posted on October 7, 2000 09:18:40 AM
Ok so now high volume users have to pay a fee. Well things change, and some abusive sellers did it. Sellers were posting 1000s of free auctions for .10 sportscards on the free auction sites, and 90% were accepting Paypal, along with a lot more of low end items. Sell less than $1000.00 per year, and its free, I thought that the minimum trans action cost would be at least $1.00. Paypay forced Billpoint to lower thier fees, so I now take both. I couldn't get a merchants account for less than 4.9% due to my volume, I think both venues are a bargin. Thing change according to need, Yahoo now limits you to 1000 auctions per month, Paypal now charges. A bunch of folks are stating facts that may not be true or complete. I have never had a problem with Paypal or Bidpay, I follow thier TOS. Ed
edhdsn
[ edited by edhdsn on Oct 7, 2000 09:19 AM ]
posted on October 7, 2000 10:11:33 AM
Well, Ed, looks like no one else is taking the bait, so here go I, and let the chips fall.
I may have missed some threads here and there, but I've not seen a single post that said Paypal's new charges were not 'fair'.
I have seen an abundance of words such as liars, cheats, sneaky, underhanded, sleazy and so forth, but not unfair, at least as far as the transaction charges go.
Seems maybe I have read some posts where users felt like having their accounts restricted without justification and/or explanation was not quite cricket, and they may have used the term 'not fair'.
Please note that I'm not expressing my own opinion of the service, but merely trying to remember some of the posts to this message board.
Please take a look at the most vocal folks on the board that are anti PP Twinsoft is one, and it took him a while, but he slipped up and admited to having $10,000.00 per month of free CC volume via PP on a persoanal account, his exact quote is that he would have a PP cost of over $200.00 per moth, and at 1.9% thats 10 grand of monthly free charges, thats not grandma selling her hummell collection.
We all got an email from Paypal asking us to look at what we were doing, and convert if we were a business, many that should have didnot, so the low limits and forced conversion. Hard to tell who the real bad guy here is. I think PP was wrong in the way it was presented, but right in thier actions.
posted on October 7, 2000 11:29:55 AM
ye this is true we have only heard the names callers here maybe one or two have said the fee wasnt fair.
maybe we will now here from the intelgent people. Rock throwing and name calling is for bullys and those Who know no other way to comunicate and want to beat up companies if they dont hand over more of there lunch money.
Change and growth are a big part of any business for the last year or so this has happen with money from veture capitalist many of these people lost there money with little to no return they are learning the hard way it hard to make a return on investment giveing away all your money.
so there is less and less free offers out there and less and less venture capital to be found its simple to make a profit you must spend money to be able to spend money you must sell your service not give it away.
posted on October 7, 2000 12:24:46 PM
Funny thing what PayPal did . . . reminds me of President Clinton wagging his finger at us and telling us that he did not have "relations" with Monica.
Nobody likes people telling half-hearted truths at them and that's exactly what PayPal did.
PayPal blatantly advertized for many months that PayPal would always be free and that no one was going to be forced to upgrade to a Business Account.
Then, PayPal breaks their word and pulls out some legal mumbo-jumbo contained in their TOS to tell us WHY IT WAS OK TO LIE TO US ALL YEAR!
If you can't understand that, then you deserve to be lied to!
posted on October 7, 2000 12:43:34 PM
Businesses are in the business to make a PROFIT. Convenience always comes with a price. Paypal SAVEs the sellers and buyers time. No waiting in line to buy MO. No licking envelops and stamps. No waiting for the mail. No waiting for the check to clear. In my case, I get the payment fast and ship the item fast. In 24 hours, the tansaction is over. PAYPAL is in the business to make a profit. Those complains about being lie to because paypal once said "always free" should spent their time looking for other free services. They can then tell the rest of us when and where to switch.
posted on October 7, 2000 02:03:43 PM
Thank you, tamadic for mentioning that point of view. I guess for some people, character, honesty, trustworthiness and reliability just doesn't matter. It isn't about whether PayPal's business is free or not, no, not at all. The point is that they were unethical and made many promises which they broke and lied into our faces all this year. Once I have my new shopping cart web site up that I am working on right now, I will be dropping my PayPal account in favor of some other financial institution that has the character and trustworthiness and I couldn't care less about the fees: I'll factor them into my prices just as I always have.
I will venture a guess that it doesn't matter about character for some people in their relationships with other people or with businesses - so long as they get convenience.
