posted on October 3, 2000 10:28:16 AM
From what I have been able to tell, neither PP or BP gets "the other guys" rates right.
However, I am in the "highest" fee bracket with BP and since most (if I'm lucky and sell ANYTHING}of what I sell is for over the $15 mark, I am better off with PP.
On the brite side, at the rate I am currently selling I shouldn't be over the $500 limit with PP till sometime next year! I'm sure glad this is "only a hobby" for me!
posted on October 3, 2000 10:59:30 AM
This just kind of reminds me of political attack ads. Leave out a lot of important details to make yourself look good and make the other guy look bad.
It's war! The stakes are high and the competition is fierce. I expect to see claims like "Brand X pay services has been known to cause cancer in lab rats" or "Brand Y pay service will increase your sexual performance".
Bottom line is as long as it remains a war the spectators on the sidelines will benefit.
posted on October 3, 2000 01:44:27 PM
I use both services and personally I prefer billpoint - As of 9/28 they lowered their fees making it more competitive. Billpiont is very cut and dry as for Paypal they have a new rule every week and as for having to transfer the funds yourself billpiont does automatically.
I am considering closing my Paypal account because I am tired of the rules and how they hold money for 5 days when it only takes a day for my bank to complete the transfer. The only reason I have to transfer funds to pay for my auctions is because they only allow $2000.00 worth of credit card charges for every 180 days - Billpiont puts no such limits.
posted on October 3, 2000 02:14:58 PM
Yes, by all means, I'd love to know the truth why paypal insists on "verifying" its users!
The process itself proves nothing. (Except, of course, that I have a checking account.) Would anyone be foolish enough to try to "verify" an account that wasn't his/hers?
I couldn't give a tinker's damn about the fees. I could even live with the mismanagement that will likely cause similar controversies in the future.
But until someone can explain, with a shred of logic, why they need to have access to my checking account if it isn't for purposes of withdrawing funds, I will use their services as little as possible -- as an unverified user.
posted on October 3, 2000 07:23:21 PMfountainhouse I believe I can answer that for you. When you pay someone with a PayPal account, things have changed a bit. When you verify your checking account information it is locked in. Now here's the trick and this happened to me on Sunday.
I had two payments to make. I was taking care of the first payment and filling in the form. I didn't notice that the review and send screen had changed. This page automatically defaults to your checking account and not your credit card. When I hit send it withdrew the funds from my checking account and used the credit card as collateral.
I didn't immediately realize this but I had checked my email before taking care of the second transaction and got an email from PayPal thanking me for choosing to pay with my checking account and they went on to explain that an authorization had been put on the credit card until the amount transferred from the checking account. Then they turned on the warm fuzzies by explaining that if I was dealing with a verified business seller I would get 1% back. (I wasn't)
So, in a nutshell. PayPal, in their normal straightforward way of laying things on the line got me to unwittingly pay from my checking account.
When it came to the second transaction I was very careful to make sure I was selecting the credit card from the pulldown which contained bank account and credit card listings.
posted on October 3, 2000 09:07:15 PMavaloncourt, I appreciate your posting that information, from your perspective as a verified user.
Your explanation is certainly plausible. Of course, it leads one to the obvious question: Does paypal believe that users duped once into paying from their verified checking account will allow it to happen a second time? Could their management really be counting on a large enough percentage of their users not noticing? It sounds like a shaky financial premise to me.
Of course, the beauty of their strategy is that they need take no responsibility. I can just hear the service reps now: "But you chose that payment method..."
Whether paypal's motivation is this particular scenario or some other, as yet unexplained, rationale, the whole "verification" process reeks of deception. That is the sole reason I've been dissuading my customers from using paypal. Interestingly, once I point them in the direction of these threads, 80% of them have voluntarily requested a billpoint invoice.
posted on October 4, 2000 12:35:09 AM
There is actually a good reason for verifying each customer.
The problem with internet transactions is that there is no way to look at an ID and verify that the person on the other end of the email isn't trying to scam you. PayPal had some real problems with credit card scams in the beginning and this is how they have decided to deal with it. What they reason is that the banks all require you to have an id to get a checking account, so what they are doing is letting the bank do the work of verifying that you are the person you are telling PayPal you are.
When PayPal deposits money, any number can be given them and they don't know who owns that account - it's just a transaction from their end. So according to PayPal - the deposit information isn't enough to verify who you are.
Now PayPal could write the bank and ask them to verify you, but that takes too long and means a human must read the response.
They could also run a credit check on you, but that also takes a human being to do that.
This 'permission' to remove money from your checking account according to them, is the only way they can automate their verification process, and they aren't interested in setting up a manual process for those customers that don't want to give them blanket permission to take money out of a checking account.
Your case where you accidently removed money from your checking account, is exactly why no one should just 'give them that access'. They haven't even bothered to set up a seperate file of verification only bank accounts and just lump that account in as one of the payment options that can so easily be accidently used when they don't clearly and with confirmations indicate which account you are going to pay out of.
posted on October 9, 2000 06:48:07 PM
Are there any (dis)advantages (to either you or paypal) to using a credit card over direct withdrawl from a bank account? Are there any differences at all when using a check card that is tied in with the same bank account you are using? What's this about the 1% rebate?
Until I see a difference between using my check card and direct withdrawl, I plan to use direct withdrawl so that I don't affect people's $500 credit card reception limit.
posted on October 9, 2000 09:09:31 PM
donjoff - the main disadvantage to PayPal to any business when a customer uses a credit card is that it costs the business money, as they pay a transaction fee to the card processing company. Not that it's a bad thing, using credit cards, but from the merchant's standpoint, that's the downside. For the vast majority of businesses, it's a cost worth incurring, although bunches of little $3 and $4 charges can be pretty irritating.
With all the scuttlebut going around about PayPal, who knows what the real (REAL) disadvantages of using a checking account transfer are.
