Anyone know why the Clink thread got pulled?

[divad]

i always pay for my CL purchases by check. to do otherwise is throwing money away in my opinion

 

I would go even further to say that purchasing anything at all on CL is consistent with the above conclusion . . .

[Kramerica]

About the sellers here: If the three percent matters that much to the seller, then they would probably be better off upping the price a bit, accepting all forms of payment, and increasing the size of their buying pool. At that point the seller could offer the 3% discount to buyers that can pay fee free during negotiations, which would probably actually help build customer relationships and increase future sales.

 

Some people just always want to have the upperhand. They want to be in control. They convince themselves that they are doing you a favor by offering their stuff for sale here. Never realizing that the free FS forum and the devoted comic fans are doing them the favor.

 

(thumbs u Yes! I like common sense!

[Mr. Zipper]

All the back and forth about "discounts," "added fee", etc. etc. are irrelevant.

 

The crux of the matter is that CLInk is supposedly the "leading" comic book consignment site and auction house. They are raking in TONs of dough on their consignments and auctions.

 

One should be able to pay by check or credit with NO sort of adjustment... just like you can with just about any other vendor in the world. These Paypal games/discounts/extra charges just make them look petty and unprofessional.

[divad]

I agree, and as they say, " if the shoe fits . . . "

[G.A.tor]

 

they just cut to the chase and in essence are already applying the 3% discount, and if you don't pay via "cash", then you get it at the full, non discounted price...

 

 

This isn't true. There's a mathematical difference between a "3% discount already applied" and a 3% surcharge.

 

On a book that sells for $1000, an "already applied" 3% discount means the un-discounted price is $1030.93 (1030.93 x .97 = 1000.00). A 3% surcharge means the final price is $1030.00 (1000.00 * 1.03 = 1030.00).

 

So which are they charging? If they're just adding 3% to the final price, it's a 3% surcharge.

 

 

Can you fine detectives answer this please?

 

I agree with Dev's math. It's either a 3.03% discount or a 3% surcharge. Not sure what that answers, though.

 

It means that if the final price on a $1000 book when paying by CC is $1030.93, they can claim that the buyer isn't receiving the 3% "discount". If the final price is $1030.00, that claim is false. They're just adding 3% to the final price as a surcharge.

 

If they're trying to play semantic games with the letter of the law (discount vs. surcharge) they need to at least get the charges right.

I think clink calls it a buyers premium, but offers cash customers no buyer premium...

 

it is a legal way to get around the CC surcharge, but the net effect is the same... if comic link didn't do this, then cash customers would have to pay 13%, and I think that hurts the buyer and doesn't help the seller...

 

seems like the system they have in place is perfect

 

if heritage did this, they would only have to charge "cash" buyers 16.5% BP, and that would be nice... in that respect, I like clink (thumbs u

[skypinkblu]

 

they just cut to the chase and in essence are already applying the 3% discount, and if you don't pay via "cash", then you get it at the full, non discounted price...

 

 

This isn't true. There's a mathematical difference between a "3% discount already applied" and a 3% surcharge.

 

On a book that sells for $1000, an "already applied" 3% discount means the un-discounted price is $1030.93 (1030.93 x .97 = 1000.00). A 3% surcharge means the final price is $1030.00 (1000.00 * 1.03 = 1030.00).

 

So which are they charging? If they're just adding 3% to the final price, it's a 3% surcharge.

 

 

Can you fine detectives answer this please?

 

I agree with Dev's math. It's either a 3.03% discount or a 3% surcharge. Not sure what that answers, though.

 

It means that if the final price on a $1000 book when paying by CC is $1030.93, they can claim that the buyer isn't receiving the 3% "discount". If the final price is $1030.00, that claim is false. They're just adding 3% to the final price as a surcharge.

 

If they're trying to play semantic games with the letter of the law (discount vs. surcharge) they need to at least get the charges right.

I think clink calls it a buyers premium, but offers cash customers no buyer premium...

 

it is a legal way to get around the CC surcharge, but the net effect is the same... if comic link didn't do this, then cash customers would have to pay 13%, and I think that hurts the buyer and doesn't help the seller...

 

seems like the system they have in place is perfect

 

if heritage did this, they would only have to charge "cash" buyers 16.5% BP, and that would be nice... in that respect, I like clink (thumbs u

 

It's 3% for the buyer, Rick, not 13%...and I agree with the other poster who said that it should be in the terms upfront. I knew about it, because YOU told me before I bid...but otherwise, it would have been a complete surprise, as it is not listed in their terms and I did look again.

 

It's just a way of sounding like they are actually cheaper to use than they really are. I agree Heritage is more expensive, but I prefer dealing with companies who are totally upfront (which might be part of the reason I don't look at their site all that much anymore.

[G.A.tor]

 

they just cut to the chase and in essence are already applying the 3% discount, and if you don't pay via "cash", then you get it at the full, non discounted price...

