posted on August 21, 2000 09:27:45 PMI am not asking anyone to ignore anything, only that the greatest ability to not have something happen is to resolve it originally between the two parties, without third-party intervention
So paypaldamon what motivation does buyer have to negotiate when payment was made but nothing arrived? Particularly when buyer can just request a refund from the credit card company?
In the 1% of cases we're discussing, there is no "resolution between two parties" possible.
Sincerity paypaldamon if you protect sellers from chargebacks in non receipt situations, you're going to observe a non-receipt rate which rises steadily.
posted on August 21, 2000 09:45:53 PM"although 95% of MY sales go smoothly, that 5% is a serious pain in the backside and I'd love to get on the right page with the appropriate Powers That Be."
HCQ, that could take the wind out of anyone's sail. My rate of problem buyers is 0.8% and those have simply failed to pay, not a serious problem, I just relist the items. I wouldn't be able to handle a situation with 1 in 20 buyers being a serious problem. If I had your luck I think I'd avoid online payments myself.
I didn't find Damon's statement ridiculous or funny, it held with my own experiences.
posted on August 22, 2000 09:15:21 AMuaru - ah, semantics again. "1 in 20 buyers" is NOT a "serious problem". Only a very, very few of the sales that go awry are "serious problems." However, 5% of my total sales are deadbeats of one sort or another, which IS indeed a "serious pain".
Obviously, you don't feel holding on to merchandise for at least 2 additional weeks has any effect on your business, and don't think the time it takes to file NPB and FVF, relist, and contact the new high bidder "costs" you anything. If I could've spent that time and energy listing something NEW, it DOES "cost" me.
But that's not the point - which is that damon claims NEVER to have had ANY problems whatsoever. I can only infer from your and his position that, you don't feel it's necessary to check your rear view mirror regularly while you're driving, and wouldn't have auto insurance except that you're forced to, since since (using your percentage) 362 out of 365 days per year you don't have a near-miss with some nut on the road.
posted on August 22, 2000 09:48:32 AM" I can only infer from your and his position that, you don't feel it's necessary to check your rear view mirror regularly while you're driving, and wouldn't have auto insurance except that you're forced to, since since (using your percentage) 362 out of 365 days per year you don't have a near-miss with some nut on the road."
I do have rear view mirrors, and I carry car insurance. I accept the fact that driving affords me the risk of an accident no matter how many safe guards I employ, the odds are low enough that it doesn't affect my decision to drive.
All the items I sell are insured and I have delivery confirmation on all of them. That's probably not a practical excercise for all auctions. I think the odds of someone trying to committ fraud over a $5 item are extremely remote.
posted on August 22, 2000 10:07:38 AM
HI Sg52,
So paypaldamon what motivation does buyer have to negotiate when payment was made but nothing arrived? Particularly when buyer can just request a refund from the credit card company? ( Which is why we are asking for proof of shipment. To validate the claim.)
In the 1% of cases we're discussing, there is no "resolution between two parties" possible.
Sincerity paypaldamon if you protect sellers from chargebacks in non receipt situations, you're going to observe a non-receipt rate which rises steadily.
(True, but charge backs, as you had mentioned previously, are a part of accepting credit cards or having a payment facilitated through one)
I am actually going to state that I have never had a problem buying or selling on-line. My volume may not be as high as yours, but I also pay attention to what buyers and sellers do to minimize issues.
posted on August 22, 2000 11:12:03 AMSincerity paypaldamon if you protect sellers from chargebacks in non receipt situations, you're going to observe a non-receipt rate which rises steadily.
(True, but charge backs, as you had mentioned previously, are a part of accepting credit cards or having a payment facilitated through one)
Consider the forces, ppd. In the real world, seller first engages in a dance of pushes, prods and stall, hoping that the package will show up. But eventually, seller just sends another one, because the threat of a certain chargeback.
posted on August 23, 2000 09:01:18 AMdamon, I think my feedback indicates that "I also pay attention to what buyers and sellers do to minimize issues".
