New Visa Regs....

[bpj]

Which major proggy is going to be the FIRST to get TMF'd by Visa, when the new 3rd PP monitoring program goes into effect???
How about $10 per entry, winner take all!



Let the purge begin!


Mornin Oprano!



ACHdebit.com - a SAFE-HAVEN in troubling times! (http://achdebit.com/sales)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by bpj@Nov 14 2002, 09:25 AM
Which major proggy is going to be the FIRST to get TMF'd by Visa, when the new 3rd PP monitoring program goes into effect???
How about $10 per entry, winner take all!



Let the purge begin!


Mornin Oprano!



ACHdebit.com - a SAFE-HAVEN in troubling times! (http://achdebit.com/sales)
PSW Billing

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 14 2002, 09:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 14 2002, 09:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--bpj@Nov 14 2002, 09:25 AM
Which major proggy is going to be the FIRST to get TMF'd by Visa, when the new 3rd PP monitoring program goes into effect???
How about $10 per entry, winner take all!



Let the purge begin!


Mornin Oprano!



ACHdebit.com - a SAFE-HAVEN in troubling times! (http://achdebit.com/sales)
PSW Billing[/b][/quote]
Aren't they already out of business? lol

[bpj]

Actually Serge, I was referring to Webmaster Proggy's. Remember. After tomorrow, Visa has the ability to TMF any company/sites that exceed the cb thresholds with 3rd PP's. It doesn't take long to look around and see which companies have been with 3rd PP's from the beginning and historically, have always had cb problems.....

Here would be my first guess: Babe__t

[Vick]

Hasn't Visa reserved the right to TMF any company/site for a while now and has requested the CB/refund down to the URL for about 6 months now?

[bpj]

Vick,
No. These new 3rd party regs go into effect tomorrow! Up until now, companies were able to hide their cb problems within a 3rd PP's ratios! This can no longer be done. Now, Visa can identify problem accounts among 3rdPP's merchants and PUNT them from using ANY other 3rd PP! AND, if they haven't already obtained merchant accounts, that company has NO SHOT of obtaining them at that point.....

Stay tuned!

[cj]

Hasn't Visa reserved the right to TMF any company/site for a while now and has requested the CB/refund down to the URL for about 6 months now?


----

vick, only in cases which visa seeks out specifically ... to do this a company would have to stand out as excessive to visa

and yes, in these cases, they do have FULL procedures of compliance.

[Adultadv]

I would say programs that have any celeb sites and are heavy into crossbilling ...... just as a start :)

[art]

Originally posted by bpj@Nov 14 2002, 09:57 AM
No. These new 3rd party regs go into effect tomorrow!
bpj,

While this is true, Paycom has repeatedly stated that they have been reporting down to the URL stats to VISA for many months already (I think 6 months), AND that all customers were within the CB limits.

I don't know if the other IPSPs have been doing the same. But if what Paycom said is true (I wouldn't put any money on that! <_< ), at least Paycom can't be hiding anyone that will now go down.

Greetings,

Art

[Mike AI]

Yeah this is a tough call....

BEcause of the large programs that have played games in past, are also run buy some of the craftier/smarter people who always find work arounds for their scamming ways.

It shall be interesting to watch!

[bpj]

Hi Art!
Paycom may have been disclosing certain problem accounts for many months now, but Visa is just now going to ACT on that info. I can also tell you that i know iBill hasn't been able to disclose this info up till now, because their system has been incapable of doing so!

And as far as ALL accounts being under the thresholds for ANY 3rd PP...... lol! ;-)

[art]

Originally posted by bpj@Nov 14 2002, 10:40 AM
Paycom may have been disclosing certain problem accounts for many months now, but Visa is just now going to ACT on that info.
If there were some offenders already being reported to VISA, I would think they would already acted? VISA doesn't seem like a company that will allow such things to go on, with or without official rules.

Of course, reporting can also be "fixed" to spread out the chargebacks a bit. Just attribute some charebacks to other accounts that are very low on chargebacks.. Maybe that is also the reason why VISA wants a different descriptor per "sponsored merchant"? That will enable them to monitor better.

And Ibill, well.. any company that goes down will possibly be a client of theirs then! :P

Greetings,

Art

[Mutt]

i think Babenet are still using merchant accounts of their own. No way any third party processor would do business with them.

They are running scams that nobody is running anymore and i don't think they have been with a major third party processor ever. Maybe i'm wrong?

They will survive though and flourish, they are crafty cockholsters, the really brilliant criminal mind is hard to contain. There are many ways people with $$$, connections and smarts will get around VISA.
If VISA International jumps on board then things will really get hard for scammers.

