|
Grex > Coop11 > #232: Summary of Grex's Credit Card Experiment | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 98 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 25 of 98:
| 
Feb 13 22:00 UTC 2001 |
Ok, that interface does work pretty well. I just renewed my membership. I'm
sorry for complaining without looking at it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 26 of 98:
|
Feb 13 22:10 UTC 2001 |
Re #23: Heh. I know, I was just teasing you - thanks for being a good
sport.
|
prp
|
|
response 27 of 98:
|
Feb 13 22:14 UTC 2001 |
Grex could put up a form, used to request the treasure to snail-mail a charge
slip and reply envelope. This would verify an address and get a signature.
This could cut chargebacks enough to make it worthwhile. It also solves the
other problem.
I'll also repeat my question: were the chargebacks people who changed their
mind, or frauduent?
|
aruba
|
|
response 28 of 98:
|
Feb 13 22:29 UTC 2001 |
Re #27: Well, we could do that, certainly. Do you think there are people
who would rather go through that procedure than write a check? I suppose I
could just send them a SASE, and they could send me a check. Maybe with a
$1 surcharge for the postage.
Sorry I didn't answer your question before. All three of the transactions
were fraudulent, according to the real cardholders.
|
mdw
|
|
response 29 of 98:
|
Feb 14 11:38 UTC 2001 |
We certainly have the technical expertise to set up a secure server.
That's just https, no big deal. The biggest nuisance is the verisign
certificate - if we're willing to go with a self-signed certificate even
that can be skipped. The big obstacle to doing this historically was
the patent - which has now expired.
|
prp
|
|
response 30 of 98:
|
Feb 14 17:01 UTC 2001 |
I thought one of the main reasons for taking credit cards was non-US
residents, for whom checks are a problem.
|
aruba
|
|
response 31 of 98:
|
Feb 14 18:25 UTC 2001 |
That's true. It still might be easier for people in other countries to use
PayPal than for me to send them a SASE and have them return it. (But then,
they still have to send ID.) (PayPal now seems to work in most (if not all)
European countries. Indian credit cards don't work here anyway.)
It might be worth considering appointing a "SASE-czar", who sends SASEs to
people on request. It could get out of hand, if people start asking for
lots of SASEs. But it would probably work OK.
|
krj
|
|
response 32 of 98:
|
Feb 14 20:32 UTC 2001 |
I'm sort of lost in this discussion, but my vague recollection is that
one of the advantages of the original, disastrous credit card implementation
is that Grex never handled anyone's credit card number, and that the
motivation for this was that the potential liabilities if Grex handled
card numbers were enormous. Does this ring a bell with anyone?
Or am I way off the mark here?
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 98:
|
Feb 14 23:28 UTC 2001 |
How many overseas members joined grex by credit card?
|
aruba
|
|
response 34 of 98:
|
Feb 15 05:10 UTC 2001 |
Re #32: Actually, it's PayPal that doesn't let us see the card number, and
our old system that did.
Re #33: 15 overseas users became members using credit cards.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 35 of 98:
|
Feb 15 07:27 UTC 2001 |
Just for the record, SASEs don't work in other countries. US postage is not
valid for mailing letters from other countries.
|
aruba
|
|
response 36 of 98:
|
Feb 15 14:33 UTC 2001 |
Right. I guess we could send "SAE"s to people in other countries. :)
|
scott
|
|
response 37 of 98:
|
Feb 15 14:57 UTC 2001 |
Maybe with a fridge magnet as a bonus... although we'd risk getting some bogus
requests.
|
prp
|
|
response 38 of 98:
|
Feb 15 16:05 UTC 2001 |
Going back to response 0 and adding up the columns under summary gives:
+1602.00 Credits
-1027.04 Other ChSol+CS+ChargeBack+Min+Other
-404.80 Auth Auth+AVS Valid+Invalid
-64.29 Discount Disc+NQ+Batch
-------
+105.87
The $0.03 descrepency with Marks total is from the Sep-00 Disc figure. 2.66
v 2.63. The various other colums add up as:
49 Count
1296.00 New
252.00 Rewnew
54.00 Misc
48.89 Disc
7.35 NQ
8.05 Batch
354.55 Auth Valid+Invalid
50.25 AVS Valid+Invalid
311.06 ChSol
120.00 CS
202.69 Chargebacks
127.34 Min
265.95 Other A+B+C
Which can be broken down some
17.15 Auth Valid
337.40 Auth Invalid
2.45 AVS Valid
47.80 AVS Invalid
175.00 Other A Appication
75.00 Other C 25/chargeback
15.95 Other B ???
And combined some
19.60 Auth+AVS Valid
385.20 Auth+AVS Invalid
Leading to
1296.00 New
252.00 Renew
54.00 Misc
+1602.00 Credits
-202.69 [+6.31=209.00] Chargebacks
--------
+1399.31 [1393.00] Real Credits
385.20 Auth+AVS Invalid
75.00 Other C 25/chargeback
-460.20 Fraud Related Charges
-311.06 ChSol
-175.00 Other A Application
-127.34 Min
-120.00 CS
-56.24 [-6.31=49.93] Discount Disc+NQ
-15.95 Other B ???
-19.60 Auth+AVS Valid
-8.05 Batch
-------
+105.87
This is not as bad as it looks. The application fee was a one time charge
and the Min and CS fees cover twelve months even though the service was only
used for less than six and thus most likely did not get up to full speed.
