A Statement from EPOCH / Paycom - New Visa Rules - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#151

07-10-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by goBigtime
And here's another question Chris....

I understand why you guys want exclusives on the processing --- you don't want to be made a "Backup" processor for someone because most/all of the possible transactions sent to you will have been flagged as possible fraud/deadbeat from the primary processor.

Makes good business sense to me.

However, what if I wanted to use Epoch as a primary CC processor & if you guys denied that person, then I wanted to ship him over to Ibill (or somewhere else) and pop a pay-by-check alternative?

OR maybe I just want to offer CC processing through Epoch and check processing thoguh Ibill.

Of course you could say "if you're going to do that, why not process the checks through us"... but then there's that whole keeping all your eggs in one basket thing.

Maybe your rule should be cleaned up just prevent you guys from becoming someones backup "junk" processor?

We have no problem being a back up or with webmasters having a back up. That is smart and almost a "must". Use CCBill, Jettis, PSW. That is fine. We only changed the policy as it relates to iBill for the reasons stated. If you are doing checks only at iBill, fine. The issue is credit cards.

As for back up junk... the scrubs and fraud detection are not that differnet for most IPSP's. Chances are that if we decline, CCBill and Jettis will too. We compete on price, service, features and who gives the best shit away at shows.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Donnie Gangsta

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2002

Posts: 1104
Share

Post
#152

07-10-2003, 06:03 PM

I'm posting again because it was the last post on page 3, and might not get a response:

Hm.. so theoretically, can one 'organization' open three separate companies with three separate IPSP accounts with one particular IPSP, and split their transactions amongst the three accounts in order to stay below the 100 CB threshold on each of the three accounts? Or more accounts if needed..

And also, when does dollar volume (as opposed to transaction count) come into play? Chris, you said, to paraphrase, 'it fortunately does not apply to us'..

Last edited by Donnie Gangsta; 07-10-2003, 06:07 PM.
Comment
thetrog

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 157
Share

Post
#153

07-10-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Chris Mallick

The quote you posted to says "may" be liable for fines, however the trans are broken out of our portfolio. If there is one chance in 1000 we are not going to take it. Regardless, if the sponsored merchant account gets whacked, we are out a ton of revenue. the recurring is gone and our ratios are FUBAR. So where is there an upside to waiting? I can't see one.

Ok. Thanks. This explains it a lot better, except for one more thing that I want to make sure I understand.

So if the sponsored merchant's Ibill account is screwed up, Epoch potentially loses that sponsored merchant's transactions, which then sends your chargeback ratios through the roof.

Am I getting that right?

So potentially losing the volume of transactions is the real problem and risk?
Comment
goBigtime

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 7761
Share

Post
#154

07-10-2003, 06:06 PM

That's what I'm saying...

I makes more sense now than ever to use MULTIPLE PROCESSORS via processor load balancing........

There is absolutely no reason that this should not be allowed.

In fact, it should be encouraged if anything since under the new rules it's @ 100 chargebacks per IPSP that these new penalties kick in right?

Don't get me wrong...

I can totally understand the IPSP's saying something like "No more 'backup' processing please!"... but to say YOU MUST EXCLUSIVELY PROCESS CARDS WITH US is either a rule that was made in haste, or a power play

[Edit]... I guess Chris said they have no problem with this up above.
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#155

07-10-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by socalcash
Chris,

Do u include WEB900 with IBILL.

We use them for web900 but not credit cards.

Do we fall into the IBILL bad category.

No. Only credit cards.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#156

07-10-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by socalcash
Chris,

Do u include WEB900 with IBILL.

We use them for web900 but not credit cards.

Do we fall into the IBILL bad category.

EDIT - nevermind, you already answered the question.

Last edited by Snake Doctor; 07-10-2003, 06:14 PM.

sig too big
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#157

07-10-2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Donnie Gangsta
I'm posting again because it was the last post on page 3, and might not get a response:

Hm.. so theoretically, can one 'organization' open three separate companies with three separate IPSP accounts with one particular IPSP, and split their transactions amongst the three accounts in order to stay below the 100 CB threshold on each of the three accounts? Or more accounts if needed..