But i'm sure they are even ready for that occurence. You can invent new companies, new company officers, a bit of a hassle but money is a great motivator.

[wig]

Mutt,

I agree. If enough money is involved, they will find away around it. It may be getting harder, but it is not over.

[bpj]

Mutt,
You may be surprised to know who has taken some of their business.... ;-)

Creating new companies, dancing around the rules, etc is going to be MUCH harder. than it was before. Plus, you are only talking about NEW business. Recurring databases sitting at 3rd PP's are subject to being completely cancelled! I don't think people realize the repercussions this is going to have on the entire industry.

Maybe I should start a new thread "The Domino Effect".... ;-)))

[Hooper]

---
PSW Billing
---

why do you say that? we've been using them for some time now and they havent missed a payment once.

i think this is largely over-reaction.. unless you're running a scam you probably have very little to worry about.

[kmanrox]

1, 2, 3, NOT IT! ;-)

[Cal]

Originally posted by wig@Nov 14 2002, 08:12 AM
Mutt,

I agree. If enough money is involved, they will find away around it. It may be getting harder, but it is not over.
<agree>

If any of you have had your own merchant account in the past you can attest to the fact that only your gateway really knows what URLs you are serving, and they're not required to disclose them to anyone. There are a million and one ways, though the whole URL disclosure makes it difficult for some of the big boys. I've heard rattles to the effect that VISA is setting up more staff to monitor this, but I doubt it will stop the players.

</agree>

C.

[*KK*]

All the ISPS have been reporting cbs by url for the majority of this year, it's been a Visa requirement. I would also put money on the fact that Visa has indeed instructed some of them to terminate specific accounts...

Visa's biggest issue is with companies that get TMF'd on their own merchant accounts and then haul their business to third party processing to hide the fact that they are still doing business. Not something Visa can really be faulted for trying to stop.

Small webmasters doing normal business are not the targets here, I really don't think.

The slash and burn folks are, and in the end, if Visa doesn't get rid of them this way, it may be that you see the end to cc's on the adult internet as a form of payment.

[*KK*]

"If any of you have had your own merchant account in the past you can attest to the fact that only your gateway really knows what URLs you are serving, and they're not required to disclose them to anyone. "
--------------------

Actually Cal it's really easy for Visa to track where they want to, since big scammers have to do big volume. Someone can't just move a few million a month to a new bank, especially dumping in a db without it being noticed.

If Visa is looking for specific urls that they know belong to their targets, all they would have to do is go to the sites, join, then watch the rebills move around... it's not like they don't have an unlimited number of valid cc numbers to seed with...

[Billy]

KK.. that is why I make it easy I just go to all the peoples houses who want to see naked pictures and I bring the pictures on a laptop and show them and take cash !

See a simple solution to the problem !

[cj]

f there were some offenders already being reported to VISA, I would think they would already acted?
----

they have ;-)
visa doesn't have to pass 'regulations' to stop processing for an account, and they have never needed to do so. visa have been quietly closing down merchant facilities with banks for a long time.

I like how this thread has become totally about 'scammers' instead of about the real issue and that is that ANYONE processing high risk transactions on the internet, scammers or not, can very easily have a cb level which reaches 2%.

Yes, its about time visa made some moves to put a stop to the adult industry's "pushing of the boundaries", but they are still running advertising campaigns TELLING surfers how to get away with frauding us in return. A 2% chargeback doesn't give you much room if you are doing ANY kind of consistent volume.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Billy@Nov 15 2002, 01:49 AM
KK.. that is why I make it easy I just go to all the peoples houses who want to see naked pictures and I bring the pictures on a laptop and show them and take cash !

See a simple solution to the problem !
hahahahahaha,
Billy, I bet you acumulate one heck of a flyer miles!
;-))

[cj]

Billy, I bet you acumulate one heck of a flyer miles!
;-))
----

these will be paid to webmasters as payouts for 'leads' generated ...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by *KK*@Nov 15 2002, 01:03 AM

Small webmasters doing normal business are not the targets here, I really don't think.


Hi KK,

Please define "small" and "normal business".

Thanks! :-)

[slavdogg]

new visa regs blah blah blah.


Someone answer this one, how much have major CC processors tighted their scrubs ?

Which ones didnt do any tightening ??

[bpj]

slav,
That should be an entirely new thread! ;-)

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 15 2002, 02:26 AM
Hi KK,

Please define "small" and "normal business".

