posted on September 16, 2000 08:35:44 PM
If your buyers are sending you payments via methods you don't accept (namely PayPal), the fault lies with your buyer, not the service.
If you don't accept PayPal, educate your buyers that to send payment via that method without checking with the seller first is not appreciated by sellers.
posted on September 16, 2000 08:47:12 PM
It should not be my job as a seller to educate buyers about the pitfalls of PayPal.
This paypal policy of accepting payments
for non registered users is designed to
reel in new users. Don't blame the buyer!
posted on September 16, 2000 08:51:25 PM
OLDSTUFF and REDDEER -- It's nearly midnight here Eastern time, but I sauntered over to the ebay Sports board and found something I thought was pretty interesting myself.
There are NO posts between 13:58:48 and 15:40:29. The post from Numis-whomever that you referred to was at 15:05:14, you said.
You two -- or anyone -- care to enlighten those of us who missed this?
And anybody know what the policy is that ebay cites, or the rule that was broken?
CG
It is not a matter of educating your "buyers about the pitfalls of PayPal". It is about educating your buyers not to send payment other than listed in your auction terms, whether this be PayPal, checks, cash, money orders,etc...
If I did not state that I accept checks in my auction terms, or I did flat-out state that I do not accept checks, and a buyer sent me a check, I think the buyer is at fault. This is where I think it's a good time to educate the buyers. And I hope other sellers will educate their buyers, too.
posted on September 16, 2000 09:01:58 PM
Here's a test you can perform, you might find the results interesting. Try and send payment to another email address (one that doesn't have an account) with Yahoo's PayDirect. I wanted to see if the .com or .net problem could occur there also, they do. That was the reason for my test but there was something else that happened that seemed damn odd. I'd like someone else to try it and see if my results match their's.
You'll know it when you see it, unless my test was a fluke.
posted on September 16, 2000 09:04:10 PM
jscharton,
You obviously think differently than I do on
this issue. PayPal is at fault here and not
the buyer or the seller. No service such as
paypal should accept payments for unregistered sellers. It's that simple.
posted on September 16, 2000 09:16:20 PM"No service such as paypal should accept payments for unregistered sellers. It's that simple.
That would mean every person to person pay services I can think of like PayPlace, Yahoo's PayDirect, Ecount, Western Union's MoneyZap, First Bank's eMoneyMail, ExchangePath, PayMe, etc. would be guilty of the same offence. Are particularly upset if PayPal allows it or does it apply to all person to person pay services?
Yes, I do think differently on this issue than you do. As uaru mentioned, PayPal is set up exactly like the majority of online payment services I am familiar with are set up. I still feel if a buyer sends me a check as payment, and I do not accept checks, it is the buyer's fault, not the buyer's bank's fault.
And I disagree that any online payment service like PayPlace, Yahoo's PayDirect, Ecount, Western Union's MoneyZap, First Bank's eMoneyMail, ExchangePath, PayPal or PayMe are accepting payment for me if I am not registered with their service. The buyer is attempting to use that service to send me payment. If I don't accept it, then the buyer has the option to cancel their request to send me the money. The buyer still has control of those funds. I think the best thing to do in this case is to educate the buyer not to send payment via a method I don't accept instead of blaming the payment service whether it be the U.S. Government, the buyer's bank, USPS, or whatever vehicle they used to attempt to pay me with.
posted on September 16, 2000 09:46:02 PM
jrscharton
Yes, the blame does fall on the buyer for this.. The polite thing to do would be to email you first and ASK if you would be willing to accept PayPal payments. But think about it this way. The buyers are doing exactly what they are told to do by the service. None of these service should use this baiting technique to sign up sellers. It is offensive to many of us and it should be illegal.
[ edited by feistyone on Sep 16, 2000 09:47 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2000 09:54:40 PM
feistyone,
I absolutely agree the polite thing would be for the buyer to ask if I accept a certain payment before just sending payment that way.
I'm still on the fence about whether or not the seemingly majority of payment services that do this should be disallowed from using this method to try to get new users to sign up to their service. I can see how it can be intrusive (and offensive to some) if it's a payment method you have no desire of ever accepting and you continue to receive those notices. Then again, it may be a service you want to use and this is one way of finding out about it. You still have the option of whether or not to accept that payment. I don't know. I totally understand why business do it, but can see how it would alienate some people from ever deciding to use that service.
Personally, it doesn't bother me. I'll either sign up and use the service, or contact the buyer and inform them that I don't accept payment via that method, but do accept payment via the following methods.
