5 ms·

Oooh boy. I think I might return some confusion to you. I don't think the fees would vary between two Visa Signature cards, if the issuing banks decided to deli

Oooh boy. I think I might return some confusion to you. I don't think the fees would vary between two Visa Signature cards, if the issuing banks decided to deliver different perks. To the merchant, and the processor, they're both Visa Signature cards, and will be priced according to the fee schedule agreed upon.

mehrdadn 8y ago
Haha, yeah that's what I always expected, and that's why some of us found the claim surprising (and hence why I'm trying to drill down into it). I can see it being technically possible, but from a practical standpoint, it would be very surprising for me if it actually happens.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> To the merchant, and the processor, they're both Visa Signature cards "Visa Signature" is a marketing term. In fact, two cards with the same perks and branding could have different fees. There are something like 300 kinds of interchange fees that are always being negotiated between lots and lots of parties. The one example I know is tied to the WaMu-Wells Fargo merger. WaMu's cards were rebranded as Wells Fargo products. But old interchange agreements remained. So two identical-looking cards, with identical perks, would swipe differently for a merchant. The only clue to the customer would be the different bank identification numbers (the first few digits of a card).
- function_seven 8y ago
  "Visa Signature" is used in the interchange fee schedule [1] to set the price. It's not just a marketing term (though obviously that, too). If you look at the four columns in section C, there are four rates. Signature Preferred, Signature, Traditional, and "All Other". If I sign up for merchant card processing, and select a plan that varies the rate I pay based on card, then I'm given a fee schedule like this [2]. The holographic logo on the card matters. If it says "Visa Signature", then I pay that rate. Regardless of how the customer's issuing bank decides to perk their cardholder. [1] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/support-legal/documents/visa-usa-interchange-reimbursement-fees-april-2018.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/support-legal/documents... [2] https://i.imgur.com/J4nvi7v.jpg https://i.imgur.com/J4nvi7v.jpg
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    This is one example. I gave a counterexample. Usually, branding matches to card type. But not always. The question was can they be charged differently, and the answer is yes.
    - function_seven 8y ago
      I’m admittedly not an expert, but everything I’m reading is clear that, for example, “Visa Signature” means something with respect to the interchange fee. Do you have any links that show how the fees would vary between two cards with the same “Visa Signature” logo on them?
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      This is a interesting discussion -- and I'm seeing a subtle point here that's getting lost. If I understand your merger example correctly, you're suggesting that a card that is now marketed as Visa Rewards Traditional, for example, may still truly be a Visa Rewards Signature card underneath from before the merger (or whatever the prior classification was). However, what I find important here is that the card still is, in fact, categorized by those classes, and that categorization is merely misreported to the consumer. As far as the merchant is concerned, though, it really is a Signature card that was swiped(/inserted), and that Traditional vs. Signature classification still really is the only thing determining the rate -- i.e., what the card's perks or issuer are still cannot affect the fees once the merchant knows whether the card is truly a Signature or a Traditional card. See what I mean?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        This is an object versus pointer debate. A card is “really” a collection of contracts. A bunch of cards are collectively referred to as a “card type,” for merchant billing purposes. It’s nice when that aligns with the card’s marketing, but nothing requires it. Each payment network has its own conventions, which have changed over the years, and are constantly interacting with hundreds of layers and parties. Nobody prioritises keeping brand and type name correlated. Banks regularly change perks and rates, and when they do, they tend to renegotiate payment fees. Remember, there are like 300 fees. So in these renegotiations, some cards may end up one way and some may another. These are classified as whatever and life goes on. The “real” thing to the merchant is the mapping from card to type. The “real” thing to the bank is the fee flow. The “real” thing to the customer are the branding and perks.

mehrdadn 8y ago

Haha, yeah that's what I always expected, and that's why some of us found the claim surprising (and hence why I'm trying to drill down into it). I can see it being technically possible, but from a practical standpoint, it would be very surprising for me if it actually happens.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> To the merchant, and the processor, they're both Visa Signature cards "Visa Signature" is a marketing term. In fact, two cards with the same perks and branding could have different fees. There are something like 300 kinds of interchange fees that are always being negotiated between lots and lots of parties. The one example I know is tied to the WaMu-Wells Fargo merger. WaMu's cards were rebranded as Wells Fargo products. But old interchange agreements remained. So two identical-looking cards, with identical perks, would swipe differently for a merchant. The only clue to the customer would be the different bank identification numbers (the first few digits of a card).

function_seven 8y ago
"Visa Signature" is used in the interchange fee schedule [1] to set the price. It's not just a marketing term (though obviously that, too). If you look at the four columns in section C, there are four rates. Signature Preferred, Signature, Traditional, and "All Other". If I sign up for merchant card processing, and select a plan that varies the rate I pay based on card, then I'm given a fee schedule like this [2]. The holographic logo on the card matters. If it says "Visa Signature", then I pay that rate. Regardless of how the customer's issuing bank decides to perk their cardholder. [1] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/support-legal/documents/visa-usa-interchange-reimbursement-fees-april-2018.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/support-legal/documents... [2] https://i.imgur.com/J4nvi7v.jpg https://i.imgur.com/J4nvi7v.jpg
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  This is one example. I gave a counterexample. Usually, branding matches to card type. But not always. The question was can they be charged differently, and the answer is yes.
  - function_seven 8y ago
    I’m admittedly not an expert, but everything I’m reading is clear that, for example, “Visa Signature” means something with respect to the interchange fee. Do you have any links that show how the fees would vary between two cards with the same “Visa Signature” logo on them?
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    This is a interesting discussion -- and I'm seeing a subtle point here that's getting lost. If I understand your merger example correctly, you're suggesting that a card that is now marketed as Visa Rewards Traditional, for example, may still truly be a Visa Rewards Signature card underneath from before the merger (or whatever the prior classification was). However, what I find important here is that the card still is, in fact, categorized by those classes, and that categorization is merely misreported to the consumer. As far as the merchant is concerned, though, it really is a Signature card that was swiped(/inserted), and that Traditional vs. Signature classification still really is the only thing determining the rate -- i.e., what the card's perks or issuer are still cannot affect the fees once the merchant knows whether the card is truly a Signature or a Traditional card. See what I mean?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      This is an object versus pointer debate. A card is “really” a collection of contracts. A bunch of cards are collectively referred to as a “card type,” for merchant billing purposes. It’s nice when that aligns with the card’s marketing, but nothing requires it. Each payment network has its own conventions, which have changed over the years, and are constantly interacting with hundreds of layers and parties. Nobody prioritises keeping brand and type name correlated. Banks regularly change perks and rates, and when they do, they tend to renegotiate payment fees. Remember, there are like 300 fees. So in these renegotiations, some cards may end up one way and some may another. These are classified as whatever and life goes on. The “real” thing to the merchant is the mapping from card to type. The “real” thing to the bank is the fee flow. The “real” thing to the customer are the branding and perks.