Anyone know why the Clink thread got pulled?

[namisgr]

Leaving aside for a moment the legality or ethics of surcharging and the censorship of thread-pulling...

 

Could someone explain to me why anyone would choose to incur the 3% surcharge and pay by anything other than a check or money order?

[G.A.tor]

The Federal Truth in Lending Act states: 167, (2) “No seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.”

 

 

I'll play Roy's part this time around...

 

But CL doesn't charge a surcharge, they give you a discount if you don't use a credit card.

that is a very valid point...

I, like many folks, offer a 3% " cash" discount... and why not... I net the same if someone pays me in cash, versus if someone pays with a credit card... cash buyers are rewarded with that little savings... I would think folks, especially those that pay with check, etc, would applaud the discount

[G.A.tor]

That's what I thought too that C-link does not give a discount on books you purchased if paid by check or M.O. You pay for whatever you won the book for plus shipping like what others have mentioned.

but the point (and I get it, as a retailer) is that the sale price would be +3% if they didn't have that policy...so, cash buyers "are" getting the 3% discount

 

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...

 

it really is not complicated...

 

now, on a seperate issue, I have no idea about paypal deal, so not commenting on that , just on clink's general business model

[G.A.tor]

The following states prohibit merchants from adding surcharges to credit card transactions

 

* California

* Colorado

* Connecticut

* Florida

* Kansas

* Maine

* Massachusetts

* New York

* Oklahoma

* Texas.

 

that is in addition to the fact that it is a federal law, so it already applies to all 50 states, right

 

 

[arexcrooke]

It was pulled because CLINK is an advertiser and simply put CGC bends over forward for their advertisers

Yep, it will even let one of them question their integrity and impartiality in a thread.

[G.A.tor]

Unless 3% is deducted from the winning bid....it's not a discount.

 

Is that not how it's done?

 

I've bought lots of books off of Comiclink and I can honestly say I've never looked at an invoice and crunched numbers. The only time I scrutinize an invoice is if I've sold something.

 

Seriously.

 

Now I'm confused. Does Clink charge an extra 3% if paying by CC....or does Josh take 3% off the price if paying by cheque/MO?

 

I said it before, they ADD 3% if you use a credit card...or at least they DID, I haven't made a purchase in the past year. I haven't seen anything change. I prefer using my credit card because I get 1% off on all purchases, but I don't use it with them.

actually, that add "back in" the 3% if you use a credit card... the 3% is already "discounted" (so to speak) in the pricing structure...

 

again, if a seller wants to net 300 for a book, they have to sell it for $333 via clink...

now, if clink didn't already apply the 3% discount, the seller would have to price it at $345

if a buyer pays with check, they get it for the 333 "discounted" price... if the buyer pays via CC, they pay the full 345... but , as mentioned, clink has already incorporated the 3% into the business model (as I understand it, Josh would have to confirm, but this is how I would do it)

[G.A.tor]

Unless 3% is deducted from the winning bid....it's not a discount.

 

Is that not how it's done?

 

I've bought lots of books off of Comiclink and I can honestly say I've never looked at an invoice and crunched numbers. The only time I scrutinize an invoice is if I've sold something.

 

Seriously.

 

Now I'm confused. Does Clink charge an extra 3% if paying by CC....or does Josh take 3% off the price if paying by cheque/MO?

 

Clink looks to have gotten tired of covering the fees. They added a 3% buyer's premium. Coincidentally, the only people who have to pay this are those who charge their purchases. They do this by then giving a 3% discount to any other payment method. So while there is a "discount" technically, in practice it amounts to a 3% surcharge to credit card payments. There was a thread a while back. Do not know how to direct folks to it though Just really seems to be verbal gymnastics to comply with the letter of something instead of the spirit in which it was intended (believe that Clink based this change on it being the only way to maintain their cost structure of 10% seller fees).

 

For example if I pay for my $1000 order (total cost of only books), shipping is then added (lets say $50). If I send a check or money order I only owe $1050. If I charge the items a 3% buyer's premium is then added on and my bill becomes $1081.50 (the total plus shipping multiplied by 1.03) Hope this helps

 

SE

that sounds good too (shows you what I know )

[Rich_Henn]

Clink refunded a payment via paypal for the payment to be resent as a Personal Payment so fees could be avoided.

 

That is preposterous. I cant even stand it when boardies demand that on board sales. ( i mean if I've had a few sucessful transactions with you already, that's another story...)

 

But a damn business with a shingle out doing that? Caveat Emptor

 

Personal paypal = no protection

 

The already take 10% of your sale...shouldn't that more then make up for the surcharge that paypal slaps them with?

 

 

[arexcrooke]

Unless 3% is deducted from the winning bid....it's not a discount.

 

Is that not how it's done?

 

I've bought lots of books off of Comiclink and I can honestly say I've never looked at an invoice and crunched numbers. The only time I scrutinize an invoice is if I've sold something.

 

Seriously.

 

Now I'm confused. Does Clink charge an extra 3% if paying by CC....or does Josh take 3% off the price if paying by cheque/MO?

 

I said it before, they ADD 3% if you use a credit card...or at least they DID, I haven't made a purchase in the past year. I haven't seen anything change. I prefer using my credit card because I get 1% off on all purchases, but I don't use it with them.

actually, that add "back in" the 3% if you use a credit card... the 3% is already "discounted" (so to speak) in the pricing structure...

