[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
There is no contract between the cardholder and the merchant.
[/QUOTE]
This is not true. Read that credit card slip you signed.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
But this is silly. If they didn’t care about the provision at all, it wouldn’t be in the agreement. It’s a bit like the speed limit. Since just about everyone chooses to ignore the posted limit, the authorities can’t enforce it in every single case, or it would swamp their resources. That doesn’t mean they don’t care about the limit. It also doesn’t mean that I have any business bitching about it if they do decide to pull me over for breaking the rule. Same thing here: the CC company can’t pursue every complaint of this sort. But they certainly care about the rule. The reason for the rule, the only reason for the rule, is customer convenience. Granted, they only care about my convenience because if it is convenient for me to use their card, I will, meaning more money for them - but regardless of motivation they still care about my convenience.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to tone it down here because after reading your post I don’t think we disagree as much as I thought.
I think you’re fooling yourself to think it’s about customer convenience much. The CC companies are lucky to be making tons of money of the customer and the merchant. When it comes down to enforcing that policy it’s about money. Did you read the post from the person who told them to come get their shit when he set a $20 limit. They could have. They didn’t. They tried to intimidate him into paying them more processing fees and when they couldn’t they decided an impotent form letter was the way to go.
As I said in another post, they have no minimum not only for convince but because they make more money in processing the transactions as well and they love to make money off the weak willed and uniformed. ever go over a limit by $2 and get hit with a $30 charge. No minimum is a great way to encourage that.
That’s good to hear. I’ve had customers complain loudly about that being a violation of the merchant agreement. Technically the merchant agreement says not to ask for ID if a card is signed. Just examine the card on several points to make sure it’s legit then compare the signatures. If you’re not sure if they match then call it in.
If I started doing that every time I doubt I’d get praised for my adherence to the merchant agreement. My point was and is that the complainers here don’t really care much about the agreement either. They care about their own convenience
and are using that nit picky point to justify their I I Me Me attitude.
I for one never said violating the agreement was noble. Just realistic in todays marketplace. I understand why it’s done and I think the customer should be more understanding too, rather than use “liar Liar” as a mask for their own pettiness.
A reprimand has to fit the crime in some ways to be perceived as reasonable and fair. If your boss says, “Hey Story, do you mind getting back to work” you’d accept that as just. If he blew it all out of proportion and acted as if you’d compromised national security you’d probably think. “What a dick”
Thats my reaction here. Be nice to local merchants and tell them you understand but you’re in a spot rather than cite them the specific detail of a contract that the issuer doesn’t enforce anyway. If they are smart they’ll smile and say “Of course” We’re just trying to make a buck here not make life hard for customer"
Of course some merchants or employees will also get caught up in the strict enforcement of “company policy” I have no problem letting owners and management know how I feel about condescending peons who can’t exercise decent judgment in the name of customer service.
Never implied otherwise. I just happen to have more sympathy for the independent businessman trying to make a go of it. It’s not as simplistic as ,“That’s what the contract says period” especially when used as a mask.
It’s about balance and compromise isn’t it? Fair profit for reasonable service. The problem is the CC companies have merchants by the balls and it irks me that they have no problem using bought and paid for legalities to put the squeeze on merchants and customers.
Just don’t do business with them is also too simplistic.
You left out one involved party. Again, that;s my point.
Considering your post I think you are way to smart to think this has much to do with it. Come on…admit it.
I agree that a friendly request is the best solution and I’d encourage all merchants to try that instead of any strict policy. The problem is too many customers are not as considerate and cooperative as you are. I’m sincerely curious about when the tendency to carry very little cash became so common. Some folks are so wrapped up in their own convenience that they won’t make any effort to comply with such a request. Some would even be offended at such a request, as hard as that is to believe. However, I agree with you that it’s best to not make it start from an adversarial position.
Of *having a limit * I think, but not the details of how it was enforced.
I do take your word for it and try to operate in a similar manner. That’s why I think the request sign is a better idea.