 

 

This isn't true. There's a mathematical difference between a "3% discount already applied" and a 3% surcharge.

 

On a book that sells for $1000, an "already applied" 3% discount means the un-discounted price is $1030.93 (1030.93 x .97 = 1000.00). A 3% surcharge means the final price is $1030.00 (1000.00 * 1.03 = 1030.00).

 

So which are they charging? If they're just adding 3% to the final price, it's a 3% surcharge.

 

 

Can you fine detectives answer this please?

 

I agree with Dev's math. It's either a 3.03% discount or a 3% surcharge. Not sure what that answers, though.

 

It means that if the final price on a $1000 book when paying by CC is $1030.93, they can claim that the buyer isn't receiving the 3% "discount". If the final price is $1030.00, that claim is false. They're just adding 3% to the final price as a surcharge.

 

If they're trying to play semantic games with the letter of the law (discount vs. surcharge) they need to at least get the charges right.

I think clink calls it a buyers premium, but offers cash customers no buyer premium...

 

it is a legal way to get around the CC surcharge, but the net effect is the same... if comic link didn't do this, then cash customers would have to pay 13%, and I think that hurts the buyer and doesn't help the seller...

 

seems like the system they have in place is perfect

 

if heritage did this, they would only have to charge "cash" buyers 16.5% BP, and that would be nice... in that respect, I like clink (thumbs u

 

It's 3% for the buyer, Rick, not 13%...and I agree with the other poster who said that it should be in the terms upfront. I knew about it, because YOU told me before I bid...but otherwise, it would have been a complete surprise, as it is not listed in their terms and I did look again.

 

It's just a way of sounding like they are actually cheaper to use than they really are. I agree Heritage is more expensive, but I prefer dealing with companies who are totally upfront (which might be part of the reason I don't look at their site all that much anymore.

right, I meant 3%....sorry, trying to clean and type at the same time...

 

and it is "up front" on the checkout screen...when you choose your payment preference before you submit your order it shows "buyer premium" 3%...

 

if you choose cash/check, then clink "waives" the buyers premium, equating to a 3% discount

 

but you are correct, I don't see it listed in the terms and conditions, so seems like that might be a good place to distinquish the cost (thumbs u

[Point Five]

All the back and forth about "discounts," "added fee", etc. etc. are irrelevant.

 

The crux of the matter is that CLInk is supposedly the "leading" comic book consignment site and auction house. They are raking in TONs of dough on their consignments and auctions.

 

One should be able to pay by check or credit with NO sort of adjustment... just like you can with just about any other vendor in the world. These Paypal games/discounts/extra charges just make them look petty and unprofessional.

Thank you.

 

I'm frankly just amazed that they would refund a Paypal payment and demand that it be resent as a personal payment. Even a small fry like me would never do that.

[Aman619]

since Clink already charges the 3% buyers commission on all sales, seems they need only state the rules as follows:

 

1) pay cash/check, we waive the 3% BC as a courtesy

2) pay by CC, pay full price including BC

3) pay by PayPal normal, pay full price including BC

 

They need to just change their PayPal terms to match the existing CC terms.

 

 

Overall, say what you want about tax law and CC rules. The bottom line is that Heritage charges a 19.5% BC, and Comiclink charges 3% And if you pay cash the BC is waived. We all know how we got to this point, that 3% is a huge hit to a 10% profit. too big IMO. Nobody gives up 30% of their fees as Clink is expected to do. When you use a CC in a store, the store has a larger profit with which to absorb the CC fees, and years ago, they made the decision to accept CCs in order to facilitate sales receipts... The two situations are not equal. The only thing that surprises me here is why Clink is only now noticing the drain on PayPal payments.

 

I think too that CC rules and laws should be changed for "commission only" sales like these. The vendor SHOULD be able to expect the buyer to absorb the fees in return for being alolwed to charge their purchases.

[skypinkblu]

 

t

 

 

 

 

 

it is a legal way to get around the CC surcharge, but the net effect is the same... if comic link didn't do this, then cash customers would have to pay 13%, and I think that hurts the buyer and doesn't help the seller...

 

seems like the system they have in place is perfect

 

if heritage did this, they would only have to charge "cash" buyers 16.5% BP, and that would be nice... in that respect, I like clink (thumbs u

 

It's 3% for the buyer, Rick, not 13%...and I agree with the other poster who said that it should be in the terms upfront. I knew about it, because YOU told me before I bid...but otherwise, it would have been a complete surprise, as it is not listed in their terms and I did look again.

 

It's just a way of sounding like they are actually cheaper to use than they really are. I agree Heritage is more expensive, but I prefer dealing with companies who are totally upfront (which might be part of the reason I don't look at their site all that much anymore.

right, I meant 3%....sorry, trying to clean and type at the same time...

 

and it is "up front" on the checkout screen...when you choose your payment preference before you submit your order it shows "buyer premium" 3%...

