I don't think anyone is against cross sells.

The argument is about PRE-CHECKED cross sells having something to do with the ongoing card association crisis.

Maybe you've heard about the possibility that Visa/MC may cut off adult entirely?

Or, maybe not.

But hey: I'm just a "kid." NOT :1orglaugh

Got a point there. Although i am sure there is some explanation.

Sorry kid but I've heard the unfounded rumor that MC/Visa may cut off adult.
Of course, knowing the facts puts me in a different position than you.
:winkwink:

If more people would spend their time deciding on their own strategy in the face of the obstacles placed in front of us, and less time yapping about what other people are doing, there would be infinitely more people making quite a bit more money.

But then GFY would be a ghost town. :1orglaugh

" and less time yapping about what other people are doing, there would be infinitely more people making quite a bit more money."


Problem is a handful of bad apples ruined it for everyone, so I think it is a concern.

I'm in my forties. I was joking about the kid remark, but I guess you didn't clue into that.

I do hope you're right. But the daily evidence posted on this board is not pointing in a positive direction, unfortunately.

I would think that any IPSP's actions (not just Epoch's) would affect a lot of people.

It would be difficult to make a lot of money, for example, if you're IPSP is freezing payments, out of business, etc.

A lot of that is happening lately.

What is so hard to understand? Visa and MC care about chargebacks, plain and simple. If they cannot be managed then you cannot process using those payment methods.

Amen Sister!!!

Not brand protection like you said last time then ?

Is this where it all ties in to Epochs MC fines and why Epoch has so much trouble with this particular rule about some refunds counting as chargebacks ? I bet this site generates a ton of refunds when people realize they have been duped thus (helping) push Epoch into MC fine territory ?

fiddy

Protecting the Visa brand has to do with processing sites like bestiality, lolita, young teen, etc... the things that Visa does not want associated with their image.

Using the phrase Visa/MC only care about cb's was incorrect -- the banks in the Visa/MC system ONLY care about cb's, fines, and who is going to have to cover the losses.

What most people fail to realize is that Visa itself doesn't make too terribly much money from adult -- it collects a % of all transactions and adult makes up less than 1% of those transactions.

The banks who acquire, which are only a couple at this point, are the ones that make the money from adult. Given that Visa and MC are associations made up of all their member banks in a given region, and that 99% of these banks make no money off adult, it is no surprise that the noose keeps tightening.

If Bank X, who processes high risk, all the sudden can't cover the fines or chargebacks of Company XXX (that just went under because it didn't have the money to pay its fines) then ALL the banks in the region have to ante up and pay the rest of what is owed to the issuing banks and ultimately the consumers.

So why would banks that make no money on high risk want to assume the liability of high risk?

To think that Visa or MC is one specific point, or one specific entity handling the entire transaction is to be incorrect. There are a minimum of two banks, one card association and assorted other support providers involved in every single transaction that is made, regardless of whether it's on line or at a pos terminal.