Now take my word for something after a couple of decades in retail. Although most customers are great, and very reasonable and polite, stores having very relaxed policies for a couple of decades in the name of being customer friendly and good customer service have invited and encouraged a generation of self serving asses who are eager to abuse those policies to their own ends. As the policies are changed back in order to protect the stores I see people complaining about the changes as if they are being treated unfairly as if the stores are just fucking with them for shits and giggles. Unfortunately the rising percentage of bad faith customers have brought about policies that make things less convenient for good customers like yourself. Most companies big and small try to put policies in place that find that balance of being good to customers while trying to protect their interests. {although some are just crooks like some customers}
All that to say that the reason these minimums came about is the rising number of customers who were happily oblivious and unconcerned about the merchant and only concerned about their own convenience. This is the merchants way of responding and being on both sides of the counter I’d suggest a little understanding and communication for the real people in your neighborhood rather than nit picky pissin and moaning and name calling.
I agree. Ya know now that we seem to have solved this crisis perhaps we should argue about something bigger and solve that too 
The reasons those signs are up is because relying on customer good will hasn’t worked. The average customer doesn’t think about what processing fee the merchant pays and how it’s calculated but the merchant sure has to. Customer service costs money. Years ago customers decided that price mattered more than service so they bought what was less expensive. Even after making that decision they still complained loudly about the lack of customer service. It’s an unrealistic outlook. Same principle here. Customers wanted convenience but they don’t want to pay extra for it. This is the merchants response. We need realistic decisions and responses among all the involved parties. If merchants said. “I’m sorry I have to charge an extra fee if you use your credit card” the customer would scream bloody murder , but somehow it seems ok to claim convenience as their right with no thought to the cost to the merchant.
Then in the end we agree.
I just reacted to what I saw as making a mountain out of a mole hill with little consideration for the merchant.
As a customer I wouldn’t mind explaining my predicament and asking them to override their policy while expressing gratitude, rather than reading them the riot act. Of course they might still “No way” in which case they’d get a different response.
[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner]
With respect, your business is in a different situation to ones like mine and the two that the OP decided to make an exhibition of him or herself in.
To the first approximation, a purchase in the order of magnitude of a “thousands of dollars” yields a percentage fee.
To the first approximation, a purchase in the order of a dollar yields a flat fee. And a very substantial one, relatively speaking, at that.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how it makes any real difference. For me, the amount I am giving to the credit card companies at a sale makes it very enticing for me to charge an extra $25-$50 for anybody using a credit card. For you to incur that same financial impact, you’d need to have, what, maybe a hundred or so purchases. Are there really that many customers who want to buy something for a couple pounds and will use their credit card? I suspect the impact of letting everyone who wants to use a card in your shop to use it would not be as bad as you think. Obviously, UK Visa policy doesn’t require you to accept all transactions, so I have no issue with the way you’re doing business. However, here I DO make decisions sometimes on what shops I go into based on seeing a credit card sticker on the door, and my expectations are the merchant will not enforce minimum charge policies.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I submit that it IS part of Visa’s policy to allow minimum charges. It is not part of the contract, but Visa’s business practices are such that small vendors can use minimum charges with impunity, and Visa will do nothing to prevent it. Can’t you also say the impetus is on you to find a CC company that actually enforces its contracts?
What bugs me here is that Visa is seemingly off the hook because everyone is mad at the retailer for “violating the contract”. The reality is that Visa has set up a sham contract that they have no intention of enforcing and state the terms of that contract as part of their presumed deliverables to you as a Visa customer. Then, when you do not get the service you thought you were getting, your ire is directed to the merchant instead of to Visa who is allowing the lack of service to exist.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. That’s what irked me as well.
Again, I think the violation of contract crap is a smoke screen for petty whining.
I don’t blame anyone for being a little annoyed in the moment of being inconvenienced by such a policy but dam people. Get over yourselves and try to see it realistically.
If a merchant cannot tactfully and judiciously tell when to enforce and when to override such a policy I’d say thats a bad judgment call. However I’ve had more than a couple of customers get pissy and combative with me over some minor detail and demand their rights as paying customers. I’m less likely to be nice to someone who’s in my face and belligerent than I am to someone who politely asks if there’s some work around.
