Run away little shopgirl, or the mean ol’ customer will gitcha!
In reality it isn’t just the customer involved and we’ve encouraged the very mindset you reflect. We have so many mega stores with products made in another countries and owned by large corporations that we seem to have lost our sense of community and here’s the result. Any minor inconvenience and you’re offended by the gall they have by trying to be profitable.
Rather than Visa business practices leaving a bad taste in your mouth you’d rather blame your local merchant and believe he’s some kind of dishonest jerk because you’re inconvenienced. You display zero sympathy or compassion for how hard it is to try and maintain a small business.
Is it possible you might see these minimums as their effort at a compromise that allows them to stay open and appreciate that. Apparently not.
FTR I do think that going with a minimum CC purchase requires a little courtesy and common sense in dealing with customers.
I am cowered by your stunning display of knowledge and rapier wit. Not to mention your deep probing grasp of all that is good and right. I am humbled and dare not respond again.
Any for the cardholders?
No, not really. Except perhaps we should bitch louder for Visa to either enforce their contracts or amend them. In my opinion, cardholders are getting screwed from both ends.
See, what pisses me off is that ma & pops think that, simply by being ma & pops, that they are special. If you know me well, you’d know that I tend to support small businesses. Fuck, I am a small business. But there are small businesses that DO follow the rules and DO manage to stay in business. So I have no pity for small businesses that whine and complain. If you’re losing that much money accepting credit cards, then fucking don’t accept credit cards or price up the merch accordingly. Obviously, other businesses have figured out a way to do this, so can you.
I don’t think Mom and Pops are doing it because they think they are special and above the rules. They are doing it to try and survive in an increasingly hasher climate of competition.
No small business owner started whining in this thread. Yes some small businesses have no minimum and stay afloat. That says nothing about what may or may not work for everybody else. There are lots and lots of factors that determine success or failure. I’m just saying they have decent reasons for making that business choice and I have far less tolerance for whiny consumers who can’t seem to grasp the concept. They should be able to make that call without the petty name calling BS I’ve seen here, and that and other factors will determine in they’ve made the right call.
Once again, I do think a friendly request is better than a strict policy and maybe the change in tone would be enough to make it work for everybody. Realistically though I’m skeptical. I think the same customers here that show no compassion for these business owners couldn’t be bothered to make any effort to bring cash.
Mom and Pop businesses that do this are generally ones that didn’t do their homework and didn’t negotiate their processing fees properly. I spent a great deal of time before I even called a credit card processor to set up an account. I feel no sympathy for them.
and what a horrible brutal heartless screwing it is. Why does life have to be so cruel to fine folks like that?
I think the point has been made repeatedly that by not taking action to enforce said detail of the agreement Visa has agreed by default to amend the agreement. Furthermore adults who shop in the USA should be aware of this by now and perhaps amend their shopping practices accordingly instead of looking to piss and moan about it.
What the hell is the argument here?
Let’s say I start handing out a new currency around town…call it RolandBucks. First thing I do, I print up some RolandBucks and I offer them to people at a rate of R$1.05 on the dollar. I say: “Yo, people! Buy RolandBucks! They’re fast, they’re convenient, and when you see my sign, you know they’re as good as cash!”
Next thing I do, I go to merchants. I say: “Yo, merchants! Accept my RolandBucks! Lots of people have 'em, and if you accept 'em, some of those people will give you money when they otherwise wouldn’t!”
In response, the merchant, presumably not being an idiot, looks me up and down and asks: “Sounds great, but what’s in it for you?”
“Well,” I reply, “You accept RolandBucks as payment for everything you sell, and I exchange them for you 1:1 in U.S. dollars, minus X.X% of total sales in my currency and a $X.XX fee per transaction.”
At this point, the merchant does some thinking. He knows, in general, what his profit margin is on the items he sells, and some quick calculations tell him at what point he’ll lose money to my fees on each transaction. He knows that a certain percentage of his sales are over that amount, and a certain percentage are under, and a quick glance at his sales reports will tell him how much in each direction. He then factors in whatever credence he allots to my statement that accepting RolandBucks will attract new business, and what sort of business that might be. After considering this, he decides that accepting my currency will serve to increase his profits. Based on that, he accepts my terms.
Then, he accepts RolandBucks only when he feels like doing so. I lose profits, and a lot of my customers become very pissed off because they can’t use my currency as I’d promised they could.
Is the merchant in the wrong here, or is he not? If I don’t personally inspect his store to ensure that he’s following my terms — say, because I got in a car wreck, or perhaps because I trust him to honor his agreements — does that change whether the merchant’s actions are right? Why?
Now, answer all of the above, only in the scenario and questions, replace me with a credit card company which you personally dislike. What changes?
An addendum to my previous post: I have no problems with a merchant requesting that customers keep credit card purchases above a certain dollar amount. I certainly don’t have any problem with the notion that it’d be nice of customers to abide by this request out of kindness to the merchant as a fellow human being. Should the customer insist upon paying with a credit card, though, I do expect the merchant to accept it as his agreement obligates him to do — and as the agreement the customer made with the credit card company gives him every right to expect.
That the credit card company may be better able to take the objective loss than the merchant is relevant to the question of “niceness”, but not to the right or wrong of the situation.
Good for you and good advice too. You’re right. It’s their responsibility to learn how their own business works. We must get two or three calls every day from someone pitching some great service to our store.
In reality small business owners can and do make mistakes and sometimes learn the hard way just like people who use credit cards. Banks love this.
“Honest honey, I won’t overcharge in your mouth”
If that happens and they see they made that mistake is it all that offensive for them to respond by setting minimums until they can get a better deal? Are they selfish bastards for trying to survive by creating a minor inconvenience for customers? Are they asking too much in hoping customers will understand?