Thanks! :-)
What I would call small are people doing a few hundred joins a day or less. What I would call normal are people that have clear customer service links, don't make it impossible for the surfer to cancel, have web sites that actually work (yes, I know it sounds odd, but believe me many a website is broken lol), etc.

What Visa AND the acquiring banks are tired of is companies coming in, doing thousands of joins a day and then having problems with it. When someone calls their bank to get a chargeback initiated, it takes admin time (which equals money, even if it is at ten bucks an hour) to generate the paperwork, get it to the appropriate parties (and alot of it is still done with paper, especially where the customer is concerned when it is done correctly), then Visa has to basically escrow the money out of the merchants account while allowing the surfer to use the money, until the merchant either disputes the charge back or does not respond and the cb goes thru.

When a high volume merchant loses their account, they normally go and start the process again with a different back, and the problem escalates rapidly. I'll go into detail if you like but I'll leave it with the short answer for now, which ends up with the merchant hiding in third party while they acquire more merchant accounts, or disappearing into third party for good, usually keeping the same chargeback problems at the third party as they had with their own merchant account...

[Cal]

Companies? I can't think of too many people who do more than 1,000 joins a day, much less 'thousands.' VISA registration won't stop these people from finding 10 different guarantors, and forming 20 different corps, if they're doing that kind of money it'd be pretty tough to deter them.

If they're running a program though it'd be difficult to explain why a couple payouts are not happening, and you've changed the name on your checks a couple times. Oh wait, a few places have done that already. :rolleyes:

I disagree in the sense that the people who have the most to lose are the small fries. It only takes 5 chargebacks to send someone with 5 sales a day into the red. Most merchant banks say 3 months of consistent high levels, but what do the IPSPs have to say? From what I read it was 1 month, correct me if I'm wrong. Big boys can suffer through quite a large number of chargebacks, or even buy additional traffic out of pocket to compensate. The smaller webmaster who is making a decent salary off their paysites has no recourse.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

KK -thanks for the info, as always.

[*KK*]

Cal,
from what I have heard from the mouths of the top of more than one isps, Visa is not looking for the guy with an errant chargeback that puts him over the limit because he doesnt do alot of joins.

They are looking for specific people who have done nothing but flaunted the system and tossed it into Visa's face...

Personally I hope they get their targets, otherwise I don't want to comment on what might be next.

[cj]

Big boys can suffer through quite a large number of chargebacks, or even buy additional traffic out of pocket to compensate. The smaller webmaster who is making a decent salary off their paysites has no recourse.
-----

huh?!??!?!
because a company is larger it can afford chargebacks?!??! The bigger the income, the bigger the bill ... and the more chargebacks, the more paperwork, the more paperwork, the less visa want your biz.

I'm going to do some math .... this is based on 100% of surfers converting to a full month membership (yeah that's likely!!)


LARGE BUSINESS:
EARNINGS: 1000 signups per day x $39.95 = $39, 950 per day x 30 days = $1, 198, 500 per month.
WEBMASTER PAYOUTS: 1000 per day @ $40 = $40 000 per day x 30 days =$1, 200, 000
CHARGEBACKS: 2% chargebacks = 20 chargebacks per day = $799 per day x 30 days = 600 chargebacks = $23 970

Earnings = $1, 198, 500
Payouts = $1, 200, 000
Chargebacks = $23, 970
Total Chargebacks = 600
Total Forms = 1200+ (1 form for merchant, 1 for customer + god knows how much other paperwork involved behind the scenes)


-------

THE REALISTIC VERSION

LARGE BUSINESS:
EARNINGS: 1000 signups per day, 50% cancellation off trial = 500 signups per day $19, 975 x 30 = $599, 250
WEBMASTER PAYOUTS: 1000 per day @ $40 = $40 000 per day x 30 days =$1, 200, 000
CHARGEBACKS: 2% chargebacks = 20 chargebacks per day = $799 per day x 30 days = 600 chargebacks = $23 970

Earnings = $599, 250
Payouts = $1, 200, 000
Chargebacks = $23, 970
Total Chargebacks = 600
Total Forms = 1200+ (1 form for merchant, 1 for customer + god knows how much other paperwork involved behind the scenes)


The bottom line for visa = 1200+ forms per month per company who generates 1000+ joins per day.


>>>The smaller webmaster who is making a decent salary off their paysites has no recourse.

Visa isn't after the smaller webmaster - all that has been asked of them is $750 and proof that you are a legitimate business and that your chargebacks stay below 2%. The 2% rule doesn't apply when 2% = 1200+ forms per month. In my opinion, the business' which are in the BEST position right now are the small to medium guys ...