posted on October 10, 2000 10:09:05 PM new
Ahhh - I think I finally figured out what is going on here.
Start off with a change in fee structure - adding new fees with a stealth notice in advance - almost threats to prod customers towards paying accounts.
Next you have lots of people suddenly getting their accounts restricted with vague or no reason why, complete with 'those in that have control over them' being totally unacessable.
Add to that restricting accounts while processing claims for the buyer protection plan - which I find hard to believe that there was much demand for. On top of that - suddenly and quietly you didn't need to be verified to qualify as a buyer.
The story that the engineers are working on creating the functionality for allowing single transactions to be restricted is hogwash. No program changes would be needed for such a thing. A simple change in manual procedure would be enough. There are at least a dozen ways of doing it.
The impossible hurdles towards satisfying the rules on that buyer's protection plan from the seller's side.
A sudden large charge added to the paper check process.
A sudden plethora of new 'policies' and an apparent complete lack of sense to them and what is announced about them.
And lastly but hardly leastly an impending IPO.
Hmmm, do you think perhaps PayPal is trying desperately to create an image of a company who is flush with chock full accounts (OK, so they are all in restriction, but who's telling).
My guess is that people with accounts that hardly ever have large amounts in them don't get their accounts restricted.
Perhaps they noticed that they could cut the projected cost of the paper check process by suddenly hitting the customer with a big charge. Perhaps a bunch of customers closed down their accounts in response - perhaps the new policy suddenly vanished.
Good golly, let's get all this done before the press starts doing stories on our problems and while most people still think we are the cat's pajamas and while we still have a huge customer base that's already beginning to melt away.
posted on October 10, 2000 11:12:52 PM new
I guess I've got those rose tinted glasses on. I'm seeing a business trying to build something, a new form of payment. Something as revolutionary as shells to coins, or coins to paper, or paper to checks, or checks to credit cards.
Imagine a system where you could email anyone with an email address money. Easier and more secure than a check, and as fast as the speed of light. Imagine the power it could give email.
Imagine the logistical nightmare of setting up such a business, the paranoia to overcome, the scams to be dealt with. Also include the tremendous 'land rush' from other companies breathing down your neck. Western Union, Bank of America, AOL, Wells Fargo, USPS, etc. that have had the 'light dawn' on them and realize the future in such a service and have plans to enter the market that didn't even exist a year ago.
I have NO doubt what so ever that email transactions where you can send funds from your bank to another person is the next step in the evolution of money changing. If PayPal doesn't do it someone else will. I applaud PayPal for it's success so far, and I hope it continues.
PayPal moved while others slept, and it's given them a huge lead. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting him back in. Email person to person payments have shown to have a tremendous market, you can't change that.
posted on October 11, 2000 06:25:48 AM new
Once you can e-mail money directly from your bank account --- there won't be a need for PayPal anymore. It will be one of the services provided by your bank. And it will be regulated.
PayPal moved while others slept, and it's given them a huge lead.
And PayPal is giving that lead away at an alarming rate with their boneheaded policy changes. Moving away from the policies that made a company a success to begin with is rarely a wise move. Ever heard of "New Coke"?
The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting him back in.
This is completely true. The thing is, PayPal used to control the Genie, but this is no longer the case.
Email person to person payments have shown to have a tremendous market, you can't change that.
And PayPal's market share will naturally dwindle as new players arrive on the scene and learn from PayPal's mistakes. PayPal is making it extremely easy on their competitors right now. It's a shame that PayPal doesn't seem to learn from their own mistakes.
posted on October 11, 2000 06:54:31 AM new"Once you can e-mail money directly from your bank account --- there won't be a need for PayPal anymore. It will be one of the services provided by your bank. And it will be regulated."
