Author Topic: New safer payment options  (Read 4466 times)


*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18668
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2010, 10:45:53 PM »
If that's in your 'My Messages' folder under your eBay ID - then no-one can see it but you (unless you give them your logon details... :devil: )

As for the subject to which I believe you are referring, then you will find this of interest... http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=2363.0 ... in the 'Round Table'.

*wheels*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 8000
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2010, 01:00:36 PM »
Lacey, here's the link from Inside Selling

New accepted safer payment options for sellers

http://pages2.ebay.com.au/Hub/InsideSelling/Safer_Payment_Options

From 14 July 2010, eBay’s Accepted Payments policy will be revised to include two new accepted safer payment options, giving you an increased range of payment methods to choose from.

The revised policy will require sellers to offer one or more of the following three safer payment methods to buyers:

   1. PayPal
   2. Paymate
   3. Merchant credit card

surf-inside

  • Guest
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2010, 04:29:00 PM »
I haven't read the policy other than the marketing material.  How are these new methods supposedly safer?  A buyer can still chargeback on his credit card.  and we know credit card companies usually favor the buyer, if not always.

Not sure about Playmate but it sounds pornographic.  Or maybe its Paymate? Either way it conjures up images of the stacks of magazines in my bathroom.

Figures that Ebay would accept other forms of payment just as I am ready to nail down the Paypal security gaps and give users the ability to find out what their protections is and how they need to ship and who to use in order to stay compliant with loophole-ridden Paypal.

But, what do you expect from a company that bought its fraud software from a chinese company for 169 million. 

I will have to look at these policies and their pros and cons before making an informed judgement about risk and reward.  Its obvious that Ebay is trying to increase sagging sales. 

Surf

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18668
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 11:04:01 PM »
The thing I noticed about the three alternatives is that they ALL provide for buyer 'charge-back' claims - and I can understand that insisting there be at least one of those allows any buyer to be able to pay via a means that facilitates that.

It doesn't mean a seller can rest easy, because there is always the possibility of a scammer trying it on, but the difference with Paymate and merchant cards is that they have demonstrated a more ethical and diligent approach in reviewing such claims.

That will certainly put off a lot of potential scammers - because PayPal make it far too easy.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18668
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 11:14:59 PM »

Its obvious that Ebay is trying to increase sagging sales. 


On this change, there are many who are cynical about eBay's true motives.

It would seem rather curious that eBay should choose to make such an announcement soon after recently passed amendments to Australian Fair Trading laws and while under the microscope of the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Comission).

The fact that the ACCC said it welcomed the changes and would halt its current investigations says a lot.

EBay knew a loaded gun was aimed at them point blank - and just made the call they had to.... IMHO

surf-inside

  • Guest
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2010, 07:51:16 AM »
Interesting notations B.

Thanks for the 411 !

*CountessA*

  • Administrator
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 31783
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2010, 03:03:46 PM »
There is some reason to believe that the ACCC were surprised by eBay's announcement, and that it may not have resulted in a halt to any ongoing issues being investigated or considered.

It would be naïve to consider that eBay's policy change was made without respect to the changing face of the legislation, but it seems the policy change was not in direct response to a demand. I think we can safely consider it pre-emptive rather than reactive.
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is ...a part of the maine; ...any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde"

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18668
Re: New safer payment options
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2010, 12:02:48 AM »
I retain my cynicism and in that regard, I offer this idea.

(Please note this is purely my own opinion and not based on anything more than already published articles and my own take on things.)

I perceive the ACCC's role as one of encouraging businesses to comply with legal requirements so that they can continue to contribute to the economy in a responsible manner and only pursue punitive measures as a last resort or in response to blatant breaches.

Since eBay and PayPal cheekily dance around the edge of legislative edict, they avoid the 'blatant breach' risk ... in terms of the letter of the law. But as for the 'spirit of the law', well that requires vigilance and ongoing efforts to ensure it is reflected in the 'letter of the law' - and that is where the 'letter of the law' has been brought closer to the spirit in the recent Fair Trading amendments.

I can well imagine the eBay and Paypal were in the forefront of the thinking of those who drafted the legislation - not for a direct attack on them, but as a case study and inspiration to deal with the elements that have caused complaint and address broader implications, so as to produce a robust and comprehensive result.

I am also of the opinion that, upon examination of the recent Fair Trading amendments, the legal eagles within eBay and PayPal recognised there were very clear implications on their 'dancing around the edge' practices and that there would be significant dangers if they were to push their luck. The 'PayPal only' defeat no doubt would have helped them realise that any such risks could easily become reality.

Whilst the ACCC has consumer interests at its heart, it cannot be heavy-handed against a business every time there is a problem.  It is much more responsible to enter into a dialogue, so that issues can be resolved with minimal impact on a business. As I mentioned earlier, pursuit of 'Corrective Services' is preferable to 'Capital Punishment'.  In the case of our interests, it is not because eBay or Paypal deserve leniency, but because the rules must be applied consistently - to any and all businesses.  Principles must be upheld - even when the focus of our attention does not inspire such considerations.

I should also point out that, from what I understand, the ACCC do not use the term 'investigation' casually. If used, it means they are not just checking out a report, but actively involved in a matter identified as deserving the commitment of resources.  The fact that eBay were even in discussion with the ACCC indicates there were issues and that there were things the ACCC would have liked eBay to address.

So, although there may not have been a gun pointed at eBay's head, there is little doubt in my mind that they observed the loading of cartridges with caliber, powder, primers and bullets that matched them as a target - and that this would have inspired their 'pro-active' move.

The point that categorically proves this to me is that Paymate and merchant facilities weren't just added as alternative options - but that PayPal was placed in a position where it could be dropped.  I would like to hear the arguments from anyone who would try to convince me otherwise. EBay would never do this voluntarily.

As one further impetus to have done this sooner than later, it would be far easier to spin it as a positive move by eBay - who are in desperately need of something to polish up their corroding image, rather than take it down to the wire and have the regulators rumbling after them. That would just make it too obvious they were forced - better to do it now.

I would like to think it is no small coincidence that Sellers will derive the greater benefit from these moves, as a recognition by eBay of their true customers. However, the cynic in me says that is just a by-product of circumstances and that there are likely elements within eBay that would consider them unfortunate by-products. Encouragement for all sellers - including the smaller ones - "Drats!" I hear them say.


But, as I stated above, this is just my humble opinion.