And also, when does dollar volume (as opposed to transaction count) come into play? Chris, you said, to paraphrase, 'it fortunately does not apply to us'..

You can certainly have 3 different companies, but the url's must be different and the content can't be shared. So if you divide up url's, register each company and have contracts, that is fine, but the rules on a company and url level still apply.

Dollar volume does not apply at the Sponsored Merchant level.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#158

07-10-2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by thetrog

Ok. Thanks. This explains it a lot better, except for one more thing that I want to make sure I understand.

So if the sponsored merchant's Ibill account is screwed up, Epoch potentially loses that sponsored merchant's transactions, which then sends your chargeback ratios through the roof.

Am I getting that right?

So potentially losing the volume of transactions is the real problem and risk?

Disco!

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
goBigtime

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 7761
Share

Post
#159

07-10-2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Rand

.....This means that the IPSP is at risk because of how other IPSP?s may conduct their business.

Ok I re-read the iBill part. But I still don't understand why you have singled them out exactly.

The way I read it, it suggests there could be additional IPSP's blacklisted in the near future.

In regards to the quote above, how would Epoch be at risk when the merchant is terminated?

[edit]... this threads moving too fast. I think they are talking about this up above

Last edited by goBigtime; 07-10-2003, 06:17 PM.
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#160

07-10-2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by goBigtime
That's what I'm saying...

I makes more sense now than ever to use MULTIPLE PROCESSORS via processor load balancing........

There is absolutely no reason that this should not be allowed.

In fact, it should be encouraged if anything since under the new rules it's @ 100 chargebacks per IPSP that these new penalties kick in right?

Don't get me wrong...

I can totally understand the IPSP's saying something like "No more 'backup' processing please!"... but to say YOU MUST EXCLUSIVELY PROCESS CARDS WITH US is either a rule that was made in haste, or a power play

[Edit]... I guess Chris said they have no problem with this up above.

Thanks for the edit. Just be be clear; we are not saying "exclusive". Please, by all means, have a back up or we will back you up from CC, Jettis, PSW...

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
thetrog

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 157
Share

Post
#161

07-10-2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by goBigtime

Ok I re-read the iBill part. But I still don't understand why you have singled them out exactly.

The way I read it, it suggests there could be additional IPSP's blacklisted in the near future.

That was going to be my next question.

Hopefully Chris will answer this one as well.

Thanks in advance Chris. I appreciate your answers.
Comment
Shap

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 8313
Share

Post
#162

07-10-2003, 06:18 PM

I've got to say I'm happy to hear about the 100 CB level. That definitely is a HUGE sigh of relief. But the fact ibill is being singled out is NOT good. Anybody ready to short some intercept stock? It's at $11 and ready for a HUGE drop.

I hate to be a shit disturber, however we have always really disliked the scams the big guys have been pulling. The shit they've done over the years has not only hurt us with Visa but with customer confidence. It's going to be good to see them start going under.

Anybody wanna put some money down on who the two companies are? The first is obvious, ARS. They left Ibill and are now processing with epoch. The other I'd have to guess, hmmm maybe CEN. I'd also be pretty surprised if silvercash isn't way over 2.5% as well with their double upsell on the join page.

Thanks for all the info Chris and Paycom. Nice Job

Last edited by Shap; 07-10-2003, 06:22 PM.
Comment
wiZd0m

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2001

Posts: 1526
Share

Post
#163

07-10-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Chris Mallick

You can certainly have 3 different companies, but the url's must be different and the content can't be shared. So if you divide up url's, register each company and have contracts, that is fine, but the rules on a company and url level still apply.

Dollar volume does not apply at the Sponsored Merchant level.

Where do you draw the line on content sharing? Espacially for smaller sites that all buy from same places like Focus, Matrix, David Lace, etc and use same plug-ins from big vendors?

