posted on September 20, 2000 03:30:14 PM new
Hi topprospects,
X.com is a corporate umbrella for the bank and the payment service.
X.com, the banking product, is FDIC insured and is regulated by banking regulations. PayPal, a subsidiary of X.com, is a payment service and not a bank.
posted on September 20, 2000 03:37:33 PM new
Hi gomarek,
Just to advise, the clarification issue should have stated that the buyer is charged 5.00 and not the seller. My apologies for any issues that this has caused.
posted on September 20, 2000 03:58:25 PM new
Hi topprospects,
Not sure if I udnerstand your question...
X.com is a corporate umbrella, with a banking product (X.com) and a payment service (PayPal). The banking service for X.com is provided by... First Western National Bank.
posted on September 20, 2000 04:07:04 PM newpaypaldamon: Thanks for actually answering some questions instead of just cutting and pasting the information which caused all the confusion in the first place. it makes a big difference, believe me.
Anyway, since you ARE answering questions, here are a few that I think really need answering:
1. You just said "there will be no forced upgrades". Does this mean that your earlier statement to the effect that PayPal will be "considering a new policy to enforce our terms of use" [which requires businesses to upgrade to business accounts] is no longer operable? Or are you still saying that you plan on enforcing a requirement without forcing anyone to comply?
2. If the new fees are required to cover the costs inherent in collecting money from a credit card, why is that same fee being charged when the money is being collected from a debit card, checking account or an existing PayPal account?
3. Why do you insist on repeating that PayPal has "always said" that it would be "free for person-to-person payments" when, in fact, PayPal CLEARLY started out saying simply that "PayPal is a FREE SERVICE for both buyers and sellers alike" [with no mention of "person-to-person" payments]? The problem isn't that PayPal has had to change the way it does business. The PROBLEM is that you keep saying that nothing has changed....
I await your answers with bated breath.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 20, 2000 05:27:36 PM new
Hi Damon;
Thanks for the update:
"Just to advise, the clarification issue should have stated that the buyer is charged 5.00 and not the seller. My apologies for any issues that this has caused".
I appreciate your comment, but... I don't think posting the clarification on the message board is going to let the 3.5 million people whoPayPal/x,com emailed this misinformation know that a serious error was made by suggesting to its sellers that BidPay charges them a fee, when in fact we charge none.
This has gone beyond you and I and has been sent up to legal who are dealing with it at a corporate level, but again... thanks for your comment.
posted on September 20, 2000 05:41:20 PM new
Hi RainyBear;
I appreciate your comment, but simply because a company has a personality doesn't make it unprofessional.
When a competitor makes a misleading statement they know not to be true and then emails that statement to their entire client base... yes, we get our FUR UP.
I will admit that I was a little hard on PPDamon and that was uncalled for and I have already stated so to him.
What PayPal/x.com did was send an mass mailing to its entire customer database and in it made several misleading comments.
To have said "no one else can offer instant, safe and fraud protected payments on a sustainable basis for less" is completely untrue.
BidPay is actually considerably OLDER than PayPal (making us sustainable), offers secure, instant online payments with a 100% payment (fraud-protection) guarantee to the seller, operates in a secure mode and charges nothing what-so-ever to the seller.
Clearly, this is a direct contradiction to the statement made by them and they further mispresented our services by indicating that we charged a $5 to the seller when this is in fact not true... something that they and Damon have already acknowledged here.
Despite that fact that we are considerably older than PayPal, we have NEVER taken a shot at them or made any references to their service offerings in any mailings to our clients... and frankly we think it was a pretty cheap shot on their part to have not only done so, but to have done so and not used the correct information.
If it was a mistake made by some marketing individual then we can accept that and we have let them know that, but we are asking them to clarify the information by sending a follow up email to their client base.
posted on September 20, 2000 05:51:17 PM new
Hi godzillatemplate,
BTW, cool name.
Please see comments in parentheses.
paypaldamon: Thanks for actually answering some questions instead of just cutting and pasting the information which caused all the confusion in the first place. it makes a big difference, believe me.
Anyway, since you ARE answering questions, here are a few that I think really need answering:
1. You just said "there will be no forced upgrades". Does this mean that your earlier statement to the effect that PayPal will be "considering a new policy to enforce our terms of use" [which requires businesses to upgrade to business accounts] is no longer operable? Or are you still saying that you plan on enforcing a requirement without forcing anyone to comply? ( No forced upgrades)
2. If the new fees are required to cover the costs inherent in collecting money from a credit card, why is that same fee being charged when the money is being collected from a debit card, checking account or an existing PayPal account?( I could cover a whole host of operational costs on this issue, but I have addressed these concerns in the event that something changes)
3. Why do you insist on repeating that PayPal has "always said" that it would be "free for person-to-person payments" when, in fact, PayPal CLEARLY started out saying simply that "PayPal is a FREE SERVICE for both buyers and sellers alike" [with no mention of "person-to-person" payments]? The problem isn't that PayPal has had to change the way it does business. The PROBLEM is that you keep saying that nothing has changed....( I have covered this one to the best of my ability. We are not forcing business upgrades, but we are asking those to use the service for business services to upgrade their accounts to offset the costs associated with credit card processing. The business account definition, being defined as we speak, will be released and there will be a two-week period of notification before it goes into effect)
posted on September 20, 2000 05:52:09 PM new
Marek - thanks for posting, I was not aware of this cheesy move by Paypal.
I would guess that the error was intentional, and if not it only highlights (again and some more) how inept Paypal is if they can send an email with an error like that to 3.5 million people.