Jeez Louise. I know the business world is hard but it doesn’t have to be totally heartless does it?
No. Just ethical.
Offensiveness, selfish-bastardhood, and asking too much are all subjective concepts. I personally am generally not offended by this request, do not deem the merchants selfish bastards, and don’t believe they’re asking too much; therefore I comply with the request. Clearly, based on the responses in this thread, others disagree, and it is their right to do so. You’ve made some compelling arguments on why they might consider changing these opinions, but at the end of the day, they ARE opinions. As I already illustrated, the only part of the matter that is objective clearly grants them the right to demand what they do.
As an abstract entity — “the business world” — yes. The people that comprise it need not be. Different matters entirely. You choose to be nicer to small business owners than some, and for that, I’m sure they thank you. Others…well, it’s their prerogative.
The technicalities do not reflect the realities of business and the real people involved.
If there is an infraction of a certain portion of the agreement shouldn’t the penalty fit the degree of infraction in some way. People here are saying that if the small merchant can’t live up to the agreement in full as written they shouldn’t be allowed to accept VSA at all. Does that seem an equitable response to a minor infraction? Instead what has happened is the companies who issue the cards have by default agreed to the amendment that the merchants have established. Isn’t that so?
I’m no legal expert here but it seems to me that if you have knowledge of an amendment and allow it for an extended period of time you have accepted it.
Can anyone find one measly example of a store who lost there ability to process cards for this specific reason?
the CC companies have decided to let it ride and let the consumers through their purchasing habits make the judgment call as to whether these businesses survive or not. We can if we like say “fuck you small local merchant. It’s not my problem or my responsibility. You made life just a bit inconvenient for me so you’re on my shit list”
If that’s the kind of community we want we can surely have it.
Aaaarrrggghhhhhh!!! Got me again. Right to the heart of the matter. I’ve been chastised by the master.
no kidding,… You are 12 aren’t you?
Ahhh but is that so? Are they hypocrites for demanding the merchant comply and refusing to patronize them while still using the card of the company that takes no action to deliver what they promised?
Is is an objective factual reason or simply a disingenuous justification based once more on their concern for their own convenience.
How about the CC companies default acceptance of the revised agreement? Seriously, I’m curious about your take on that.
If you complain and realize the company that issued the card has no intention of delivering the convenience they promised for money motivations of their own, then why be angry at the merchant?
My point exactly. People will behave as they will. Regarding formal business transactions, though, the only objective arbiters are “the technicalities”.
The time to decide whether the penalty for an infraction of an agreement is equitable is before agreeing to it. As previously cited, the standard VISA merchant agreement does require the merchant to accept VISA for transactions of any amount. I don’t have a copy of it handy, and I don’t recall whether it lays out a specific penalty for violation of the terms, but if it does, then whether you or I believe it to be equitable is irrelevant; the two parties involved have decided that already. If it doesn’t, then it is assumed that this is a condition of being able to accept VISA as a whole, in which case the people making the argument you refer to would be justified.
And no, VISA has not agreed to any “amendment”; the original agreement has not been amended. What they have done is fail to enforce an existing clause in certain situations.
Please answer the questions posed about the hypothetical in post #250; I’m interested to see where the discrepancy lay between your views of ethics and mine. Surely it’s not in this argument, that failure to enforce an agreement renders it justifiable to blatantly violate it? If so, I would ask which of us is arguing meaningless “technicalities” as opposed to the right and wrong of the situation.
Yes, we certainly can. In most cases, I have supported the businesses when I’ve encountered this situation; in others, I have not. All I question is your assumption of the right to tell me (and others) whether I may do so. If you concede that you do not have this right, then we agree, but I don’t understand what your argument is.
In hopes of catching you before you respond again:
Yes, but being hypocritical doesn’t mean your argument is wrong. Hypocrisy isn’t a fallacy, just a personal shortcoming.
See my previous post…I disagree that the agreement has been amended.
Because they didn’t follow up on their end of it; that the other party may not immediately come back and punish them for it doesn’t absolve them of that (and for the record, it’d certainly be justified to be pissed off at VISA too).
Please understand that I personally don’t advocate being angry at anybody. There are enough angry people in the world as it is. You’ve done an excellent job of covering the humanistic reasons why people would do well to get over this. The reason I’m arguing the cold, technical side of it is because, ultimately, neither merchant nor customer was forced into the situation. If you’d agree that people of honor should stick to their word when called on it…even if they think the person calling them on it is an asshole, and even if they’re possibly (or probably) right about that…then you can see the human element for this side of the coin as well.
OKay. Are you sure of this in a legal sense since we are talking technicalities?
you mean “What the hell is the argument here?” right?
Ethically speaking in a strict sense the business is violating the agreement. I’m just saying in practical application that’s not how we live. More than that I think the argument is offered in a disingenuous manner when the posters demonstrate that their concern is about their own convenience rather than the honesty issue they raise.
I assume no such right.
As I said to another poster. I completely support and understand someone making the decision to shop where it is more convenient for them. There are many factors which might influence me including the overall attitude of the merchant or clerk. I wouldn’t be offended by a simple sign setting a charge minimum. I would be if I asked politely for them to cut me some slack one rainy night and they snubbed their noses at my request.
My argument is that it’s disingenuous to focus the argument on the horrible dishonesty of the small merchant, when the prime motivation isn’t a concern for honesty at all. That’s just an excuse for pettiness.
Other than that I’m only suggesting we might not judge our neighbors so quickly and harshly and try a little consideration and communication rather than a knee jerk whiny “but I want” reaction. Did you notice all the “It’s all about the customer” responses?