----------
wiZd0m
Comment
mpegposter

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 483
Share

Post
#164

07-10-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Chris Mallick

This applies to all Internet Merchants, including mainstream. Can you believe it!

Imagine just a week ago Kimmy called me names for suggesting this. I should find the thread.

The voice of the Moral Minority.

New Sponsor Converting Like Hell!
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#165

07-10-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by thetrog

That was going to be my next question.

Hopefully Chris will answer this one as well.

Thanks in advance Chris. I appreciate your answers.

I do not know of any other IPSP in this situation.
C

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Martin

"Assassins"

Join Date: Dec 2001

Posts: 17274
Share

Post
#166

07-10-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by shap
I've got to say I'm happy to hear about the 100 CB level. That definitely is a HUGE sigh of relief. But the fact ibill is being singled out is NOT good. Anybody ready to short some intercept stock? It's at $11 and ready for a HUGE drop.

I hate to be a shit disturber, however we have always really disliked the scams the big guys have been pulling. The shit they've done over the years has not only hurt us with Visa but with customer confidence. It's going to be good to see them start going under.

Anybody wanna put some money down on who the two companies are? One is obvious. ARS. Left Ibill with epoch. I'm pretty damn sure they are one of the two. The other I'd have to guess, hmmm maybe CEN. I'd also be pretty surprised if silvercash isn't way over 2.5% as well with their double upsell on the join page.

Thanks for all the info Chris and Paycom. Nice Job

hehe..
Comment
goBigtime

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 7761
Share

Post
#167

07-10-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by shap
I've got to say I'm happy to hear about the 100 CB level. That definitely is a HUGE sigh of relief. But the fact ibill is being singled out is NOT good. Anybody ready to short some intercept stock? It's at $11 and ready for a HUGE drop.
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#168

07-10-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by wiZd0m

Where do you draw the line on content sharing? Espacially for smaller sites that all buy from same places like Focus, Matrix, David Lace, etc and use same plug-ins from big vendors?

I don't. If the sites are the same and the url has a dash, then there is a problem according to the Visa registration rules. Maybe this is not applicable in the cases you are talking about.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Rico

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 1271
Share

Post
#169

07-10-2003, 06:23 PM

As I understood. This 1% rule was allready affective for other processors or am I mistaken?

°°panchodog.com°°
°°100+ paysites!!°°
°°katiefey°°°felicityfey°°
°°kristinafey°°°& Andi Pink!°°
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#170

07-10-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by ravinwall
As I understood. This 1% rule was allready affective for other processors or am I mistaken?

It has been 1% for MasterCard for awhile now, this is Visa.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Probono

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 2731
Share

Post
#171

07-10-2003, 06:27 PM

Chris is Visa doing the same "a credit is counted as a chargeback toward the 1%" that MasterCard is doing?
Comment
BluMedia

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 3973
Share

Post
#172

07-10-2003, 06:30 PM

How are chargebacks figured, is it daily? So if we go over 1% on one day we are screwed?

Thanks,
Mark

IntenseCash - If you can't convert us then you might want to look for a new job
.
BrokeStraightBoys.com converting 1:124 stats counted by Nats
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#173

07-10-2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Probono
Chris is Visa doing the same "a credit is counted as a chargeback toward the 1%" that MasterCard is doing?

No, thank God! Visa is very reasonable in that regard.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Rico

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 1271
Share

Post
#174

07-10-2003, 06:32 PM

We are well under 1% so no worries. I thought it was effective ever since the NEW VISA rules, back a day.

No worries here.

°°panchodog.com°°
°°100+ paysites!!°°
°°katiefey°°°felicityfey°°
°°kristinafey°°°& Andi Pink!°°
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#175

07-10-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by BluMedia
How are chargebacks figured, is it daily? So if we go over 1% on one day we are screwed?

Thanks,
Mark

No. It is a monthly calculation.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#176

07-10-2003, 06:37 PM

And I'm outta here for the night. More answers to more question, if any, will be posted in the morning.

