General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[skypinkblu]

14 minutes ago, jimjum12 said:

How much is the increase ? GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

23 minutes ago, NP_Gresham said:

Looks like paypal is upping all their fees again, especially for cross-border transactions. That should effectively kill international transactions using PP.

One other interesting development, if you use paypal you can not charge more or 'discount' for non-PP transactions.  So sellers who offer discounts for check payments can have their PP account terminated. 

@NP_Gresham

I'm a little confused, how could they know that you offer discounts for non paypal transactions here? Or do you mean on eBay? 

[grebal]

Paypal had heavily discounted fees when transfers were funded with bank balance or paypal balance, and market-normal fees when they acted as cc/payment card industry access. 

Boy they became pigs when that eliminated that discount to charge full credit-card level transfer fees for moving a bank balance or money in a paypal account. 

Probably visa and mastercard have buried in the four-thousand page vendor agreement a similar prohibition on subscribers using cash discounts?, even they don't know any more.  Interesting tangent: last time I visted family in NY I noticed pay-at-the-pump gas station now add cc surcharge to pass fee to consumer, which used to be verboten.

To police new policy, paypal will probably need hire a lot more people for its compliance staff to match one for one all the new customer relations you'd hope they'd need, unless it just relies on the rats.

 

1 hour ago, skypinkblu said:

I'm a little confused, how could they know that you offer discounts for non paypal transactions here? Or do you mean on eBay? 

Someone ratting out the violator (um, excuse me, 'whistleblowing'), the same way the IRS and state sales tax collectors generally find out.  Maybe they'll actually peek into or audit the listings of larger ebayers.

 

[skypinkblu]

1 hour ago, grebal said:

Paypal had heavily discounted fees when transfers were funded with bank balance or paypal balance, and market-normal fees when they acted as cc/payment card industry access. 

Boy they became pigs when that eliminated that discount to charge full credit-card level transfer fees for moving a bank balance or money in a paypal account. 

Probably visa and mastercard have buried in the four-thousand page vendor agreement a similar prohibition on subscribers using cash discounts?, even they don't know any more.  Interesting tangent: last time I visted family in NY I noticed pay-at-the-pump gas station now add cc surcharge to pass fee to consumer, which used to be verboten.

To police new policy, paypal will probably need hire a lot more people for its compliance staff to match one for one all the new customer relations you'd hope they'd need, unless it just relies on the rats.

 

Someone ratting out the violator (um, excuse me, 'whistleblowing'), the same way the IRS and state sales tax collectors generally find out.  Maybe they'll actually peek into or audit the listings of larger ebayers.

 

Unless you are talking about eBay, this still makes no sense. I had no idea people discounted for people who pay with checks there, as they made it very difficult, but if I choose to discount for a check here, I'm not sure they can do anything about it. They would have to have access to PMs. 

I've never known anyone to offer a cash discount on the eBay site itself, but maybe I'm missing something.

[skypinkblu]

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/upcoming-policies-full

Interesting, I never got this. They don't have it on the website either. 

[Meeklo]

On February 16, 2017 at 11:59 PM, skypinkblu said:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/upcoming-policies-full

Interesting, I never got this. They don't have it on the website either. 

So that may effectively kill doing transactions outside of the US. Either that or we may have to start charging a higher premium to sell to those outside the US, which will also kill those transactions as the shipping is insane to begin with.

[EC ed]

4 hours ago, meeklo said:

So that may effectively kill doing transactions outside of the US. Either that or we may have to start charging a higher premium to sell to those outside the US, which will also kill those transactions as the shipping is insane to begin with.

 Just to make sure I understand...

Currently, a U.S. boardie pays an extra 1% in fees when receiving PayPal payments from an international boardie relative to receiving payment from a U.S. boardie (i.e., a 3.9% international transaction fee vs. a 2.9% U.S. transaction fee). After this change, that extra fee will grow to 1.5% (i.e., a 4.4% international transaction fee vs. a 2.9% U.S. transaction fee). Right?

So, suppose a U.S. boardie wanted to acknowledge this situation in their sales thread listings. What would they say...something like "international boardies add 1.5% to the listed prices"? How well will that go over here? 

[CatskillMike]

That will go over like a fart in church.