However, "good communication" does NOT "solve", among other things, problems of non-payment, underpayment, NO communication from the other party, bidders attempting to back out of the deal (and expecting a refund) by refusing acceptance of the item when shipped, sellers grossly misrepresenting an item and when informed of the misrepresentation, saying "screw you," bidders refusing insurance and then demanding a refund when the item is damaged, claiming the item never arrived when it was indeed shipped in good faith, claims of damage when item was properly packed, and bidders attempting to switch seller's merchandise for their own damged goods and then demanding a refund. I have not been subject to all these nightmares, but among the few dozen AW regulars, I'd say we have at least several examples of each problem.
"Good communication" works ONLY if BOTH parties to the deal are participating honestly. There is a small percentage of bidders and sellers that are NOT interested in dealing honestly or in "communicating". THAT is the population Paypal needs to address. Simply saying "that's a small percentage" does NOT make the problem go away. It is only good business to accept the fact that these problems will occur and to determine how to handle them BEFORE they arise, rather than playing Pollyanna and assuming that everybody we deal with is willing to hold hands and lovingly share the experience.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:25:33 AM
>>However, "good communication" does NOT "solve", among other things, problems of non-payment, underpayment, NO communication from the other party, bidders attempting to back out of the deal (and expecting a refund) by refusing acceptance of the item when shipped, sellers grossly misrepresenting an item and when informed of the misrepresentation, saying "screw you," bidders refusing insurance and then demanding a refund when the item is damaged, claiming the item never arrived when it was indeed shipped in good faith, claims of damage when item was properly packed, and bidders attempting to switch seller's merchandise for their own damged goods and then demanding a refund. There is a small percentage of bidders and sellers that are NOT interested in dealing honestly or in "communicating". THAT is the population Paypal needs to address.<<
Why does PP need to address this? It is NOT a PP problem. Deadbeats and scams have been around long before there was a PP. Should the Post Office address this to, just because you sometimes use them to mail a payment? How about Billpoint, Paydirect, Ecount, your bank, your CC? Should they all be responsible for deadbeat bidders, damaged items, etc?
The first responsibility is the auction site. As long as ebay does little and Yahoo does nothing to weed out the bad guys, this will continue. The second lies with the bidder to check a seller's rating and with the seller to be honest. All any payment service can do is follow your instructions and assist when real fraud has occurred.
posted on August 23, 2000 02:01:15 PMWhy does PP need to address this?
Because they're in the middle, and they enforce the rules. They must make the rules clear. So far, they have not done so.
HCQ is right. There exist a long list of problems which are not solved by communication. With an ordinary CC merchant account, often they're solved by seller just biting hard and sending a refund. But the rules are very clear, and everyone knows what happens when communication fails.
We are asking buyers and sellers to resolve the issue before it ever gets to that stage, even if it involves refunds. The requirements for shipping and other items are needed for a dispute. I don't see where I stated that this should not occur.
posted on August 23, 2000 06:34:52 PMWe are asking buyers and sellers to resolve the issue before it ever gets to that stage, even if it involves refunds. The requirements for shipping and other items are needed for a dispute. I don't see where I stated that this should not occur.
The rules dictate the discussion.
A seller who knows that a chargeback is certain is more likely to resolve the dispute than a seller with no such knowledge.
When the rules are unclear, most people substitue their own idea as to what is "fair", which seldom yields any resolution.
The rules must allow both buyer and seller to look at the current situation and know how it will be resolved if neither side backs down. The losing side will then seek resolution.
posted on August 23, 2000 11:30:40 PM
While PayPal was scratching their heads trying to come up with yet another new TOU [or clarify what they have?] Billpoint was working on getting their service up & running for Canadian sellers.
posted on August 24, 2000 08:23:39 AM
Really? I thought they were just doing a "test" run for certain individuals, like they did back in October before Billpoint finally rolled out. I didn't realize it's available to the entire general public yet.
