posted on September 22, 2000 09:34:22 AM
If X.com was to hold personal accounts to a maximum number of payments per month would you consider that a 'forced upgrade'?
posted on September 22, 2000 12:42:07 PM
Random thoughts over coffee.....
No forced upgrades...hmmm.. so what happens to those of us who were already "forced" to upgrade? We get screwed for being honest? What they also don't say is the events that will take place if you are a seller and do not upgrade.
Great business strategy..get tons of people to promote your product for you.. then screw tons of people. PayPal grew not because of promotion it did, but because of the promotion all the sellers did. How many banners in how many auctions??
The thing that really jars my preserves is when I was presented with that, I HAD to make a decision right there.. in order to withdraw my funds. That's shady dealing.
Did it just dawn on PayPal that they were going to have to pay credit card fees? Whole thing sounds like a science project gone bad.
posted on September 22, 2000 02:48:01 PM
GodzillaTemplate:
Dont be surprised questions go unanswered. We have put 20 VERY basic questions to payPal via email, Via phone, Via here and never had a single answer multiple times. Here they now DELETE the messages.
Signed: WhyNot!
posted on September 22, 2000 02:56:16 PM
No one will be "forced" to upgrade. I suspect Paypal will limit the number of transactions allowed with the personal account. This will allow Paypal to retain their "no forced upgrades" promise, but still chop the arms and legs off all personal accounts.
Paypaldamon, I'm asking you straight out:
Are you aware of any plans or considerations to limit the number of transactions allowed per month with the personal account?
posted on September 22, 2000 03:14:25 PM
My comment about the business upgrade with incentives is derived from a personal experience in a city in which we lived. They were starting to recycle. The landfill usage had to be cut by 25% or the city would face some stiff penalties. Prior to this, they would take whatever you put on the curb.
So, they instituted a "Voluntary Recycling Program with Incentives". Wanna know the incentives:
Well, you could have 1 container not more than 30 gallons and not more than 50 lbs. per week per household--no matter the number of people residing there. If you wished to put out more trash than that, you had to pay $5.00 each for tags to put on each additional bag of trash. You had to purchase 5 tags at a time in a bundle.
Soooooo.....
I am seeing PayPal thinking--"How about: Voluntary business upgrades with incentives"....
posted on September 22, 2000 06:02:09 PM
AS I noted... We have asked many many times fundamental questions that are never answered. In fact, several posts are deleted. I have posted 3 times now that CMGI Ventures (A BIG WEB PLAYER) has opened a free payment service. All three times, message disappears.
There are other things happening. Did you know that BY October 1st apparently AGGRIGATE card processors can be charged up to 25,000 in fines from Visa/MC unless they are SET compliant and VALIDATING information and properly encrypting it. Whats happening here folks from what our processors have said is that Visa/MC is basically causing all the good vendors to PAY for the bad ones, These are the AGRIGATES, the ones who sellmerchant accounts or act as a go between payment processor. In other words, ever see that Internet Tool Kit that the guy from HOME Improvement peddles? Thats with CSI the merchant account. They are the AGRIGATE and MUST make sure that all internet sellers accepting payment via credit card are compliant or THEY get fined. Picture becoming clearer?
According to what we were told Agrigate processors are pushing the costs off on the merchants or trying to. One we saw I shall Cut n Paste:
<<
OVERVIEW FROM THE EDITOR:
Details follow below Editor overview.
Sweeping new regulations effective October 2000 state that all merchants accepting "electronic eCommerce transaction" orders,
either via a web site or by email, MUST use a real time Virtual Terminal to process.
Merchants processing "electronic commerce transactions" with software, swipe terminals, keypads, phone systems, etc., will only be able to use these systems to process fax/mail/phone orders and recurring billing.
That's right! No more processing these orders with software, terminals, keypads, phone, etc. Any merchant who hasn't complied
by January 2001 will suffer fines ranging from $1000 a month for Mastercard to $5,000 for the first month going up to a maximum
of $25,000 per month by VISA!
Don't try to cheat because if they catch you, they share a list of merchants who have tried to defraud them and you'll have a better
chance of getting an ice cube in hell than to get a merchant account again.