Bidpay is a first class operation. I am happy to list you as a payment option in every auction I post, and have a stack of 6 MO stubs sitting here, received via your service this month alone. Thank you for walking, talking and acting like an organization I can trust to handle money on my behalf. As far as I am concerned, you are in your own class.
posted on September 20, 2000 06:04:48 PM new"1. You just said "there will be no forced upgrades". Does this mean that your earlier statement to the effect that PayPal will be "considering a new policy to enforce our terms of use" [which requires businesses to upgrade to business accounts] is no longer operable? Or are you still saying that you plan on enforcing a requirement without forcing anyone to comply? ( No forced upgrades)"
posted on September 20, 2000 06:15:55 PM newlabbie1: What's to say? No matter how many times I ask I just won't get a straight answer. Damon obviously doesn't consider "forcing an upgrade" to be synonymous with "enforcing our Terms of Use", even though the Terms of Use now REQUIRE business users to upgrade.
Me thinks Damon has his own private definition of "force" and "enforce" which he just doesn't want to share with the rest of us. Either that, or he's heavily into the whole Orwellian "doublespeak" thing....
I'd love to ask what, exactly, Damon meant when he talked about "a new policy to enforce our terms of use" and whether PayPal was still considering this, but why bother? All I'll get is "no forced upgrades".
*sigh*
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 20, 2000 07:02:09 PM newBarry, I do confess that one of the first things that slapped me when I saw the original message was that no one will be forced to upgrade followed by we are looking into ways to enforce the businesses to upgrade.
Then, of course, there were the other items which PPD has assured me are on the list, so I won't relist them ad nauseum...
Of course they don't have to force us to upgrade (whether we consider ourselves businesses or not) if they just make it impossible to use, which would enforce their position.
posted on September 20, 2000 07:21:31 PM newgodzilla - remember, damon is only a customer service so most of the phrases are CYA phrases provided by the company. damon is not allowed to say any further
posted on September 21, 2000 08:27:41 AM new
Paypal e-mailed something to the user base about other services? (i.e., Bidpay charging $5.00) I never got this e-mail.
posted on September 21, 2000 09:20:55 AM new
Here's a thought about the enforcement issue:
If PP is going to consider anyone who has every auctioned even just one item as being a "business" and therefore require them to upgrade, what about other non-auction and not website business transactions?
People who auction or accept PP on thier web sites are (relatively) easy to spot. But people can also use PP to pay for business transaction without being an auction or e-commerce seller!
For example: Suppose I agree tp buy something from a company and we agree to make payment by PP. So I sign in to my personal account and send the payment to the personal account of the business rep. That was definately a business transaction but since the seller isn't an auctioner and doesn't have an e-commerce site that slips in under the PP radar.
IOW, this sounds like some very selective enforcement. They can go after auction sellers and web site people because they're easy targets to spot. But any other business conducted via PP is impossible to identify so it won't be enforced for them. Doesn't sound fair to me.
posted on September 21, 2000 09:23:14 AM new
I'm betting that this PayPalDamon is a different PayPalDamon. Sentence structure is quite different. I think the real Damon's been put on waivers....
posted on September 21, 2000 10:06:49 AM new
One opinion on answer translations to the Godzilla questions.
1. of course you can be "required" but not "forced" to upgrade as closing the account is always an option.
2. maybe we can make this a real cash cow.
3. "always" for most insects is only a few months...
3. option 2 - Paypal was bought by X.COM, who had a very different vision of what the service could be and no commitment to previous management's business model or promises.
Obviously these translations do not represent PP.
I believe that the ability for small sellers to accept e-payment is a great boon and PayPal deserves a lot of credit for breakthroughs in this area. However, since being taken over by X the changes have not been improvements. I'll still use them but remain somewhat leery, if one's not willing to be patient and deal with amatuers don't shop on ebay...
posted on September 21, 2000 07:16:37 PM new
2 weeks ago or around that when I typed in Paydirect there were only about 100 if that sellers taking it now in a short time and without paydirect pushing the service it is up to about 1093 I wonder how much that will increase on October 1st when al sellers be it part or full time must upgrade (pay for pay(PAL?)
posted on September 21, 2000 11:28:14 PM new
Hi Damon,
Speaking of the BidPay thing. While you are making changes I found something else kind of interesting that you may want to look at. You mention on your web site that: Billpoint charges 3.5% + 35¢
Since PayPal is charging *business users* you may want to mention that Billpoint only charges buisness users 2.25% + $0.35.
Better yet, how about no comparisons at all. This information becomes outdated fast and could be misleading.
posted on September 22, 2000 01:27:50 AM new"While you are making changes I found something else kind of interesting that you may want to look at. You mention on your web site that: Billpoint charges 3.5% + 35¢ Since PayPal is charging *business users* you may want to mention that Billpoint only charges buisness users 2.25% + $0.35."
My BillPoint rate is still 3.5% till October, some pay more than that. After October I'll have the 2.25%, but others will have 3.00%.
Depending on your Ebay volume, you may want to contact Billpoint. We were being charged the higher rate until two days ago after I read the posts on this board and contacted Billpoint myself. We received the following email:
>>>"Congratulations! Due to your excellent eBay history you have been approved for a lower fee schedule. Your new fee schedule is as follows: $0.35 for items under $10 and $0.35 + 2.25% for transactions over $10. You can confirm this information in your Billpoint user profile under "My Billpoint Fee Schedule"."<<<
This topic is 18 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new12new13new14new15new16new17new18new