It would be so simple to program PayPal to only accept payments for
registered members. For example, a screen would pop up ( like the infamous "this seller is a possible crook screen". But in this case,
it would indicate, "this seller is not registered with PayPal."
This would also help to eliminate payments that are made in error by typing the incorrect email
address.
I just state in my ads that I will accept a check or money order. I refuse to advertise
PayPal in either a positive or negative way.
I flew their banner for awhile until I was
unfairly used and abused. So, it bothers me a lot.
Edited to clean up my vocabulary.
Helen
[ edited by HJW on Sep 17, 2000 06:02 AM ]
posted on September 17, 2000 05:49:05 AM
uaru - I just did your test with paydirect and saw nothing odd occur, it works same as Paypal, except the recipient has an option to "refuse".
I mailed money to an alternate email of my own that does not have an acct.
I got notification instantly.
When I clicked to claim, I was still logged onto Yahoo under my main name, so it prompted me to sign up the new email under my acct.
I decided to do this and so had to verify my email, which took about 5 seconds.
This brought me to the usual screen that gives 3 options. Accept, Refuse, or Accept Later.
I usually aggree with your posts but in this case, I cannot fault
the buyer. Experienced users of ebay will read the tos carefully
and comply with the stated methods of payment.
But there are a lot of new members who may just assume that PayPal
is ok. This is of course what PayPal is banking on.
Now, why should I have to educate the buyers about how this mickey
mouse organization operates?
Finding other services who operate in the same unscrupulous way,
is not relevant. It's like telling somebody to deal with this
crooked business because there are several other businesses who
operate in the same manner.
posted on September 17, 2000 12:21:01 PM
Sourpuss is so right! I've even been spammed by the demon himself...
inviting me to post my comments on a more inconspicuous thread!
Three spams in rapid fire order.
Then there are the PayPal spams telling me that I have money but then
I find that they believe it is not my money, but the buyers money
but I can have it anyway if I will register with them. Whew!!!
posted on September 17, 2000 01:13:20 PMVery ModemWhat happened when you tried this?
Same thing, but the email didn't arrive for 18 hours. Tried it with another server email at the same time, 18 hours on that one also. Must have been a temporary problem then.
posted on September 17, 2000 01:17:22 PM
Yep, you must have hit an oddity, because I have been paid with Paydirect 10-12 times and no delay. I sure hope they catch on. They are our (auction users) best hope. I think that Payplace can only go the way of Paypal, but Yahoo has many options / alternative ways to make it pay for them.
posted on September 17, 2000 01:29:02 PMVery Modem I think that Payplace can only go the way of Paypal, but Yahoo has many options / alternative ways to make it pay for them.
I don't know about Yahoo. They've already stated their may be fees in the futures, that translates to "There will be fees in the future." The two services I've seen that leave the seller free of any possible fees as I see it are MoneyZap and eMoneyMail, MoneyZap is free but when they begin charging a per transaction fee it will be the buyer that pays that fee.
I'm still using PayPal, hard for me to ignore 9 months of great service, but I want an alternataive payment plan... decisions decisions.
posted on September 17, 2000 02:08:20 PM
uaru - those sites are in the same situation as paypal. One trick pony. Yahoo is not dependent on paydirect to survive. They have a piece of virtually every piece of pie on the internet.
Point 1 is that the "may charge in the future..." disclaimer is all over Yahoo. It is standard. They are reserving this right, but I have yet to see them invoke it, here, there or anywhere. My experience with Yahoo, is that if it is going to cost, it starts out that way - examples being a storefront or Yahoo Billpay. Featuring an auction had a cost, and then they gave us all free money and after that, they lowered the price! They have a history of being creative and innovative and I have a hard time believing that they would follow the examples of 1-click, Billpoint and Paypal - institute a charge, only to fail or become marginally successful, especially since they have a CHOICE.
I have posted most of this before but...
Consider that Yahoo is an entire different operation than paypal (or the others) and they have a host of alternative ways to make money.
- for example....
I would pay $5 a month in 2 seconds to use their site. Heck yeah. For their email, their stock boards, their paydirect, their auctions, their messenger, (complete with free domestic long distance GOOOOO Net2phone!), their clubs, and on and on and on.
Now.. Multiply $5 by their user base, and even assume that each user has 10 id's and this is still a whole lot of money.
Would I pay $10?
Absolutely.
Unlimited everything, $20?
Sign me up. It'd be a steal.
This is one way it could go. Flat fee for use of the entire site. Like an E ticket to Disneyland.