Quite frankly, I’m just at pissed at the credit card companies for not enforcing their policy. But the merchant doesn’t get off, either.
[QUOTE=bett]
Those businesses with minimum charges have lost sight of Total Profit = Total Revenues - Total Expenses. Those businesses are instead operating in a business model of Total Profit = Sum of Profits From Each Sale.
Would a business rather have 1000 sales a week where 100 sales were not profitable or have 800 sales a week where every sale was profitable? The answer depends on the total numbers. Some businesses are illogically focused on the latter case (800 profitable sales) when they might make more profit with the former case (1000 sales/100 not profitable).
Those businesses are assuming that a customer is a customer for life and that they can force the customer to jump through hoops to complete the transaction. But customers will go to businesses which offer the best overall value. Hassling a customer about a minimum charge will lower the value the customer gets from the business and make it more likely they switch to another provider.
I have no problem going to businesses which don’t accept credit cards. But with them, I know that going in and I make sure to bring cash or my checkbook. Or I go to another vendor if I only have my CC with me. A business with a CC minimum better provide a lot of value to not lose my business for dealing with that hassle.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about these details Krescan?
When they set a reasonable low limit such as $10 they are weighing profit over loss. Most customers will understand why the limit is in place and not hold a petty grudge over something so minor. Even if they disagree with the policy but overall they like the store it’s selection and it’s location they will tolerate the policy and react accordingly by using debit or carrying a little cash when they go there.
Their gamble is that only one or two customers will get a hair across their ass over something so petty and vow never to return, so in the end , the customers who understand and comply with the policy far outweigh the few.
I sincerely don’t get this attitude at all. If you have a neighborhood market that sets a limit to help maintain decent profitability you’d rather drive an extra mile, or get in line at some superstore rather than remember to carry a little cash, because they’ve pissed you off by having the audacity to burden you with a minor inconvenience.
I’ve already agreed that a friendly request for cash or debit is better than a demand but couldn’t that be reciprocal? “Hey local merchant I understand your policy but I forgot to stop at the ATM. Could you please make an exception this time and I promise I’ll stop in next week with cash money for a larger purchase as a thank you?” Instead it’s “oh those dishonest bastards. They don’t deserve to have a store at all. I hope they fail miserably for daring to make my life less than perfect”
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
I think it’s a great idea too, and I meant to say so earlier. As storyteller0910 said, show some respect and consideration for the customer, and they’ll be inclined to show it back to you.
[/QUOTE]
In most cases I have found that to be true. 
The merchant must also deal with the cases where it is not.
It’s the “How dare you the merchant even question your customer in any way” that bugs me a bit.
A merchant has a right to protect and encourage his or her own profitability. Not all choices made are perfect ones but they have a right to make them. No need to vilify such a minor one.
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
I don’t see how it makes any real difference. For me, the amount I am giving to the credit card companies at a sale makes it very enticing for me to charge an extra $25-$50 for anybody using a credit card. For you to incur that same financial impact, you’d need to have, what, maybe a hundred or so purchases. Are there really that many customers who want to buy something for a couple pounds and will use their credit card? I suspect the impact of letting everyone who wants to use a card in your shop to use it would not be as bad as you think. Obviously, UK Visa policy doesn’t require you to accept all transactions, so I have no issue with the way you’re doing business. However, here I DO make decisions sometimes on what shops I go into based on seeing a credit card sticker on the door, and my expectations are the merchant will not enforce minimum charge policies.
[/QUOTE]
Merchants did not create these policies just out of irrational uncontrollable greed. They put them in place because small purchases on credit cards have gotten to the point where it takes a significant bite out of their profits. My guess is the reasons are 1, the way credit cards are marketed, and 2, the way the fees of processing are figured to make it more profitable for the CC companies at the merchants expense.
The reaction by consumers in this thread speaks volumes. Fuck you merchant. It’s all about what’s convenient for me. I find that pretty sad.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
No one is really against small business here that I have heard, they are against dishonest business owners, who overwhelmingly, in regards to these types of agreements they have entered into and have blatantly ignored their end of the agreement they have made for their own enrichment and greed just happen to be mainly small business owners.