Thanks everyone for the support and the interest in the facts.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
John3

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 1214
Share

Post
#177

07-10-2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Chris Mallick
And I'm outta here for the night. More answers to more question, if any, will be posted in the morning.

Thanks everyone for the support and the interest in the facts.

Thanks for sticking around to answer all the questions - you definitely deserve a night's break

Hook 'em.
Comment
OY

Industry Pioneer

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 5401
Share

Post
#178

07-10-2003, 07:14 PM

We follow suit with this announcement from Epoch/Paycom with our own in regards to this:

[I]Statement from Mansion Productions ? MPA2 ? New Epoch / Paycom policies

July 10, 2003

Due to the reason changes in VISA policies and the announcement from Epoch / Paycom today regarding their policy changes, Mansion Productions will provide our customers with free upgrades of MPA2 to reflect Epoch / Paycom?s new policy of not accepting merchants also processing with IBill. Ref Epoch / Paycom statement: ?THEREFORE, effective immediately, Epoch/Paycom will no longer process for clients or any registered URL that also processes new joins at IBill.?

We know that this is a business decision that each individual company is entitled to choose for themselves, and we will not force anyone to do it, but we want to make sure that you have the chance to become compliant with no additional cost for you and get an easy transition.

This will not affect too many of our MPA2 customers as Mansion Productions chose to remove IBill from it?s cascading billing solution almost a year ago. (Only offered as a substitute if requested)

BUT to the companies that get affected with these new rules and not able to process with Epoch and IBill at the same time we want to give our valuable customers the opportunity to get one of the other processors we offer instead. Currently that would be CCBill, PSW, Jettis or Netbilling.

Sincerely,

Mansion Productions

Ref: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=151591

Around since 1997, and the company that introduced "Cascading Billing" in MPA3® Affiliate Management and Tracking Software

Outsourcing With A Norwegian Twist - NordBits - Inquire within!
Comment
woodman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 433
Share

Post
#179

07-10-2003, 07:47 PM

Except for a few exceptions, most of you here tonight have bought into a complete line of bullshit and you don't even know it. All Epoch has done today is potentially weaken this industry
Comment
ayj

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 27
Share

Post
#180

07-10-2003, 07:56 PM

Been lurking for a while, registered to ask this one.

Chris, with respect to "the 1% only cuts in for 100+ chargebacks" - some processors will have a much higher proportion of small customers than other processors (new processors perhaps). If a processor has a lot of clients with under 100 chargebacks per month, but who are running above 1% on average between them - does this put the procesor at risk and hence all their clients also.

ayj

Last edited by ayj; 07-10-2003, 08:06 PM.
Comment
newbiz

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 177
Share

Post
#181

07-10-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Epoch

Through attrition of your recurring db and with no new signups you should be able to keep your VISA chargebacks below 100 in a month which prevents you from going into the VISA cbk program.

Clay
EPOCH

Hey all, I must be reading this entirely wrong. A lot of people are clinging to the 100 cbk's per month threshold...100 cbk's measured against what?

As i understand it, 1% of your gross transactions per month is what the threshold states. (1% of 1000 joins is 10 cbk's).

Maybe they were refering to 100 cbk's per month may put you on the breakout list with VISA...

Let me know your thoughts.

[email protected] | ICQ - 149130749 | AIM - ImBackSukas
Comment
Probono

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 2731
Share

Post
#182

07-10-2003, 09:35 PM

It appears that there is a threshold of 100 chargebacks a month that needs to crossed before this new set of rules from Visa applies to a merchant.

This means that most small pay sites would not be effected but the big sites that feed many of the people on this board could cross that threashold and still be under 1%. If so and they exceed 1% they will experience $100 per chargeback fees for up to six months while they try to cean up the problem.

I am not sure how exceeding 1% will effect sites with under 100 chargebacks in a month.

Also this is ONLY Visa, MasterCard has imposed more onerous rules than these.