I edited this to add:
If PayPal can't make their money through honest means, then they should not be rewarded for using "any means possible". I am not mad because "Always Free" vanished for most of us - when X.com, a fee-based CC place purchased PayPal, I knew that X.com made the purchase to get rid of their competition - not because of an unsound business phylosophy. No, what really made me mad was being told to our faces right here on AW that no one would ever be forced to upgrade to a business account. That was a lie and still is.
So you see, it isn't a matter of whinning about the lack of a "free" service, it's the lack of integrity that gets to me.
posted on October 7, 2000 06:26:20 PM
I've been a PayPal critic since the Upgrade-or-Lie fiasco, but today have really made a shift in my thinking and attitude. I have no more interest in expressing much about my own *opinions,* nor in trying to any extent to dissuade people from using PayPal. Every one should make up their own minds.
My new attitude: this is MUCH more serious than I could have imagined.
The one thing I will do is strongly encourage PayPal users and would-be users to read two current threads here over on the Partners board:
I agree on the values that you stated, its a two way street, PP asked us to look at what we were, a business, or Grandma selling her Hummell colection, and many users, like Twinsoft, lied to them, so they took action! I think that they did what they had to do, the way they did it is not right IMHO, but the action was justifiablr! Ed
edhdsn
Many users, like Twinsoft, lied to them, so they took action!
You might want to have all of the facts before you make those statements. Many users did not necessarily lie to them. Many user simply chose not to click on any of the buttons and backed out of the screen. When they went back to look again it was gone.
Say, I suppose that's the sort of attitude I ought to adopt in my business: "The Ends Justifies The Means." meaning, "I reserve the Right To Lie to You, Cheat You, Backstab You . . . but only if I can't find a simple ethical solution to my problems!
And, oh, "They started it First!" comes to mind as well.
Not trying to be harsh to you, Ed! I just hate it when people, corporations, politicians, etc. try to justify using unethical behaviour simply because the Ethical solution was more expensive than the Unethical solution.
ETHICS: either you have them or you don't!
spelling
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 8, 2000 11:50 PM ]
posted on October 9, 2000 03:01:04 AM
Edhdsn, since you seem to have appointed me the spokesman for the high-volume sellers/cheaters/anti-Paypal league, I guess I'll throw my two cents in.
I have said repeatedly that I think Paypal's fees are fair. I have also repeated that I would have been happy to PAY FOR their service, right from the start, even with no referral bonuses.
I'm not sure where you get your ideas. After some consideration, I figure either we're not on the same planet, or we're not speaking the same language, or perhaps there are two Paypal's, something akin to the old Star Trek episode about the "good" Mr. Spock and the "bad" Mr. Spock in alternate realities. This last may be true, as I note in your universe the company is called "PayPay."
It's really a stretch to suggest that because I personally did not upgrade my account immediately when Paypal came out with their NEW RULES, that somehow I am responsible for those new rules (and FEES). How exactly do YOU interpret, "no one will be forced to upgrade?" I think it would be more accurate to say that I gave Paypal every chance to realize the error of their ways -- that of making promises and in the same breath breaking those promises.
I have said many times that I was planning on taking advantage of their business account as soon as they brought out the web site shopping cart. Remember when Paypal's rep said, "no one will be forced to upgrade, but we hope that these new services will convince you to upgrade on your own?" Actually, I'm coming out a loser here too, because while Paypal's fees ARE reasonable, I just can't bring myself to do business on these terms. I mean, ethics aside, I just don't TRUST them.
Now, suppose that I have already decided not to accept Paypal. I can factor in those fees I WOULD have spent, and realize I'm saving up to $200 a month by offering an alternative credit card service. If you were familiar with my posts over the last few months, you would know that I am a strong advocate of REDUCING auction fees/expenses, including optional listing features (bold, highlighted, gift icon, featured category, etc.).
One last thing. Does anyone seriously believe that Paypal just woke up one morning and realized, "Hey, we can't afford to run a business like this?" Does anyone believe that with all the millions of dollars in venture capital investments, no one ever thought to factor in the credit card transaction fees? Does anyone believe that business-savvy investors would plunk hundreds of millions of dollars down solely on the HOPE that customers would leave their money in their account? That the idea of fraud protection never occurred to them?
If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, then you're left with one incontrovertible conclusion: Paypal knew what they were doing, and were following a calculated plan right from the start. They lied, they knew full well they were lying, and their demands that eBay sellers "play by the rules" (which change according to Paypal's whim) were nothing more than corporate orc-speak. If you approve of Paypal's practices, I've got a great travel brochure for you. It's called Dante's "Inferno."
I just hate it when people, corporations, politicians, etc. try to justify using unethical behaviour simply because the Ethical solution was more expensive than the Unethical solution.