Where can I find info about Billpoint's Canada service on eBay. I can't find anything, not even in the announcements.
posted on August 24, 2000 10:58:56 PM
I read one other thread where someone mentioned they got the same letter you did, so it's hitting some people, just not everyone (at least yet). It does sound like the "testing" stage, like what they did with Billpoint in October before it first came out completely. Or maybe it's just a local thing, and only being sent to Canadian sellers right now?
Let us know how it works out. eBay's having a lot of little glitches right now with people having problems trying to register through Billpoint. But eBay always has little glitches, so you kinda just get used to it.
[ edited by jrscharton on Aug 24, 2000 10:59 PM ]
posted on August 24, 2000 11:09:18 PM"While PayPal was scratching their heads trying to come up with yet another new TOU [or clarify what they have?] Billpoint was working on getting their service up & running for Canadian sellers."
You lucky devil you. It really didn't matter if PayPal got their Canadian service up and running or not did it? PayPal was going to require 'proof of shipment' to avoid chargebacks and you already seemed to have spoken on that matter at the beginning of this thread.
"You can pretty much forget about any Canadian sellers joining up. Your proof of shipping requirement rules out every Small Packet parcel leaving Canada. Small Packet parcels cannot be insured & all we get is a general receipt, no names, no item mentioned, no address."
The fees won't be much of a problem considering BillPoint won't require any proof of shipment on chargeback issues. They don't require 'proof of shipment' on chargeback issues do they? I'd hate to think your opening post in this thread was purely argumentative and less than sincere.
posted on August 24, 2000 11:52:12 PMThey don't require 'proof of shipment' on chargeback issues do they?
Uh, no, actually they don't "require" 'proof of shipment' with regards to chargebacks, they simply suggest it might be a good idea to help cover ones behind.
I must say I find Billpoints TOU very clear cut & precise with no murky areas whatsoever.
posted on August 25, 2000 12:26:02 AM
Thanks for the URL, but I've seen that one, I've had a BillPoint account for some time. So if you don't have a "proof of shipment" and the buyer claims they didn't get their item and files a dispute with the credit card company what happens? I'm curious if we've read the same thing from those terms.
I'm thinking that you'll get money taken out of your bank account, whether or not you even still have a BillPoint account, and they will charge you a $10.00 (investigation fee) on top of the amount they refund to the buyer.
posted on August 25, 2000 04:53:48 AM"Good communication" works ONLY if BOTH parties to the deal are participating honestly. There is a small percentage of bidders and sellers that are NOT interested in dealing honestly or in "communicating". THAT is the population Paypal needs to address. Simply saying "that's a small percentage" does NOT make the problem go away. It is only good business to accept the fact that these problems will occur and to determine how to handle them BEFORE they arise, rather than playing Pollyanna and assuming that everybody we deal with is willing to hold hands and lovingly share the experience.
posted on August 25, 2000 08:15:38 AM
>>I must say I find Billpoints TOU very clear cut & precise with no murky areas whatsoever. <<
It's very clear. Seller pays Billpoint's fees. Seller agrees to accept charge backs. Seller agrees to pay additional fees for charge backs. Billpoint provides free narcotics to sellers to make this sound reasonable.
Yes, seller pays fees. But I'm afraid at this point in time they are the only service that allows foreeners like moi to accept CC's online. CCnow is great, but they charge 9%. Billpoint charges me 2.25%. You do the math. I also do a fair bit of Overseas transactions & Billpoint also accepts CC payments from ALL the countries I generally do business with.
As far as chargebacks, I've decided that if it becomes a problem I'll simply quit offering online CC payments. I doubt it will be a problem though, as PayPal Damon has stated, 99% of transactions are problem free.
posted on August 25, 2000 10:08:24 AM
>>Yes, seller pays fees. But I'm afraid at this point in time they are the only service that allows foreeners like moi to accept CC's online. CCnow is great, but they charge 9%. Billpoint charges me 2.25%. You do the math. I also do a fair bit of Overseas transactions & Billpoint also accepts CC payments from ALL the countries I generally do business with.