Clearly though Charge Solutions and the fraud costs have to go.
Is there any breakdown for the Charge Solutions fee? My guess is that most
of that could go into Fraud Related, as it was high in August.
|
aruba
|
|
response 39 of 98:
|
Feb 15 18:17 UTC 2001 |
Nice work, Paul. No, sorry, I have no breakdown on the charges from Charge
Solutions. They didn't send us paper statements. Maybe Greg has more info.
|
keesan
|
|
response 40 of 98:
|
Feb 15 20:26 UTC 2001 |
You seem to be assuming that all new members who paid by credit card would
not otherwise have paid by check. 15 overseas members is impressive - I
forgot how many total new members paid by credit card.
|
mdw
|
|
response 41 of 98:
|
Feb 16 10:02 UTC 2001 |
The "old" system was primarily designed around the pecularities of the
traditional credit card processing system, and the way it evolved in
response to the various restrictions (legal & patent) on cryptographic
systems. There were 4 parts, if I remember right:
the central credit card "brand" (almost completely out of the picture,
except for setting the standards)
the various processing banks
intermediate systems that provided the secure hookup to the bank
(and we have an agreement with one of them through feb)
the secure web server that talks to the intermediate system (which
failed very disastrously for us)
We could probably still set up a system talking directly to the
intermediate system and running our own web server; I'm not sure just
what's involved there, but it may be nothing more than a shared secret.
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 98:
|
Feb 16 20:24 UTC 2001 |
Re #35: No, but IRCs (International Reply Coupons) do. They're more
expensive, though.
|
other
|
|
response 43 of 98:
|
Feb 16 21:19 UTC 2001 |
Can we see a breakdown with one-time or annual charges prorated over the
time the experiment has been in effect? That would give us a more
accurate (and positive) view of the cost/benefit of the endeavor.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 98:
|
Feb 16 21:57 UTC 2001 |
The only one time charge is the $175 setup fee. How long a period do you
want to prorate it over?
I like prp's breakdown into fraudulent and nonfraudulent charges.
I have some bad news. I called Card Service International, and found out we
missed our window to close our account, and we are on the hook for another
6 months, until August 4th. We would have had to send them a letter by
January 5th to cancel our account on Feb 4th. As it is, we have to send
them a letter between May 6th and July 5th.
So, all of you who think we should be accepting credit cards directly,
here's your chance to make it happen. You have until July 5th to come up
with an idea and implement it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 45 of 98:
|
Feb 16 22:38 UTC 2001 |
Valerie suggested to me in email that maybe we should try to fight the rule
saying that we have to keep our account for another 6 months. I checked our
"Merchant Application and Agreement" (The thing we signed), and it says:
By signing this Merchant Application, I acknowledge that I have also
received Merchant Agreement # __________. I have read the Merchant
Agreement and understand it. I understand that the Merchant Agreement is
incorporated into this Application and that both documents constitute my
contract with Bank and Cardservice. The term of this Agreement is six (6)
months as specified in paragraph 3.04 of the Merchant Agreement.
The line for the number of the Merchant Agreement is blank, and we don't
seem to have one, so I think we never received one. There's nothing else
about the term of the contract on what we have, so wherever it says that we
are obliged to keep paying is on something we never got.
But then, maybe by signing the agreement with the line left blank, we
abrogated our rights to get one. Dunno. Anyone know any more about
contracts?
|
flem
|
|
response 46 of 98:
|
Feb 17 00:02 UTC 2001 |
No, but here's a breakdown of my records involving Charge Solutions fees.
Month Total Service Access
=======================================================
May 42.25 25.00 17.25 (69 at $.25 ea.)
June 18.00 -- 18.00 (36 at $.50 ea.)
Jul 19.50 -- 19.50 (39 at $.50 ea.)
Aug 145.00 -- 145.00 (290 at $.50 ea.)
Sep No bill received
Oct 29.00 25.00 4.00 (16 at $.25 ea.)
I'm pretty sure we were turned on by March, but I don't seem to have a
record of March or April's bills. There are only two breakdown items,
a monthly service charge and a per access network usage fee.
|
aruba
|
|
response 47 of 98:
|
Feb 17 04:34 UTC 2001 |
Thanks Greg.
|
devnull
|
|
response 48 of 98:
|
Feb 18 18:30 UTC 2001 |
Thawte certificates only cost $125/yr for the first year, and then there's
a renewal fee of $100/yr.
Perhaps the thing to do would be to set up a webserver to collect the data,
which someone would then manually log into, and then punch the numbers into
a traditional credit card machine?
|
aaron
|
|
response 49 of 98:
|
Feb 19 19:56 UTC 2001 |
Did the company claim that it requires a full six months to cancel, or is
that your interpretation of the contract. Many contracts that start out with
a minimum term also contain provisions governing what happens at the end of
that term. It may, for example, become monthly.
Assuming that there is only one merchant account, the clerical omission of
the account number wouldn't create any ambiguity between the parties, so I
wouldn't expect that to get you out of the contract. However, there is nothing
wrong with raising the issue if you want to negotiate your way out. Frankly,
I doubt that the sums of money are so significant that they won't let you
cancel if you raise a fuss, no matter what the contract says.
|