 

again, if a seller wants to net 300 for a book, they have to sell it for $333 via clink...

now, if clink didn't already apply the 3% discount, the seller would have to price it at $345

if a buyer pays with check, they get it for the 333 "discounted" price... if the buyer pays via CC, they pay the full 345... but , as mentioned, clink has already incorporated the 3% into the business model (as I understand it, Josh would have to confirm, but this is how I would do it)

Rick,

it has nothing to do with the seller bro. It has everything to do with the buyer. To get a discount, there must be a reduction of the original purchase price. What CLink is doing is adding 3% to your purchase price agreement and then reducing it to what you agreed to initially by not charging you the 3% fee if you pay via anoher option.

So, again, there is no discount to be had as the discount is only applicable to the original purchase price

[namisgr]

The already take 10% of your sale...shouldn't that more then make up for the surcharge that paypal slaps them with?

 

 

Well, no it doesn't.

 

When your profit margin is all of 10%, a 3% hit obviously makes a huge difference. Certainly the Link isn't the only seller that takes this position, since several of us who sell comics on the boards will not take either credit cards or PayPal/business as acceptable methods of payment.

[arexcrooke]

Not germane to the argument Bob. It is your choice to not accept those payment types. However, to add a 3% fee then "discount" it is shady at best and appears to be illegal.

[namisgr]

I think it's spot on the subject, Arex, to offer an opinion that when a company's profit margin on items it sells is 10%, eating a 3% fee makes a major difference. Especially when it's in response to someone suggesting the Link just suck it up and take the fee hit.

 

I'm not sufficiently versed to offer any opinion on the legality of the Link's stance.

[skypinkblu]

I don't get it.

 

If you get a 3% discount by paying with an alternative method, isn't that a good thing?

 

BS is never a good thing.

 

And if they are so concerned about giving discounts to their customers who pay by check or whatever, why not make it 10%?

Instead of the coincidental same amount as the credit card fee?

 

You can call it whatever you want, it's still a 3% discount when paying by check or MO.

 

 

You can call it whatever you want too. It's still BS. It's not a 3% discount.

I buy a $300 book for the price advertised. Pay $14 to ship one book and get 3% added for credit card payment. There is no discount involved, i bought and paid for a $300 book.

No discount involved but, still saves you 3% when paying by check or money order. Of course, I get charged an aditional 8.35%? sales tax.

 

Is that your rate where you live, Mike? Because they try to charge me the NYC rate each time (Heritage does too)...and it's the rate where you live, where the book is to be delivered, not the rate where they mail it from that you should be charged. My sales tax is only 7.67 %...a bargain for NY. I have to call and explain every time. It's not a huge amount, but it adds up and since it's a tax, I'd rather pay the correct amount, not a bonus.

 

I don't see how this charge, could possibly be construed as a "discount" it's not. It's probably better for Comiclink to do it this way for their own bookeeping purposes, but I've always seen it as an additional charge. Still cheaper than Heritage's charges....but it's a charge

:shrug:.

 

I gave the example of the tax because I'm sure it's easier for them to just charge one rate and not look up every little town in NY..just as it's probably easier for them to add the premium if you use a credit card...bookeeping can be complicated...but if you have a business, it's part of the job.

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think it's spot on the subject, Arex, to offer an opinion that when a company's profit margin on items it sells is 10%, eating a 3% fee makes a major difference. Especially when it's in response to someone suggesting the Link just suck it up and take the fee hit.

 

I'm not sufficiently versed to offer any opinion on the legality of the Link's stance.

 

So, how do other consignment houses/outlets manage?

 

I don't think Bob Storms operates in this fashion, does he? How about Brent?

 

In my opinion, if you need to engage in something underhand like this to survive, your basic business model is flawed.

 

And if you don't need to, it's simply maximising profits in an unethical fashion.

[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?

[arexcrooke]

I think it's spot on the subject, Arex, to offer an opinion that when a company's profit margin on items it sells is 10%, eating a 3% fee makes a major difference. Especially when it's in response to someone suggesting the Link just suck it up and take the fee hit.

 

I'm not sufficiently versed to offer any opinion on the legality of the Link's stance.

I disagree, obviously. If a company has to break the law to stay in business then it is time to get out of business.

 

The legality isnt in debate either. There is a nice quote on an earlier page that states what the Gubment says about charging fees for credit card use.

 

Again, CLink isnt giving you a discount. They are however charging you more for using a credit card and charging you what you agreed to pay if you do not. That isnt a discount

[dev-migration]

 

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.

 

 

[skypinkblu]

I don't disagree with you, Nick, and none of my posts have attempted to defend the practice.

 

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

 

Because they don't have the cash up front...and want to pay using credit

[arexcrooke]

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?

Why should anyone have the option taken away from, or made more expensive, because that is their choice in how they want to pay.

 

 

[namisgr]

I think it's spot on the subject, Arex, to offer an opinion that when a company's profit margin on items it sells is 10%, eating a 3% fee makes a major difference. Especially when it's in response to someone suggesting the Link just suck it up and take the fee hit.

 

I'm not sufficiently versed to offer any opinion on the legality of the Link's stance.

I disagree, obviously. If a company has to break the law to stay in business then it is time to get out of business.

 

The legality isnt in debate either. There is a nice quote on an earlier page that states what the Gubment says about charging fees for credit card use.

 

Again, CLink isnt giving you a discount. They are however charging you more for using a credit card and charging you what you agreed to pay if you do not. That isnt a discount

 

That's fine Arex, but none of your post is directed at the issue I addressed, which was to respond to Rich Henn with the opinion that eating the fee is onerous for sales with a 10% profit margin.