As far as chargebacks, I've decided that if it becomes a problem I'll simply quit offering online CC payments. I doubt it will be a problem though, as PayPal Damon has stated, 99% of transactions are problem free. <<
My confusion stems from the fact that you have already stated you wont take PP when it gets there because of the charge back issue. Yet you will take billpoint, which gives you even less protection than PP and charges you on top of that. Why would you pay for service when you can get even better service free?
By the way, the free narcotics offer has the following conditions:
-if you are hit with a charge back, BP will give you 10% of the CB amount, less a $25 deductible in a narcotic you choose from their list. You must wait 60 days and then send BP proof of the CB. 60 days later, BP will send you a form you must fill out and have notarized. Sometime after that you must wait by the phone because they will only call once. A voice will tell you where to go to get your drug. Offer void where prohibited by law. Other disclaimers may apply.
posted on August 25, 2000 10:11:44 AM"As far as chargebacks, I've decided that if it becomes a problem I'll simply quit offering online CC payments. I doubt it will be a problem though, as PayPal Damon has stated, 99% of transactions are problem free."
Reddeer,
I'd use BillPoint in a heartbeat in your position, it's by far the best choice you have. I just found your opening post in this thread a bit less than geniune given the embrace you gave BillPoint when the same terms were offered.
posted on August 25, 2000 10:48:51 AM
Ok, Ok, uaru, I'll admit it, I spouted off about the CB issue before digesting the entire new TOU with PayPal. Yes, it was a knee jerk reaction. Should I go back & edit? It seems this thread has taken on a life of it's own along the way & is just now coming back to the original issue I had.
A couple months back when I started looking at PayPal I really didn't have any "issues" with their service. The verification portion of their new TOS [and most other new additions] doesn't bother me either.
I think the only "issues" I have with PayPal at this point is how they seem to be running their business. The past few weeks on AW have been a real eye opener.
Yisgood
Why would you pay for service when you can get even better service free?
Better service? So far the service I've received from Billpoint has been very professional & very fast. I have at my disposal several email addys for concerns/questions about their service & I also have a power seller rep in my pocket.
And please, don't consider me an eBay cheerleader, I'm far from that. I use eBay the same way they use me, I take them for everything I can. I also will be the first one to admit that eBay's CS is for the most part, not to great. But at the same time I'm usually satisfied with the end results.
I've known a few of the CS reps for a few years now & I can honestly say that not one of them would have left someone in Datcha's predicament dangling with out at least offering to help via email.
IMO not only was it piss poor CS, it was piss poor PR and it spoke volumes to me as to the integrity of the people working at that company.
I agree that PayPal has some needs. A better platform for dealing with customers, they need their own message board very much. BillPoint has been wise not to venture into the public message boards, they've made TOU changes, they just did it quietly and no spokes person came out to handle questions. PayPal's efforts are noble, but there are elements in a public message board that make it uncontrolable and 1 complaint out of 3 million customers even without validation can become all consuming.
I hope BillPoint works well for you, but not so well that you won't give PayPal a try when/if they get their service open for the Canucks.
posted on August 25, 2000 11:41:22 AMBy the way, the free narcotics offer has the following conditions: -if you are hit with a charge back, BP will give you 10% of the CB amount, less a $25 deductible in a narcotic you choose from their list. You must wait 60 days and then send BP proof of the CB. 60 days later, BP will send you a form you must fill out and have notarized. Sometime after that you must wait by the phone because they will only call once. A voice will tell you where to go to get your drug. Offer void where prohibited by law. Other disclaimers may apply.
Damnit! I knew it couldn't be that easy.
Seriously, though, yisgood, you've kept in chuckles most of the morning. Thanks!
edited for ubb errors
[ edited by jrscharton on Aug 25, 2000 02:54 PM ]