[/QUOTE]
I see it more as big monopolistic corporation has an essential service that they have to find a way to use, but their terms of service kind of fucks them in the ass. When your average sale is 3, that 1 transaction fee kind of bites into your profit margin.
As I said. I’ve never been to a bar that has less than a $ 20 minimum for a credit card.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Merchants did not create these policies just out of irrational uncontrollable greed. They put them in place because small purchases on credit cards have gotten to the point where it takes a significant bite out of their profits.
[/QUOTE]
Then why do they continue to accept them? No one is twisting their arm.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Then why do they continue to accept them? No one is twisting their arm.
[/QUOTE]
It’s been explained here several times and should be painfully obvious. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s been explained here several times and should be painfully obvious. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Indulge me. Could it be because businesses are more profitable when they accept credit cards? So why can’t they abide by the rules and take the good with the bad, while providing a service to their customers? Oh no, they have to have it both ways, reap the benefits of increased profits from credit card sales, yet squeeze a few more pennies by ignoring the obligations they agreed to. And yes, it *is * all about the customer; any merchant who forgets that, does so at his peril.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
No one is really against small business here that I have heard, they are against dishonest business owners, who overwhelmingly, in regards to these types of agreements they have entered into and have blatantly ignored their end of the agreement they have made for their own enrichment and greed just happen to be mainly small business owners.
[/QUOTE]
I have to say bird that I’m surprised at this attitude coming from you. Do you really suppose that small business are doing this out of pure greed and self enrichment rather than any possibility of a business necessity to stay open.
You focus on a specific detail of their merchant agreement to call them dishonest without any notice of the fact that VSA and MC are complicit in breaking the agreement. Of the two parties in that agreement who do you imagine has more policies built on greed rather simply making ends meet? If you’re so outraged by dishonesty then tear up your credit cards and send them back to the bank, telling them you won’t use them until they force businesses to comply and deliver the convenience they promised.
Please let me know when you do that. I want to salute your integrity.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I sincerely don’t get this attitude at all. If you have a neighborhood market that sets a limit to help maintain decent profitability you’d rather drive an extra mile, or get in line at some superstore rather than remember to carry a little cash, because they’ve pissed you off by having the audacity to burden you with a minor inconvenience.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s my rational as to why I’ll go to the no-minimum CC store. Say I’m working on a project at home and need a widget to complete it. I don’t know how much this widget will cost, but I only have a $5 bill. There’s two stores nearby: Joe’s Widgets who has a CC minimum of $10 and Tom’s Widgets who doesn’t. Here’s some possible outcomes:
- I go to Joe’s and the widget is less than $5. I buy it and leave.
- I go to Joe’s and the widget is greater than $5. I go to ATM to get cash and come back hassle
- I go to Joe’s and the widget is greater than $5. I drive to Tom’s and buy with my CC hassle
- On my way to Joe’s I make a visit to the ATM guessing how much the widget costs hassle
- I go to Tom’s and buy the widget with my CC regardless of the cost
So what happens in the long run is that I go to Tom’s more and more until it’s the only widget store I go to. Why should I go to Joe’s and have to worry about how much an item costs and if I have enough in my pocket to cover it? Or worry if he allows CC for some items and not others (cigars/cigarettes in an earlier post).
And it’s not just big business versus small business. There’s two local sandwich shops near my work. One has a CC minimum, the other does not. I always go to the one who has no minimum CC amount because it’s more convenient for me to pay with a CC. They’ve been in business for years, so there is a way to make it work.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Indulge me. Could it be because businesses are more profitable when they accept credit cards? So why can’t they abide by the rules and take the good with the bad, while providing a service to their customers? Oh no, they have to have it both ways, reap the benefits of increased profits from credit card sales, yet squeeze a few more pennies by ignoring the obligations they agreed to. And yes, it *is * all about the customer; any merchant who forgets that, does so at his peril.
[/QUOTE]
How old are you 12?
How freakin naive.
In case you missed it, it’s about a relationship between merchant and customer and CC company that works for all of them. It’s not all about anyone.
is this the pit? yeah it is
dufus
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
How old are you 12?
How freakin naive.