This is my read and I have access to no information other than this thread.
Comment
Carrie

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2002

Posts: 3162
Share

Post
#183

07-10-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by woodman
Except for a few exceptions, most of you here tonight have bought into a complete line of bullshit and you don't even know it. All Epoch has done today is potentially weaken this industry

No, they've helped strengthen the industry, along with programs that are taking similar measures.
Only short-sighted people think that more immediate cash is better than less long-term cash.
Getting rid of free trials is an excellent move. Teach the surfer once again that he has to pay to see the good stuff. When free trials came around the decline of the industry hastened - suddenly everyone was screaming at the surfer that he could see all the hardcore he wanted for FREE. He was trained that he no longer had to pay to see porn.
Well, that's all about to change, baby. And I'm all for it.

Surfers afraid to join a paysite because they've been burned by $50 cross-sells before (expecting to pay $20 and finding a $70 charge on their cc statement) are going to be replaced by surfers who have confidence in joining paysites.

Lowering site prices means more surfers joining. I wouldn't pay $50 to get into *any* site, I don't care how good the inside was or how bad I wanted to see what was in it. But I'd pay $20 to see it - and so would a hell of a lot of other surfers who are money-concious.

The programs tonight who've announced they're making these changes - kudos to them.
The next few months are going to be bumpy, but the money is coming back into the business. I can literally SMELL it just around the corner.

The folks who can't, who are just sitting and bitching, complaining, freaking out in fear - they're too short-sighted. They need to look to, plan for, and build for the future. That's the only way you'll make money in *any* business, and this is no different.
Comment
HunkyLuke

Virgin by request ;)

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 1924
Share

Post
#184

07-10-2003, 09:54 PM

It seems that it is a perfect time to get away from big/mid size companies and start sending your traffic to small webmaster programs that give the surfer a reason to stay and not charge back and have a proven track record of 0.5% or less chargebacks per month - like for instance http://www.hunkmoney.com

Cheers!

Luke
Comment
newbiz

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 177
Share

Post
#185

07-10-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Probono
It appears that there is a threshold of 100 chargebacks a month that needs to crossed before this new set of rules from Visa applies to a merchant.

This means that most small pay sites would not be effected but the big sites that feed many of the people on this board could cross that threashold and still be under 1%. If so and they exceed 1% they will experience $100 per chargeback fees for up to six months while they try to cean up the problem.

I am not sure how exceeding 1% will effect sites with under 100 chargebacks in a month.

Also this is ONLY Visa, MasterCard has imposed more onerous rules than these.

This is my read and I have access to no information other than this thread.

Thanks Probono....

I was hoping that the 100 cbk's was in reference to a "buffer" allowed before the 1% rule applies...i have been reading trying to find if this is true.. I came in late at the paycom conference call to pick this info up..

That would make sense that anything above 100 cbk's a month get a 1% threshold applied... calling paycom tomoorw to make sure...

[email protected] | ICQ - 149130749 | AIM - ImBackSukas
Comment
John3

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 1214
Share

Post
#186

07-11-2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by woodman
Except for a few exceptions, most of you here tonight have bought into a complete line of bullshit and you don't even know it. All Epoch has done today is potentially weaken this industry

we're listening

Hook 'em.
Comment
thetrog

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 157
Share

Post
#187

07-11-2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by woodman
Except for a few exceptions, most of you here tonight have bought into a complete line of bullshit and you don't even know it. All Epoch has done today is potentially weaken this industry

If you have something to say, then say it.

Don't just drop vague hints.
Comment
FATPad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 6693
Share

Post
#188

07-11-2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Carrie

Only short-sighted people think that more immediate cash is better than less long-term cash.

That's rather funny all things considered.

<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>
Comment
woodman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 433
Share

Post
#189

07-11-2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by thetrog

If you have something to say, then say it.

Don't just drop vague hints.