[EC ed]

13 minutes ago, CatskillMike said:

That will go over like a fart in church.

  That's what I was thinking. 

Begs the question, though...hypothetically speaking, suppose PayPal continued imposing additional international transaction fees...suppose that differential grew from 1.5% to 2%...or 2.5%...or 3.0%, etc....At what point would it be "OK" for U.S. boardies to impose a board transaction surcharge for international PayPal transactions? 

Rhetorical question, of course 

[jimjum12]

31 minutes ago, edowens71 said:

 Just to make sure I understand...

Currently, a U.S. boardie pays an extra 1% in fees when receiving PayPal payments from an international boardie relative to receiving payment from a U.S. boardie (i.e., a 3.9% international transaction fee vs. a 2.9% U.S. transaction fee). After this change, that extra fee will grow to 1.5% (i.e., a 4.4% international transaction fee vs. a 2.9% U.S. transaction fee). Right?

So, suppose a U.S. boardie wanted to acknowledge this situation in their sales thread listings. What would they say...something like "international boardies add 1.5% to the listed prices"? How well will that go over here? 

I have a good friend who worked for an International Corporation in their Accounting department and his chief responsibility was staying on top of international exchange rates so the accounts payable and receivable could be maximized on a day to day basis...... that extra .4% could really add up on a large scale..... personally, I'm thankful to have Paypal to facilitate international transactions.....I'd have to drop out otherwise. I'm glad I know this, so thanks for the head's up. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[skypinkblu]

I don't sell that much, so another .5% for out of the US doesn't bother me, I always figured Canada at 5% anyway. It was easier than figuring the .5 in addition or whatever the exact amount was. I figured US at 3% and Canada 5% (don't tell my husband, he actually likes to use exact numbers;)

What does bother me, is I can't pass on what I save when I take a check. That bothers me, although I wonder if it would only apply to other credit cards, not mo's or checks.

I know I could tell people less in a pm, but I'd rather do things upfront.

2 hours ago, edowens71 said:

 Just to make sure I understand...

Currently, a U.S. boardie pays an extra 1% in fees when receiving PayPal payments from an international boardie relative to receiving payment from a U.S. boardie (i.e., a 3.9% international transaction fee vs. a 2.9% U.S. transaction fee). After this change, that extra fee will grow to 1.5% (i.e., a 4.4% international transaction fee vs. a 2.9% U.S. transaction fee). Right?

So, suppose a U.S. boardie wanted to acknowledge this situation in their sales thread listings. What would they say...something like "international boardies add 1.5% to the listed prices"? How well will that go over here? 

 

[EC ed]

4 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

What does bother me, is I can't pass on what I save when I take a check. That bothers me, although I wonder if it would only apply to other credit cards, not mo's or checks.

Which part of their "new policy" language suggests this?

Is it this part that we're talking about:?
In representations to your customers or in public communications, you agree not to mischaracterize PayPal as a payment method. At all of your points of sale (in whatever form), you agree not to try to dissuade or inhibit your customers from using PayPal; and, if you enable your customers to pay you with PayPal, you agree to treat PayPal’s payment mark at least at par with other payment methods offered.

Edited February 18, 2017 by edowens71

[skypinkblu]

@edowens71 Yes, someone had referred to that part in another thread, that's what brought me to find the announcement. Do you interpret it another way?

[EC ed]

Just now, skypinkblu said:

@edowens71 Yes, someone had referred to that part in another thread, that's what brought me to find the announcement. Do you interpret it another way?

Yes...to me, the "payment mark" literally means the PayPal logo that you display on your "store" or wherever your checkout/forms of payment terms are laid out. Like, if we have an online store, the PayPal payment logo has to be as big as, and as prominently located as, the "Visa" or "Mastercard" logo.

In my sales thread, as long as I use the same font size for the word "PayPal" and the word "check", I think that meets the "payment mark" part of the requirement.

Now, that leaves the part about agreeing "not to dissuade" customers from using PayPal. If I said something like "if you use PayPal, you will have buyer protection. If you pay with a check, you will save some money but you will not have buyer protection...it's a tradeoff that you will need to make"...I'm not sure that's dissuading someone, is it? 