In case you missed it, it’s about a relationship between merchant and customer and CC company that works for all of them. It’s not all about anyone.
is this the pit? yeah it is
dufus
[/QUOTE]
Avoiding the tough questions won’t make them go away, Scrooge.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The reaction by consumers in this thread speaks volumes. Fuck you merchant. It’s all about what’s convenient for me. I find that pretty sad.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in the end, it is about the customer, so what’s the problem? Like I said, my own spending habits are such that I will go to a place that enforces minimums, because I have no options nearby, but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth, as I find the practice deceitful. To me, the Visa sticker on the door means “we accept Visa cards and comply with the rules of their rules in this country.” In the US, this means, among other things, no minimum charges or surcharges for using a credit card.
[QUOTE=bett]
Here’s my rational as to why I’ll go to the no-minimum CC store. Say I’m working on a project at home and need a widget to complete it. I don’t know how much this widget will cost, but I only have a $5 bill. There’s two stores nearby: Joe’s Widgets who has a CC minimum of $10 and Tom’s Widgets who doesn’t. Here’s some possible outcomes:
- I go to Joe’s and the widget is less than $5. I buy it and leave.
- I go to Joe’s and the widget is greater than $5. I go to ATM to get cash and come back hassle
- I go to Joe’s and the widget is greater than $5. I drive to Tom’s and buy with my CC hassle
- On my way to Joe’s I make a visit to the ATM guessing how much the widget costs hassle
- I go to Tom’s and buy the widget with my CC regardless of the cost
So what happens in the long run is that I go to Tom’s more and more until it’s the only widget store I go to. Why should I go to Joe’s and have to worry about how much an item costs and if I have enough in my pocket to cover it? Or worry if he allows CC for some items and not others (cigars/cigarettes in an earlier post).
And it’s not just big business versus small business. There’s two local sandwich shops near my work. One has a CC minimum, the other does not. I always go to the one who has no minimum CC amount because it’s more convenient for me to pay with a CC. They’ve been in business for years, so there is a way to make it work.
[/QUOTE]
Honestly I understand that. I just reread your post about the coffee shops.
I’m saying that the store that decides to have a minimum aren’t automatically assholes and liars because they made that business decision. They have to weigh what business they may lose with what they save by having the minimum. There are other factors as well such as location etc.
In your Sandwich shop scenario what if their sandwiches weren’t you favs but they had no minimum. If that were the case I’d only go there when I had no cash and I’d make sure I had cash so I could go get the sandwiches I preferred. If convenience is the deciding factor for you, so be it. How far out of the way does the no minimum store have to be before the minor inconvenience of a CC minimum doesn’t matter? The Sandwich shop that has a minimum may fold or do fine because their food is good and enough people don’t mind. It’s all a gamble.
You have every right to make your choices based on what is convenient for you if that’s your preference. I don’t begrudge any consumer that choice. I’m not suggesting people should be cheerfully inconvenienced just to support small business. I’m saying as part of a community I understand why small business has to make that choice and it wouldn’t make me stop doing business with them. I’d make the minor effort of getting cash to shop there because I see it as supporting a community business if their service was otherwise comparable.
I don’t see any reason for the all or nothing scenario. Either take all CC purchases or take none. Why should those be their only choices considering that the CC companies won’t enforce their own agreement?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Avoiding the tough questions won’t make them go away, Scrooge.
[/QUOTE]
Tough questions? Do you have delusions that you asked one or more?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t see any reason for the all or nothing scenario. Either take all CC purchases or take none. Why should those be their only choices considering that the CC companies won’t enforce their own agreement?
[/QUOTE]
Which is fine. The credit card companies are just as complicit in this bullshit. I’d split the blame 50-50. To the merchant for breaking their contract, to the credit card companies for not enforcing their contract, and to the credit card companies once again for promising their customers that shops that accept their cards cannot ask for ID and cannot require minimum purchases for their use. If the accepted norm were “Visa cards may not be accepted at will according to the business decisions of the retailer,” as it seems to be the case in the UK, I would be okay with that. But that’s not what we card holders are promised.
So plenty of blame to go around.