Don't panic! And by all means, don't go for one of the $700 to $1000 setup or high monthly charge services we're seeing around!
And especially, don't sign long term contracts or leases! Mallpark has been supplying this service for years now. It's a fact that having to add another processor between the cardholder and the
bank will add another monthly charge, but that amount is reasonable. Yes there are one time setup charges involved, but they are also reasonable, if you deal with Mallpark anyway. http://www2.mallpark.com/Index.cfm
>>
This is from Mallpark, not a tiny tot either. Yet, the information is incorrect. THE AGRIGATE or THEM can be fined. Getting clearer YET???
If not... If PayPal CANT make money being free then WHY did they as many have pointed out state it would always be free.
Billpoint has restructured its payment structure. Billpoint has a distinct advantage now as do Billpoint users. For small ticket transactions its cheaper. For large ticket purchases would you rather have eBay BE THERE IN THE LOOP or be totally out of it saying "sorry... deal with them over there". With the new fee structure at eBay its CLEAR thats the one to use. eBays site, eBays service and hopefully eBay itself can get back to operating without the external payment entities tossing monkey wrenches in everyones life.
Billpoint is integrated into eBay and part of eBay. Lets support the site that supports us, eBay. Now that the payment structure is comparable to a merchant account and they ARE clear on policy its surely the best bet for both sellers & consumers. You wouldnt go to Walmart to charge something bought in a garage sale. You can now treat eBay as what it WAS a singular entity to deal with and no external nightmares plastered upon all of us that change seemingly at will while all the poor sellers out there scramble to make changes over a service that controls them.
Answer: Use Billpoint and not only let eBay does what it does best, dealing with its buyers and sellers and at the sametime you now SUPPORT the site that IS supporting you, it sounds right, it feels right, it is right.
No more hollow policies, no more "BINGO!" Change time! and no more threads with questionsgoing unanswered. Support the site that supports you, thats eBay.
Signed: WhyNot!
posted on September 22, 2000 07:49:56 PM
Hi, Labbie. I don't "expect" any answer from PPD. I would like to give Paypal, through their representative here, a chance to TELL THE TRUTH for once.
"We're considering ways to enforce ... but no one will be forced" is just double-talk. I can't believe a company actually has the nerve to treat its customers with such disdain. They must think we're morons.
posted on September 23, 2000 08:28:29 PM
Paypaldamon, I'm asking you straight out:
Are you aware of any plans or considerations to limit the number of transactions allowed per month with the personal account?>>
Hmm I wonder if you will get an answer. I guess we all just have to wait until October 1st and see what happens. They may back down a little until things calm down and then do what every they were going to do. Since we dont know what that is and out PAL has pretty much kept us in the dark I guess we will never know.
posted on September 24, 2000 03:59:00 AM
Paypaldamon:
It's Paypal's dishonesty that's the problem.
If you were to tell us that the original business model turned out to be unworkable and you had to make changes to survive, I would understand. If you even said that the model worked fine but Paypal wanted more profit, I'd wouldn't like it, but I'd still go along. Hell, I've long since given up on expecting companies to keep their word. And it was obvious from the word go that Paypal was lying to us while it built a customer base; your business model as described to us then was clearly unprofitable, though Paypal hasn't, until now, admitted it (in a roundabout way).
But I simply cannot stomach when a company *blatantly* breaks its word, as yours has done, and then tries to act as if not only no word was broken, but that any perception to the contrary is all in our heads. If you want to break your word, do it in a straightforward manner without the weasel words you've been using, take your lumps, and move on. But don't BS us, because--believe it or not--we're not stupid, and integrity is important when we're chosing whom we let handle our money.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:53:20 AM
I, too, was "sucked" into upgrading to a Premiere account. Before I knew it, my account had been upgraded and the fees started coming out of my receipts. I understand that PayPal must make money to continue to exist, but I'm just a small time buyer and seller on ebay. I don't consider my activity as a "business", and therefore didn't think that I should be required to upgrade. Obviously, Paypal made a serious marketing mistake on their method of implementation, but I still think their service is a great one, and I will continue to use it in my auctions.