 

if you choose cash/check, then clink "waives" the buyers premium, equating to a 3% discount

 

but you are correct, I don't see it listed in the terms and conditions, so seems like that might be a good place to distinquish the cost (thumbs u

 

Cleaning? You are more than welcome to stop by if you want to do more .

 

Upfront means, BEFORE you bid...so you know that is the total charge...It might not seem like a lot to some people, but I am sure it will make a difference to some others...for myself...I would still bid, but I would LOWER my bid 3% if I knew in advance.

 

It's just not customer friendly...really.

[Green]

I don't disagree with you, Nick, and none of my posts have attempted to defend the practice. For my own comic selling, I state clearly upfront that while I have several acceptable methods of payment, credit cards and PayPal/business are not.

 

Now, why would anybody pay the Link by a method that costs them an additional 3%, and not use a check or money order?

Some people like to pay with a CC for added protection/rewards?

[Point Five]

I don't disagree with you, Nick, and none of my posts have attempted to defend the practice. For my own comic selling, I state clearly upfront that while I have several acceptable methods of payment, credit cards and PayPal/business are not.

 

Now, why would anybody pay the Link by a method that costs them an additional 3%, and not use a check or money order?

Some people like to pay with a CC for added protection/rewards?

...And not have to wait an additional 2 weeks for them to receive a check and have it clear.

[blazingbob]

I do not charge customers for using Paypal. Electronic payment is a cost of doing business.

 

For people who use the "personal" payment option I will basically say this bluntly. You or the requesting merchant are "stealing" and "lying" for not paying Paypal for their service which is to get you or them money quicker. Eventually because of this abuse Paypal will eventually remove this service and frankly I wouldn't blame them one bit.

 

Paypal is just like Visa/MC/AMEX etc. Their business model is the electronic transfer of money. They have employees, there is a cost of doing business. The idea or rationalization that "Paypal sucks so em" doesn't exactly fly when you boil it down to the bottom line - If you don't want to pay the fees than don't take it.

 

 

 

 

[namisgr]

I don't disagree with you, Nick, and none of my posts have attempted to defend the practice. For my own comic selling, I state clearly upfront that while I have several acceptable methods of payment, credit cards and PayPal/business are not.

 

Now, why would anybody pay the Link by a method that costs them an additional 3%, and not use a check or money order?

Some people like to pay with a CC for added protection/rewards?

 

Not much of a reward to get 1% back from your CC and pay an additional 2% above the check you'd write (which you could stop payment on should a problem arise).

 

That said, I understand that the convenience and immediacy of using a CC or PayPal is lost with a check that has to clear.

[VintageComics]

Guys, I'm curious.

 

Does Comiclink say anywhere on it's site that they accept PayPal as a form of Payment?

[THE_BEYONDER]

I do not charge customers for using Paypal. Electronic payment is a cost of doing business.

 

For people who use the "personal" payment option I will basically say this bluntly. You or the requesting merchant are "stealing" and "lying" for not paying Paypal for their service which is to get you or them money quicker. Eventually because of this abuse Paypal will eventually remove this service and frankly I wouldn't blame them one bit.

 

Paypal is just like Visa/MC/AMEX etc. Their business model is the electronic transfer of money. They have employees, there is a cost of doing business. The idea or rationalization that "Paypal sucks so em" doesn't exactly fly when you boil it down to the bottom line - If you don't want to pay the fees than don't take it.

 

 

 

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

[blazingbob]

Just an fyi but merchants pay more on reward cards. Don't thank your credit card company for that 1%, thank me the next time you hand me a rewards card. And I will be the first to say Credit Card companies sucks for merchants. I pay more on AMEX, I pay more on Debit cards, reward cards and if you pay me with your "Business" card. I don't use a rinky dink clearinghouse either.

 

 

 

 

[skypinkblu]

Just an fyi but merchants pay more on reward cards. Don't thank your credit card company for that 1%, thank me the next time you hand me a rewards card. And I will be the first to say Credit Card companies sucks for merchants. I pay more on AMEX, I pay more on Debit cards, reward cards and if you pay me with your "Business" card. I don't use a rinky dink clearinghouse either.

 

 

 

 

What if I use my Amex rewards card through Paypal, does it cost you more?

 

and thank you:)

[Flaming_Telepath]

I do not charge customers for using Paypal. Electronic payment is a cost of doing business.

 

For people who use the "personal" payment option I will basically say this bluntly. You or the requesting merchant are "stealing" and "lying" for not paying Paypal for their service which is to get you or them money quicker. Eventually because of this abuse Paypal will eventually remove this service and frankly I wouldn't blame them one bit.

 

Paypal is just like Visa/MC/AMEX etc. Their business model is the electronic transfer of money. They have employees, there is a cost of doing business. The idea or rationalization that "Paypal sucks so em" doesn't exactly fly when you boil it down to the bottom line - If you don't want to pay the fees than don't take it.

 

 

 

 

(worship)

 

Top work, Smiler! (thumbs u

[supapimp]

so for future purposes, how should i pay then, check or MO?