If a processor stops allowing certain very popular types of transactions with their webmasters then it is likely that that processors transaction count will drop. Processors cannot afford for this to happen because of the negative impact down the road related to chargebacks. They would need to quickly find a way to replace that business, especially given the 1% Oct. issue. Think about this when you look at reasons why a company would blacklist one of their major competitors.
Comment
thetrog

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 157
Share

Post
#190

07-11-2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by woodman

Think about this when you look at reasons why a company would blacklist one of their major competitors.

I understand that, but I also asked you this question before, and you didn't answer.

Couldn't Epoch also lose business from this?

Assuming that those who use Epoch as a primary drop Ibill, and those who use IBill as a primary drop Epoch.

Wouldn't any potential gain for Epoch be offset by the same potential losses?

I'm not saying you're wrong but, at a glance, it looks like it could cut both ways.

On the other hand, if these new rules only effect 10 percent of the webmasters who do have 100 or more chargebacks, I still don't understand why Epoch won't allow those people to also process with IBill.

Unless they are worried about that 90 percent potentially going over 100 CBs at some point.

Last edited by thetrog; 07-11-2003, 05:36 AM.
Comment
scoreman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2001

Posts: 1491
Share

Post
#191

07-11-2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by thetrog

I understand that, but I also asked you this question before, and you didn't answer.

Couldn't Epoch also lose business from this?

Assuming that those who use Epoch as a primary drop Ibill, and those who use IBill as a primary drop Epoch.

Wouldn't any potential gain for Epoch be offset by the same potential losses?

I'm not saying you're wrong but, at a glance, it looks like it could cut both ways.

On the other hand, if these new rules only effect 10 percent of the webmasters who do have 100 or more chargebacks, I still don't understand why Epoch won't allow those people to also process with IBill.

Unless they are worried about that 90 percent potentially going over 100 CBs at some point.

So far Epoch is the one saying that they will suspend payouts, adjust reserves and such. Of the two, which one will get more business out of this? The one where if you leave you lose money or the one if you leave you dont?
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#192

07-11-2003, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by ayj
Been lurking for a while, registered to ask this one.

Chris, with respect to "the 1% only cuts in for 100+ chargebacks" - some processors will have a much higher proportion of small customers than other processors (new processors perhaps). If a processor has a lot of clients with under 100 chargebacks per month, but who are running above 1% on average between them - does this put the procesor at risk and hence all their clients also.

ayj

Yes. The threshold is measured at the Merchant (IPSP) level as well at 1%. If the IPSP is over 100 cbc's and over 1% then all cbc's are fined at $100 each and termination is likely after a 6 month period.

C

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
thetrog

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 157
Share

Post
#193

07-11-2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by scoreman

So far Epoch is the one saying that they will suspend payouts, adjust reserves and such. Of the two, which one will get more business out of this? The one where if you leave you lose money or the one if you leave you dont?

That's the question: Who will gain the most in the overall big picture. Epoch or IBill?

All I'm saying is I don't know the answer, and I'm not sure anyone else does.

Since it's not clear whether Epoch benefits from this, you can't assume that this is an anti-competitive move on their part.
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#194

07-11-2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by newbiz

Hey all, I must be reading this entirely wrong. A lot of people are clinging to the 100 cbk's per month threshold...100 cbk's measured against what?

As i understand it, 1% of your gross transactions per month is what the threshold states. (1% of 1000 joins is 10 cbk's).

Maybe they were refering to 100 cbk's per month may put you on the breakout list with VISA...

Let me know your thoughts.

100 in a month. So 100 cbc's mean that the Sponsored Merchant is then required to maintain a 1% ratio. So, if your example is 1000 transactions and 10 cbc's, then there is a problem at your (Sposored Merchant) level - 9 cbc's is below. 1% means a fine. If our overall cbc's are over 100 (and they always are) then we as an IPSP or any Merchant for that matter, have to have a ratio of less than 1%.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#195

07-11-2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Carrie

No, they've helped strengthen the industry, along with programs that are taking similar measures.
Only short-sighted people think that more immediate cash is better than less long-term cash.
Getting rid of free trials is an excellent move. Teach the surfer once again that he has to pay to see the good stuff. When free trials came around the decline of the industry hastened - suddenly everyone was screaming at the surfer that he could see all the hardcore he wanted for FREE. He was trained that he no longer had to pay to see porn.
Well, that's all about to change, baby. And I'm all for it.