What I did do, however, was call their toll free number and described my activity to them and they downgraded my account back to a "personal" account. It was explained to me that PayPal never intended to impose their fee schedule on "casual" users, but was intended to be attractive to the large, multiple transaction user. Unfortunately, they have not fully defined what a "large, multiple transaction user" is but you might want to give them a call like I did.
posted on September 24, 2000 10:04:47 AM
THE WAY I SEE IT IF PAYPAL THINKS THAT EVERYONE IS A "BUSSINESS" LET IT BE UP TO THE BIDDER USE MONEY ORDER OR BE HIT WITH A HANDILING FEE FOR USING PAYPAL FOR YOUR AUCTION THIS MAY BE THE SLOW END TO PAYPAL. AND I ALSO BUY AS WELL AS SELL ON EBAY AND HAVE PAID WITH PAYPAL AND HAVE ALLWAYS HAD MONEY FROM PAYMENTS IN THERE THEY NEVER TOUCHED MY CREDIT CARD. SO I GUESS THE COMPLANTS ABOUT THE CREDIT CARD COMPANYS CHARGING SO MUCH ARE LIES ALSO.
posted on September 25, 2000 10:41:16 AM
Hi traceyg,
No, I am not aware of the criteria being established about what or isn't a business account or if the criteria will be based on the number of transactions.
posted on September 25, 2000 10:50:54 AM
I backed out of the screen when it said that I MUST UPGRADE and clicked on Logon again and I havn't seen the the "MUST UPGRADE" screen since. I don't know if it will ask me again but My paypal has still been working just fine. I think it was just a smoke screen to see how many people they could scare into signing up. I still havn't signed up for the business account.
posted on September 25, 2000 11:18:34 AM
New Referral Bonus Policy
We have modified our referral bonus requirements. The individuals you refer must confirm their email address and bank account for you to get $5. To increase the security of the PayPal service, we are encouraging all of our users to verify their identity by confirming a bank account.
posted on September 25, 2000 12:42:12 PMmagazine_guy: Are you serious? Or is this out of the "if they did what they did already they'll probably try this next" file, or is this just a joke?
If serious, I'll state the obvious right away: not a lot of buyers, especially now-and-then ones, are going to want to give some third party their bank account numbers (and I'd question those who do).
If a joke, it's a pretty good one.
This brings up things I've meant to mention and ask about for awhile now.
I've seen a couple of the "Unverified" labels on sellers' auctions, a few weeks back, and I right away thought this was very tacky on PP's part. They should have given "Verified" labels to those who did (as a bonus), and left the rest alone instead of, in effect, punishing them with an negative label.
This is similar to two-tier pricing that some stores have set up, rewarding those willing to have their purchases tracked and their habits profiled, and essentially punishing those who aren't willing to submit to such scrutiny for the sake of groceries. One store in San Diego put something on the receipt that amounted to saying that I was paying $3.50 more without a card. Paying $3.50 more because I wasn't willing to get their ID card -- and this was on a mere $20 or so of groceries I was picking up for the hotel room. (I doubt people are being clearly informed of the purpose of such cards; see also http://www.nocards.org, which is keeps invoking the "Big Brother" angle, but is still interesting. Disclaimer: I'm not associated with this site in any way. )
The "Unverified" label PayPal slaps on people amounts to the same thing: punishing those who do not wish to give up something.
Oh, I've seen several references to "the verification fiasco," but I must have missed the original AW thread on it (I'm assuming there was one ). Anyone have a link?
----
What's being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
The above are all just my opinions, except where I cite facts as such.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
Is eBay is changing from a world bazaar into a bizarre world?
[ Edited to fix a sentence fragment and describe the link. ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Sep 25, 2000 12:47 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2000 11:22:21 AM
The September 14, 2000 issue of the Los Angeles Times did a side-by-side comparison of most of the PayPal-type sites available.
Their choice for the best, but not perfect, site was www.payplace.com
One option for receiving payment is to have the amount directly credited to your Visa or Mastercard!