[skypinkblu]

Ummm...you know how I said, I just round up the numbers, lol...it's because this is a hobby not work, you (they) are making it work, lol.

I suppose we could use that as an argument (I don't have a store, so I'm only concerned about here and my occasional eBay sales)

However, I'm not sure I'd want to go through the bother of suing to get my rights back if I were to be bounced from Paypal.

[crassus]

3 hours ago, edowens71 said:

Yes...to me, the "payment mark" literally means the PayPal logo that you display on your "store" or wherever your checkout/forms of payment terms are laid out. Like, if we have an online store, the PayPal payment logo has to be as big as, and as prominently located as, the "Visa" or "Mastercard" logo.

In my sales thread, as long as I use the same font size for the word "PayPal" and the word "check", I think that meets the "payment mark" part of the requirement.

Now, that leaves the part about agreeing "not to dissuade" customers from using PayPal. If I said something like "if you use PayPal, you will have buyer protection. If you pay with a check, you will save some money but you will not have buyer protection...it's a tradeoff that you will need to make"...I'm not sure that's dissuading someone, is it? 

I read it the same way. I agree also that your formula muddies the waters as to whether this is "dissuading" a buyer from using Paypal, it could also dissuade them from using a cheque, and indeed the market does often work that way. I think they are looking here to send a message to the increasing number of online retailers, whether big or small operations, and I doubt their reach is going to get to us on the Boards. I think broadly speaking they do have a right to take this policy as it is hard to imagine any other service allowing you to advertise and interface their service with prejudice. I take %s seriously and they do impact the bottom line, but insofar as sellers always pass along expenses to the customer ultimately, it shouldn't be make or break. I list with one price, that BIN price I determine with all contingencies in mind.

It should be noted that PayPal's policy does not cover the contingency of a buyer approaching a seller with an offer premised on a cheque payment, that is a different action, and would not be subject to PayPal's prohibition.

[Sqeggs]

10 hours ago, edowens71 said:

10 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

@edowens71 Yes, someone had referred to that part in another thread, that's what brought me to find the announcement. Do you interpret it another way?

Yes...to me, the "payment mark" literally means the PayPal logo that you display on your "store" or wherever your checkout/forms of payment terms are laid out. Like, if we have an online store, the PayPal payment logo has to be as big as, and as prominently located as, the "Visa" or "Mastercard" logo.

In my sales thread, as long as I use the same font size for the word "PayPal" and the word "check", I think that meets the "payment mark" part of the requirement.

Now, that leaves the part about agreeing "not to dissuade" customers from using PayPal. If I said something like "if you use PayPal, you will have buyer protection. If you pay with a check, you will save some money but you will not have buyer protection...it's a tradeoff that you will need to make"...I'm not sure that's dissuading someone, is it? 

Totally OT, but as I remember, in the early days of PayPal, if a buyer used them when buying from you on eBay, PP gave you $5.  At least , I think that's how it worked.

Come a long way from those days! 

[Sqeggs]

13 hours ago, CatskillMike said:

That will go over like a fart in church.

Come now, man.  Even the lowliest bean eater amongst us is welcomed by the Lord! 

[PKJ]

Man I was hoping to see how low that Gi Joe partial run would go.

[Mijael.Levy]

As a Mexican i already pay almost 6% fee for international transactions with paypal. 

Some sellers charge you a % of the fee for accepting paypal ... So that is a good solution. If the buyer really want the product he will "help you" with a part of the fee 

[ChiSoxFan]

So, generally speaking, how much hyperbole is considered allowable before it becomes something more along the lines of "misleading"?

If advertise a book for sale here in the forums and say that it's "extremely hard to find in grade" (like, let's say a very early Tec, that would have GPA numbers behind it) or "this is a hot book with the TV show coming" (like a Marvel Premiere #15, let's say), I would think those are perfectly okay phrases to use in a sales thread.  I've sometimes used similar comments myself, so I don't see anything wrong with making a comment on your own book in the purposed of salesmanship.

But what of a seller who says that a book (which will probably have high demand on it) has very few copies left on eBay (as of this typing, there are 25 on eBay currently) and claims sold out at "insert major online store here" and everywhere else, but one of the two largest online stores seemingly has multiple copies in stock as well?    Would others have problems with making claims like that?