Yes, I believe it will be regulated in time, they didn't have driver licenses when they first introduced cars either. There will have to be a third party that different banks deal with, just as they use the ACHs now. That's the holy grail!
posted on October 11, 2000 08:18:44 AM new
Yes, Electronic Payments is/are the future.
with the eventual goal being a cashless society.
that does not excuse gougeing - Paypal's fee's ARE NOT reasonable, and I don't care who say's they are. Not to mention the completly unprofessional way they are going about these changes. not using paypal will not cost me a dime, I noticed NO increase in sales since I started using them and I am sure with all the options available I will not notice a decrease in my sales now that I will no longer use them. The Bottom line is simple -- if a buyer wants an item they will send you whatever form of payment you want as long as they are confident that they will get there Item.
(once again plese forgive my spelling )
posted on October 11, 2000 09:16:23 AM new
>>Imagine a system where you could email anyone with an email address money.<<
And you can so easily use a stolen credit card and the seller has no way of knowing because it was PP who verified it. But when the card turns up stolen, it is the poor seller who gets the shaft.
>>Easier and more secure than a check, and as fast as the speed of light.<<
Easier and more secure for the crooks.
>>Imagine the logistical nightmare of setting up such a business, the paranoia to overcome, the scams to be dealt with.<<
So you decide to deal with it by freezing any account that has money, even if it belongs to an innocent party. Then you wonder why the "paranoia" is spreading.
>>Also include the tremendous 'land rush' from other companies breathing down your neck.<<
All the more reason to deal with your customers in an open and businesslike way - not like a dictatorship.
>>Western Union, Bank of America, AOL, Wells Fargo, USPS, etc. that have had the 'light dawn' on them and realize the future in such a service and have plans to enter the market that didn't even exist a year ago. <<
And why havent we heard any horror stories about frozen accounts and charge backs from them?
>>PayPal moved while others slept, and it's given them a huge lead.<<
Then PP moved to alienate its users and they're quickly losing their lead. They are throwing away their own success.
>>Email person to person payments have shown to have a tremendous market, you can't change that.<<
posted on October 11, 2000 09:54:58 AM new"And why havent we heard any horror stories about frozen accounts and charge backs from them?"
Maybe the fact that PayDirect,PayMe,PayPlace,Exchangepath, and MoneyZap combined represents roughly 1% of PayPal's acceptance on eBay. You look at the numbers.
Do you really think that these other services are 'fraud proof' and will take no measures to prevent losses?
Please, don't anyone take this personal but I'm seeing more and more hysterics lately than I can believe. Some of these threads have really become attempts to induce panic. PayPal isn't scaring me, but this lynch mob attitude is.
posted on October 11, 2000 10:04:15 AM new
Actually, they let the cat out of the bag in another thread. PP *IS* the merchant. Thats why everyone ends up waving rights for the most part.
Since that IS the case what they OUGHT be doing is operating like any other type of service. They should have every seller agreeing to terms of consignment and doing it by contract. So whenever anyone drop ships for them tracking should be provided and if not then a consumer guarentee be in place from the actually holder of the goods. So if your peddling say video tapes it mught be better to ship normal USPS mail and if a consumers says I did not get it another gets issued. This also means a returns procedure MUST be in place.
In my opinion its not the best move paypal could make. CLEARLY they cannot stay on the path they were on. Far too many people can take advantage of others with fraudulent activities and claims.
UARU is correct. Many large banks right now are gearing to basically take that market and yes regulation will be in place and NO it wont be a whole lot safer as by nature alone anytime one person is paying another via mail order sales the possibilities of fraudulent activity can occur. A BIG difference in that is banks wont horse around. A consumer who levy's false claim that is proven to be false is going to get notations on credit reports and loose such services permenently. Sellers engaging in fraud activity can count on authorities slamming them hard. Non-business businesses are also going to be in for BIG surprises as Bank networks, collections networks and IRS networks DO TALK. I know, I used to program for a collections bureau.
Right now many states are funneling considerable monies down to local authorities to tackle web sales issues. So, no longer will it be a issue of a consumer calling a state attorney general to file a complaint. They will be able to call authorities local to the seller and that seller BEST have their ducks in a row or face legal ramifications.
What PayPal in my opinion should be doing is selling Merchant Accounts, Online money orders and providing a business solution allowing users to pay for auctions to vendors with merchant accounts. If they can customize the service enough and provide a decent payment gateway they can become attractive to places like Barnes & Noble and others.