Perhaps if the word gets spread widely enough, PayPlace could elbow-out PayPal as the payment site of choice.
Any other comments or experience on that?
posted on September 27, 2000 04:17:40 PM
Perhaps if the word gets spread widely enough, PayPlace could elbow-out PayPal as the payment site of choice.
Any other comments or experience on that? >>
I think Paydirect is going to give them a real run for their money. The rules favor the seller they are free (at least for now) and work very smoothly. Even if Paypal is to stay free it does work very smoothly and there is always some kind of problem or hassle. Last weekend was the first weekend that my sales ended on Ebay that I was only taking Paydirect. I had maybe 35% pay with Paydirect only one lady had trouble and she was still trying to figure out how to use a computer, older lady. I guess it was about 11 or 12 that paid with Paydirect. I don't even bother mentioning Paypal in the auctions. I put in the paydirect with the logo in the auction and here is what I put in the Email " Visa Master Card taken by Yahoo! PayDirect a service that lets you send or receive money online from an account you fund with your credit card or checking account(free service). then the URL (don't know if that is allowed here on the message board.) Paypal is no longer free to sellers (starting October 1st) and I don't want to pass on the extra cost so I am trying PayDirect. It has worked great and I feel a lot safer with my money in Paydirect then Paypal.
Here it was I put in my auction. I figure I wasn't waiting around at paypal to see what else was going to happen. I also included the Paydirect logo "I also take
PAYDIRECT a Free, Fast, Easy and SECURE to use service that takes credit cards (VISA MASTERCARD),
ATM/check card. So, you can pay online! Address to be sent winning bidder. (putting the link here would be against e-bays rules since it is a competitor which is understandable.
So, I think that paydirect will give them a real run, not that they even care about paypal, but they are set up in the correct way to do so.
posted on September 27, 2000 04:46:43 PM
It was explained to me that PayPal never intended to impose their fee schedule on "casual" users, but was intended to be attractive to the large, multiple transaction user. Unfortunately, they have not fully defined what a "large, multiple transaction user"
I have an idea, lets call Bill Clinton and ask him to define the term "large, multiple transaction user"
posted on September 27, 2000 05:14:02 PM
I'm confused about what is happening with PayPal on October 1. Can anyone enlighten me? I was one of those who got the ill-advised message back when but ended up avoiding it forevermore by going looking for more info on those two upgrade accounts (Help).
I've not yet left PayPal, and feel some ambivalence about it. Oh, not that I don't want to, but I've not taken the time to go payment service-shopping and some of the things I've read on some of the services leave me less than enthusiastic, so I appreciate what others are saying about alternative services. In fact, would like to see more.
posted on September 27, 2000 05:23:10 PM
I'm joining in here very late, haven't read all the posts. But I did notice something today as I was looking at the balance in my account.
PayPal, what up with the .33 refund-deposit?
I don't get it. And I am not now nor have I ever been in business and have no intention of upgrading. I got verified. If that isn't good enough, I walk. Simple as that. People have used it for convenience. But I can still handle/send checks in the mail just as well.
So I refuse to get worked up about something which, again, I have NO control over.
posted on September 27, 2000 05:40:32 PMmillicent_roberts Have you made a purchase where you paid using PayPal? PayPal is giving a 1% rebate to buyers when they use PayPal and buy from a PayPal seller who has a business account.
posted on September 28, 2000 12:55:15 PM
So, PayPal is offering a 1% rebate to buyers?
I say, "Big deal!" They think a buyer's getting 10-cents back on a 10-dollar purchase is going to convince sellers to keep paying the fees? I think not.
posted on September 28, 2000 01:12:31 PMVegas21 I wasn't advocating it, I was just trying to help millicent with the possible reason that they sent .33 as a refund-deposit to her.
I think, if I remember correctly, it is only if you purchase from a business account holder. I am not sure if it applies to a seller with a premier account and I know you don't get anything if you purchase from someone with a personal account.
It's kind of like credit cards that offer a certain percentage back to you if you use their card. Big deal! You get that big old check for $1.20 at the end of the year. Woohoo! That is gonna take you a long way!
