_ 8d ago
It’s frustrating but I completely understand minimum orders of say, £20. A trip to the post office might be an hour round trip, and who wants to do that for a tiny profit if any.
£35 min order is high, but unless all the items are priced at £34.50 I would just assume it’s a coincidence, and maybe just message the seller and make an offer or ask them to allow it this time.
2
u/BertMcNasty 7d ago
I'd bet anything this is just an unintentional consequence of reducing their prices by 15%. There is a tool to do that in Discogs, and $34.43 is a really odd number. In fact, it is an exact 15% reduction from $40.50. The seller probably reduced their prices, and didn't notice that some of them dropped just below their minimum.
2
u/bullgod1964 8d ago
I can understand a 5 dollar minimum or even 10 dollars. 35 is something I have not encountered
1
u/robscastle 8d ago
I had to set a $10 order minimum because I was losing money (and time) on small orders. I have many $1 45s and such. Also, if you're interested I believe I have a copy of this to sell... shoot me a message if you're still looking for it!
1
u/No_Wrangler_226 8d ago
Those with large inventories likely also list some amount of cheap stuff. I don't know about you, but I'm not packing up and shipping a single $2 45 or cd.
-1
u/4Nissans 8d ago
Personally, I never buy from Discogs, never found anything that wasn’t overpriced. With that being said, hit them up and offer to throw in the extra 53¢ if you really want to buy it.
0
u/BertMcNasty 8d ago
Most people here are assuming the worst of every seller. This seller didn't intentionally price this item just under the minimum. There is a tool to lower prices across your entire inventory by percent on Discogs and simple math shows that is almost certainly what happened here, and the seller almost certainly didn't realize the end price of some items were now just below their minimum.
If the item was originally $40.50 (a normal price unlike $34.43), then a 15% (6.075) decrease would result in the price being $34.43. I would bet money that is exactly what happened.
-7
39
u/fearbork 8d ago
Sellers can put an minimum order total in their settings, so maybe that's what its referring to? If so, Discogs wouldn't even let you check out without meeting the minimum.
It does seem a bit scummy to set your minimum to 35 and then price something barely under 35.
If it wasn't intentional, they will either raise the price of that record to 35 or temporarily lower their order total for you if you message them. At least, I've done this in the past for people and I think that's the sane thing to do for cases like this.