Surfers afraid to join a paysite because they've been burned by $50 cross-sells before (expecting to pay $20 and finding a $70 charge on their cc statement) are going to be replaced by surfers who have confidence in joining paysites.

Lowering site prices means more surfers joining. I wouldn't pay $50 to get into *any* site, I don't care how good the inside was or how bad I wanted to see what was in it. But I'd pay $20 to see it - and so would a hell of a lot of other surfers who are money-concious.

The programs tonight who've announced they're making these changes - kudos to them.
The next few months are going to be bumpy, but the money is coming back into the business. I can literally SMELL it just around the corner.

The folks who can't, who are just sitting and bitching, complaining, freaking out in fear - they're too short-sighted. They need to look to, plan for, and build for the future. That's the only way you'll make money in *any* business, and this is no different.

I totally agree with your pricing statements.

I think the best example is the cable television industry. HBO used to cost $40 a month. Now you get 10 HBO?s 10 Cinemax and about 100 more stations (read: Content sites) for $29. That should tell us all something. Quality + Quantity + Fairness + Competitive Pricing = Long Term Success + Profits.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
FATPad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 6693
Share

Post
#196

07-11-2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Chris Mallick

That should tell us all something. Quality + Quantity + Fairness + Competitive Pricing = Long Term Success + Profits.

Is this a surprise?

<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>
Comment
Chris Mallick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 679
Share

Post
#197

07-11-2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by woodman

If a processor stops allowing certain very popular types of transactions with their webmasters then it is likely that that processors transaction count will drop. Processors cannot afford for this to happen because of the negative impact down the road related to chargebacks. They would need to quickly find a way to replace that business, especially given the 1% Oct. issue. Think about this when you look at reasons why a company would blacklist one of their major competitors.

You are wrong.

True we chase ratios, which is a full on numbers game; however, we are allowed to stop the chase and the numbers game and regulate the portfolio to achieve lower, more restrictive ratios. This is new, not like the past when we found out about a new ratio after the fine letter arrived. Visa understands that you can?t turn a ship the size of any IPSP on a dime. So we are notified 90 days in advance. During that period we will change policies and risk management techniques.

I hope this gives you something to think about instead of conspiracy theories. This is a survival technique for us, not a marketing technique.

Chris Mallick
[email protected]
Comment
fantasyman

Let's do some business together

Join Date: Dec 2001

Posts: 973
Share

Post
#198

07-11-2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Chris Mallick

You are wrong.

True we chase ratios, which is a full on numbers game; however, we are allowed to stop the chase and the numbers game and regulate the portfolio to achieve lower, more restrictive ratios. This is new, not like the past when we found out about a new ratio after the fine letter arrived. Visa understands that you can?t turn a ship the size of any IPSP on a dime. So we are notified 90 days in advance. During that period we will change policies and risk management techniques.

I hope this gives you something to think about instead of conspiracy theories. This is a survival technique for us, not a marketing technique.

Chris from your lips to g-d's ears. I have watched many processors try to work proactively with Visa, and get promises that fines would not follow a major adjustment down like this, only to learn later that Visa still fined them. I hope you're right, but I have some serious reservations.
Comment
Marc De

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2001

Posts: 632
Share

Post
#199

07-11-2003, 07:53 AM

ARS has not switched from ibill to Epoch and at this time doe not plan to.

650+ Tours in Every Niche • Automated Dynamic Free Hosted Gallery System online now - The BEST FHG System!
Comment
Maz

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 135
Share

Post
#200

07-11-2003, 09:18 AM

I have been waiting three years for this. Hopefully this will get rid of all the spammers and pretenders so the industry can get back to providing a real service to consumers. not a thinly guised credit card scam.

t-minus whenever it feels right
Comment

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next

Working...