4 ms·

Heavy fines get difficult when the buyer can deny the charges. Chargebacks are very expensive for the merchant; not only are there penalty charges on top of the

Heavy fines get difficult when the buyer can deny the charges. Chargebacks are very expensive for the merchant; not only are there penalty charges on top of the refund ($25 seems to be typical) but credit card processors will refuse to do business with you if you get enough of them.

w1ntermute 14y ago
How about a video camera inside the "box"? Or would that be too invasive for most people? Maybe you could just take "before" and "after" pictures?
- rabidsnail 14y ago
  But once you have those pictures what do you do? Take them to court?
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Would you have to go to court to dispute the chargeback? Couldn't you set up some kind of system to send them to the credit card company if a customer attempts a chargeback, so they can verify that the chargeback is invalid?
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      It doesn't matter. The chargebacks count against your limit whether you dispute them or not. You must get less than 1% of your monthly gross volume back in chargebacks if you hope to stay in business. If you're above that for several months in a row, 99% of MSPs will terminate your account immediately. As far as Visa and MasterCard are concerned, if you're generating chargebacks on a regular basis, something is wrong with your business model and you must either correct the business model or stop accepting credit cards as payment for it. It's not a question of whether you were legally owed the money or not; it's about protecting the card brands from whatever negative experience you're creating such that customers feel forced to go to their banks and complain about the charges.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        It's very unfortunate that credit card companies are willing/forced to take the side of the consumer even when they're clearly in the wrong. Maybe this will have to be revisited when/if a more impartial payment system becomes common. Edit: it seems like the endpoint of all this is the banks. If the credit card companies could send the pictures to them, maybe things could be resolved? But I doubt the banks would want to get involved in that. Either way, if I were running a bank, I would take Visa or MasterCard's word over that of any individual customer.
        dangrossman 14y ago
        I disagree. The only flaw in the policy of low chargeback limits is that it doesn't discriminate between chargebacks due to stolen cards and chargebacks due to extreme customer dissatisfaction. If a large percentage of your paying customers are so angry with you that they'll complain to any 3rd party they can find, something is wrong with your business and no other brand should want to be associated with the experience you're creating. A low chargeback limit makes policies like "bury a $300 cleanup fee in the fine print" non-viable. That kind of thing shouldn't be viable even if it's technically legal. If you find a way to charge a cleanup fee and not surprise and anger customers when doing so, you won't get chargebacks. If you find a way to operate the pods without attracting people that will trash them, you won't get chargebacks. Speaking to your edit: the banks and credit card companies are not separate entities. There are only the banks. The banks own the card brands, and the card brands are not involved in the chargeback process. You dispute a charge by calling your card-issuing bank. The phone number on the back of your card is your bank's number, not Visa's. Visa does not interact directly with customers. Your bank sends the dispute to the bank underwriting the merchant account, which sends it to the merchant. The merchant presents its evidence to its bank, which forwards it back to the card-issuing bank of the customer for a decision.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
        I never said that the cleanup fee should be buried. In fact, this is all hypothetical. By requiring payment by credit card, you'll hopefully eliminate prostitutes, drug users, and homeless people anyway. At that point, if you make the cleanup fee really obvious to customers, it may be feasible. And I don't know how common chargebacks for unethical purposes are, but neither me nor anyone I know has ever mentioned using a chargeback in a situation where they weren't genuinely scammed.
- rmc 14y ago
  How about a video camera inside the "box"? Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
- ParkerK 14y ago
  I think it would work just as well to have one outside of the box. You'd be able to link a customer's face to their card and to the time that the box was trashed.
wanderr 14y ago
Have a membership system. Membership is free, but must be applied for and can be revoked. That combined with before/after pictures should prevent most abuse.

w1ntermute 14y ago

How about a video camera inside the "box"? Or would that be too invasive for most people? Maybe you could just take "before" and "after" pictures?

rabidsnail 14y ago
But once you have those pictures what do you do? Take them to court?
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Would you have to go to court to dispute the chargeback? Couldn't you set up some kind of system to send them to the credit card company if a customer attempts a chargeback, so they can verify that the chargeback is invalid?
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    It doesn't matter. The chargebacks count against your limit whether you dispute them or not. You must get less than 1% of your monthly gross volume back in chargebacks if you hope to stay in business. If you're above that for several months in a row, 99% of MSPs will terminate your account immediately. As far as Visa and MasterCard are concerned, if you're generating chargebacks on a regular basis, something is wrong with your business model and you must either correct the business model or stop accepting credit cards as payment for it. It's not a question of whether you were legally owed the money or not; it's about protecting the card brands from whatever negative experience you're creating such that customers feel forced to go to their banks and complain about the charges.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      It's very unfortunate that credit card companies are willing/forced to take the side of the consumer even when they're clearly in the wrong. Maybe this will have to be revisited when/if a more impartial payment system becomes common. Edit: it seems like the endpoint of all this is the banks. If the credit card companies could send the pictures to them, maybe things could be resolved? But I doubt the banks would want to get involved in that. Either way, if I were running a bank, I would take Visa or MasterCard's word over that of any individual customer.
      - dangrossman 14y ago
        I disagree. The only flaw in the policy of low chargeback limits is that it doesn't discriminate between chargebacks due to stolen cards and chargebacks due to extreme customer dissatisfaction. If a large percentage of your paying customers are so angry with you that they'll complain to any 3rd party they can find, something is wrong with your business and no other brand should want to be associated with the experience you're creating. A low chargeback limit makes policies like "bury a $300 cleanup fee in the fine print" non-viable. That kind of thing shouldn't be viable even if it's technically legal. If you find a way to charge a cleanup fee and not surprise and anger customers when doing so, you won't get chargebacks. If you find a way to operate the pods without attracting people that will trash them, you won't get chargebacks. Speaking to your edit: the banks and credit card companies are not separate entities. There are only the banks. The banks own the card brands, and the card brands are not involved in the chargeback process. You dispute a charge by calling your card-issuing bank. The phone number on the back of your card is your bank's number, not Visa's. Visa does not interact directly with customers. Your bank sends the dispute to the bank underwriting the merchant account, which sends it to the merchant. The merchant presents its evidence to its bank, which forwards it back to the card-issuing bank of the customer for a decision.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
        I never said that the cleanup fee should be buried. In fact, this is all hypothetical. By requiring payment by credit card, you'll hopefully eliminate prostitutes, drug users, and homeless people anyway. At that point, if you make the cleanup fee really obvious to customers, it may be feasible. And I don't know how common chargebacks for unethical purposes are, but neither me nor anyone I know has ever mentioned using a chargeback in a situation where they weren't genuinely scammed.
rmc 14y ago
How about a video camera inside the "box"? Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
ParkerK 14y ago
I think it would work just as well to have one outside of the box. You'd be able to link a customer's face to their card and to the time that the box was trashed.

wanderr 14y ago

Have a membership system. Membership is free, but must be applied for and can be revoked. That combined with before/after pictures should prevent most abuse.