Right now they survive off of ebay. Thats all their eggs in one basket and that basket is and will still be undergoing more & more scrutiny by authorities and as a recent article in AW pointed out as well as have many an industry journal it appears as P2P auctions and related points of sale are waning both with good sellers and consumers.
If WE could do ALL of our card processing via PP and be ASSURED we have at LEAST the same amounts of recourse we do with our present merchant accounts we'd sign up in a second. In fact they could charge double the 1.9% and we'd still sign on. For us, the time would be more valuable than the commissions paid and said commissions paid are tax deductible as a cost of doing business.
Or! if they wish to keep the current system, fine, I think it will be their undoing but in addition offer TRUE merchant accounts so businesses that dont like to wave all their rights need not do so but can still take advantage of an online payment service.
Right now we pay lease fee's for card processing software, $49 a month for 4 years. We pay a 2.35% MC/Visa discount rate, 3.35% to Amex and 2.7% to Discover not to mention the TIME involved in payment processing/accounting.
What your going to find banks doing is basically offering an "online cash advance" and that will NOT give you as a consumer or seller for that matter any more protection as PP. In fact, it'll probably be less.
I've never been an advocate one way or another of PP's services. In some regards they are fantastic, in others quite dangerous. To us, the dangers outweigh the advantage at this point and thats what we'd like to see change.
For the guy selling 10 things a week at eBay and making whatall, $500 and not operating as a business his days are numbered whether he wants to think so or not.
For businesses, they need a solid online payment platform where they are NOT at the mercy of false claims or fraud payment issues. Even if its a tad more expensive its worth it in time saved and/or even the cost of processing software or swipe/key terminals. The expense ALONE of those items will be more than a higher discount rate of processing.
The MAINSTAY of money for PP is NOT the private seller. It is businesses all over the web, all over the country that would LOVE to use the service but quite frankly are scared to do so.
I had a dream that eBay decided to poll sellers/consumers as to payment problems with external services from eBay. In the dream an online form was emailed to all users to fill in. It had questions like have you had problems. What are they. Did your public feedback suffer etc. I dreamed that they restricted sellers from their site who used a external payment service as they filed that their business and insurance carrier had suffered from the issues. I dreamed they filed for an injunction and I dreamed that Billpoint turned around and offered free listing fee's for 90 days to keep the sellers at the site. Wild dream huh? Guess I work too much
posted on October 11, 2000 10:20:40 AM new
>>PayPal isn't scaring me, but this lynch mob attitude is<<
So explain why, with all these other services out there, all these people have chosen to attack "innocent" Paypal for no reason?
I have already run into a seller with excellent ratings and a verified PP account who had her account frozen without any notice because a customer claimed not to have received the item. Would you want your bank to operate this way? Freeze your account on the unsubstantiated report of one person? And when she finally was told who it was and sent them a DC, as per their own TOS, they told her DC wasnt enough because there was no signature. How many of their own procedures did they break? In the meantime, people were paying her and not receiving their merchandise. The damage done to her reputation was far worse than the loss of income.
A customer of mine refuses to use PP because he paid for something and never got it. The seller registered with a fake address where the zip code didnt even match the city. PP said there was nothing they could do and the seller's account is still active. Maybe PP is waiting for some other innocent buyers to put money there so they can recoup their losses at someone else's expense.
There is a post of a seller getting a charge back for something sold in May, at a time when CB weren't even allowed. PP added a check fee and then made it retroactive. This is not excused by "growing pains" and "making things safe". This is a company that is demonstrating daily that they will do whatever the heck they want.
Yes, PP may be doing many times more business than all the others. So for every 20 PP posts, there should be a post about Moneyzap, Exchangepath, Billpoint, Bidpay, Ecount, Paydirect, Payplace freezing an account or accessing a bank account without permission. I have yet to see ONE!
I was a Paypal cheerleader. They have saved me thousands of dollars and I would be very happy to use them (and I think the fees are fair). But treating their users with such contempt is inexcusable. http://www.ygoodman.com [email protected]