I mean to illustrate that Yahoo is in a unique position here. If you really want to talk UNSTOPPABLE - Yahoo is the site. It is kind of like.. what *don't* they offer?
posted on September 17, 2000 02:26:50 PM
I don't hold Yahoo any higher than First Data/Western Union. Folks have been dealing with Western Union for a looooooong time, before they had computers. First Data is far from a 'one trick pony show.'
Time will tell. If fees are the primary concern it just seemed that a service directing fees to the buyer like as if they were purchasing a Money Order would be the way to go. I'll pay a buck as a buyer to use my credit card instead of getting a money order and mailing it. I won't pay $5 for that Money Order (BidPay).
I think Yahoo is where PayPal was 9 months ago, fresh out of the starting gate, new customers signing up, and the same terms PayPal started with. Will Yahoo be able to have unverified sellers, and not allow credit card chargebacks, for free? I kinda doubt it, but we'll see.
posted on September 17, 2000 02:38:21 PM
uaru - you are right, time'll tell, but I can say one thing for sure.
If I am going to pay to get paid, there is no way that I am going to select a cheesy organization like Paypal as provider.
Western Union?
Bring 'em on.
They walk, talk, act, and smell like a bank and that suits me.
Gimme Yahoo's e-ticket or bank with it's cards on the table, and please no whining about me sharing your costs... A whining bank, can you believe it? A bank that needs my help to cover their costs and make money. A new age sensitive commune bank headed up by radh's vultures. LOL!
posted on September 17, 2000 02:44:03 PM
MoneyZap IS Western Union. The Western Union logo on the page has a lot of clout.
My opinion of PayPal is far from cheesy. I think they've had to change directions more than others because they've gone much further down the river than others.
posted on September 17, 2000 07:04:46 PM
The buyer should be getting an error message. "Sorry, but XXX is not a paypal user.."
-------
As a buyer, I've had this happen to me on two occasions, the most recent being last week. I attempted to send a PayPal payment to sellers who, when I asked if they accepted PayPal, told me that they did. When I went to send them a PayPal payment, however, I got this message:
"Seller's Status
This recipient is not yet registered or verified. He or she will receive the money after opening an account with this email address. "
So, my guess is that your buyers *are* getting a message stating that you don't have a PayPal account, but are ignoring it.
What I've done when this has happened was to e-mail the seller and advise them. In one case, the seller had their account under a different e-mail address. I've e-mailed the second seller 3 times, and have been waiting 4 days with no response.
posted on September 17, 2000 07:10:26 PM
Thanks for the info SinginRose, every bit helps in deciding how to deal with it. I have never sent someone a payment they did not want and so had no idea what a buyer shoves beyond.
posted on September 17, 2000 07:49:32 PM
Arrrgggh! The message board just ate my rather long-winded response
I think part of the problem is that there is no clear and concise definition of what the folks at PayPal consider a "Business", and what they consider a "Consumer", at least where it pertains to online auctions.
I think most people would agree that someone like me, who puts a few odd items up for sale that they want to get rid of every few months, would fall into the "Consumer" category. There would probably also be agreement that a company like accessories4sale.com, that uses online auctions as a means of selling cellular phone accessories, would fall into the "Business" category. Where things get vague is those people in the middle of the spectrum, who use online auctions for more than a cyber garage sale, but who aren't using them as a cyber extensions of their offline businesses.
posted on September 18, 2000 06:01:56 AMAnother SPAM
Another "You've Got Cash" message from PayPal!
Based on my experience in the past, I know that this is nothing but spam!
The cash that I've got is not really
my cash. It's the buyer's cash. Then, if
I register it will be my cash. Well, PayPal
I don't need it that badly!!!
So, I have asked Damon to remove my name from their spam list.
I forwarded the spam message to Damon this
morning.
I am not writing letters to the buyer either
in an effort to collect this money.
posted on September 18, 2000 06:21:11 AM"Another SPAM Another "You've Got Cash" message from PayPal! Based on my experience in the past, I know that this is nothing but spam!
Too bad they sent it to you and not me. Based on my experience in the past, I know it's cash in the bank.
If you really feel it's spam you can report it, but brace yourself for a disappointment.
You may be right. I am so angry that I think
that I may be cutting my nose off to spite my
face. I am rethinking my position and I hope
that I will be able to come up with a rational solution to this problem
I have made it very clear in both my auction
and in my end of auction letters to the winning bidders that I only accept checks or
money orders.
Although the buyer is clearly being used in
this situation by PayPal, I am beginning to
understand feistone''s suggestion that the
buyer shares responsibility in this complicity.
