Quote:
Originally posted by cj@Feb 14 2003, 08:35 PM
Visa's VALID argument for the past 18 months or so has been that the adult industry (and recurring industry's in general) produce the most amount of chargebacks and administration work for Visa. Until visa introduced their 2% rule (where ALL merchant accounts must stay below 2% chargebacks), it was a free for all with visa covering the admin expenses at the end.
After the 2% rule, visa introduced chargeback fines, to cover the cost of the customer support. $100 per chargeback ...
Visa's latest rules include 1% chargebacks, verified by visa and BIG MOTHER FUCKING FINES (right ibill?) ... and i'm sure a host of other rules will come into effect.
Visa has NOT been making a profit off the fees - that's the problem!! If they were, we wouldn't still be getting new rules on a daily basis.
if the 3rd party processors like ibill, ccbill, epoch etc actually bothered to fight the chargebacks with the REAL INFORMATION they gather, we might not have gotten here in the first place.
that's the whole point KK, the sites don't have different content ... why would the program owner want to pay for the same member multiple times to the same backend? great for the webmaster, doesn't make a lot of sense for the program owner. and there is not going to be ANY recurrings if someone signs up for 5 sites, and if there is, it will definately become a chargeback of 5 X $39.95 after a payout of 5 x $45!!
|
K let me address these to my way of thinking - -which is not wrong nor right, simply my thoughts.
We've had 1% CTC in Visa US well more than a year. We had 2.5 on foreign merch accts for a while but that went away more than a year ago too unless my memory is way foggy.
Visa is not so much concerned with making or losing money on chargebacks as they are concerned with the brand image. The actual % of business that high risk -- not just adult but all high risk -- comprises is negligable to Visa BUT NOT TO THE ACQUIRING BANKS -- Visa is also made up of different groups of banks who are concerned with the amount of money they lose on sheisters that move their own DB's from one bank to another, burning everything in their path like setting a wildfire. At the end of the day, the banks that don't even do high risk suffer from certain high risk client actions. I will not name names here but the clue is a certain ISO under a federal RICO indictment on the west coast... how could that have happened if the gov't did not perceive some intent to defraud all the way down the oh so rosy path???
Why should ISPS's bother disputing chargebacks under the current structure? Site owners do not want to bear the cost and the cost is much more than the admin fee for getting the chargeback the way the system stands right now. If you don't think so, lets take a poll and see how many site owners -- ESPECIALLY the ones processing with companies that do not assess the admin fee to them -- are willing to spend 20 bucks to fight a chargeback with no guarantee of a win -- and given that taking the cb if they do not fight and do get passed the fines is around 15 bucks in most cases -- who's going to do it? Smart money is on not bothering, thus the reason that some of the people with their own merch accts dont bother fighting, they just take the admin assessments and the fines and move on...
Last but not least, are you saying that all the Babenet sites backends are the same or no? I don't know, I havent bothered to look since I don't run a front end for it... if they are the same then Rob and Jack are the ones with the issues, and should be stopping multiple joins from the same surfer if they dont want to deal with the customer service, but if they are not identical then perhaps they'd rather do multiple sales... not my business so I don't know what they are thinking.
Obviously they are doing something to make it work, or else the rest of these people wouldn't be using it...
When are you headed this way again cj, I miss seeing you!