I want to report a store for violating credit card agreement -- worth the trouble?

[Maeglin]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m sure there are expenses for CC companies that the average joe or even the average merchant doesn’t understand. Still , that industry seems to be doing okay Your explanation seemed a bit low.
looking at post #86
[/quote]

That number is kind of ridiculous. 5%? I am not sure what planet the writer of that is on.

In the OP the merchant sold ice cream. It’s not hard to imagine how a 25 cent transaction fee beats the crap out of the profit margin. Fees are also calculated in part by average sale amount so a store like mine that has expensive items as well as small accessories lowering the average with 2 and 3 dollar credit card sales gets expensive. We want to make money too. There are a lot of variables. All I’m suggesting is that we understand this trend and perhaps give up a little convienience and carry some cash.

I also like the rewards I get when I use my card. I also loathe carrying cash and always have, regardless of my profession. When I choose between merchants who sell pretty much the same products, I go to the ones who accept my preferred method of payment. Because the rewards on my products are so robust, let me tell you, I am not the only one.

You’re right. Small local business is not superior and after years in cooperate stores I’d say I’m prejudice for my independent store now. I’ve been around long enough to see small local guys who are lying crooks, and I’ve seen customers lie through their teeth to save $10 or $20 dollars. I’m only saying we need to look realistically at the marketplace and consider the real people involved as well as the technicalities. It’s a business relationship where we can operate on mutual respect and fair consideration.

Of course. And I am not the only one saying that one should honor one’s contracts as part of the principle of fair consideration.

I think I understand.

Thanks for explaining.
[/QUOTE]

[Maeglin]

[QUOTE=iluvurmom]
The crux of this entire situation is in the hands of the card companies, specifcally Visa and MasterCard. They have a duopoly and they know it. They write the card agreements but the stores don’t get any say. They are not invited, and in fact, prohibited from negotiating. Its either you agree to their terms or you’re stuck with taking only cash.

I’ve been doing more research and found this article about a gas station that had to stop selling GAS in part because of the transaction fees.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=610122

If Visa and MC would just lower their fees, stores wouldn’t need to ask for minimum charge amounts. But of course, that would mean that the card executives wouldn’t be able to continue getting rich.
[/QUOTE]

I wanted to get around to this before, but forgot. In a nutshell, this view is extremely misinformed.

The gas issue is kind of interesting. I actually worked on some financial analysis on this topic when this issue arose. No specifics will follow, naturally.

A couple of things happened here. First, as gas prices rose, people switched to plastic more because they often did not have enough cash on hand to fill up. So as prices rose and the number of transactions rose, gas stations were paying more in fees to credit card companies. In an absolute sense this is true, but without context, it is kind of meaningless. Their total sales were increasing as well, and since plastic acceptance is a cost of doing business per transaction, it does not take a genius to expect that plastic expense would increase.

Think about it: whether gas costs $2 or $4, if the credit card discount is 2%, the jobber’s margin is the same all other things being equal.

The problem is that all things aren’t equal. As gas prices rose, oil companes charged their franchisees increasingly more per gallon of gas. Jobbers were trapped between a contractually fixed CC margin and a contractual and rising cost per gallon from their own oil companies. While the oil companies were reaping amazing profits, the jobbers were getting screwed. They couldn’t pass these costs onto consumers: since prices were already so high, consumers were very sensitive and would go out of their way to buy cheaper gas elsewhere, much more than they would if prices were lower.

Obviously the jobbers couldn’t push back against their franchisors, so they pushed back against plastic.

[Thudlow_Boink]

[QUOTE=Maeglin]
I also loathe carrying cash and always have, regardless of my profession.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be happy to take it off your hands so you wont have to carry it around with you. I love the stuff.

[Maeglin]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
I’d be happy to take it off your hands so you wont have to carry it around with you. I love the stuff.
[/QUOTE]

I’m out. I just paid my credit card bill.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=iluvurmom]
T

I’ve been doing more research and found this article about a gas station that had to stop selling GAS in part because of the transaction fees.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=610122

[/QUOTE]

Not really, no.

"Curro is a gas station owner who has stopped selling gas to his own customers.

After selling gas at N. 124th and W. Burleigh streets for 20 years, Curro turned off his pumps at his Shell station in Brookfield when the price he was being asked to pay was just too much.

Including the wholesale cost of gas and other taxes and charges, he was being asked to pay $3.44 a gallon Friday, a day when the competing stations down the street were selling gasoline for $3.47.

“Three cents a gallon doesn’t cut it,” Curro said. “It doesn’t pay the bills.”

Add to that the money he loses every time a motorist uses a credit card at the pump, and there was no reason to keep selling gas, Curro said."

The too small profit margin was his reason for not selling gas. The CC fees only made it worse.

See, many gas stattions don’t take CC- (Arco is one of them). So he could have stopped taking any card (but Shell, and there’s no fees there, afaik) if the problem really was too high CC fees.

Gas is a weird niche market with a very tiny margin, and I don’t blame Gas stations for not accepting CC (some accept Debit cards, which work different fee-wise). Perfectly OK by me.

Actually, it is perfectly OK by me if any business doesn’t accept CC. It is when they advertise that they DO accept them,and then try to rip me off by sneaking an illegal charge in at the end, after I have wasted my time shopping that pisses me off. Either take them- with no fees, no minimum charges and all- or don’t take them.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Maeglin]
That number is kind of ridiculous. 5%? I am not sure what planet the writer of that is on.
[/QUOTE]

Never heard of that huh? The number you used before was 2%, but would you say 2 1/2 to 3% are fairly common. What about 4%
I assume different merchants pay different rates.
So thats 2 1/2 or 3% of every single transaction. Right? Or is it a percentage of the amount processed. Some fee is sometimes determined by the average transaction amount. That’s why merchants want to discourage low dollar CC transactions. Which fee is that?

Add to that a per transaction fee which makes low dollar charges very attractive for CC companies and hard to handle for the merchant.

here is another site with numbers similar to doreen’s cite. I linked to another one in post #103

I also like the rewards I get when I use my card. I also loathe carrying cash and always have, regardless of my profession. When I choose between merchants who sell pretty much the same products, I go to the ones who accept my preferred method of payment. Because the rewards on my products are so robust, let me tell you, I am not the only one.

Oh I believe you. From this cite

Reward Cards- most merchant providers charge higher rates if the consumer pays using a reward card.

Is that true, made up, or to specific to say?
So if companies offer rewards for card use they can encourage their card holders to use their cards more and more for smaller purchases , and , change the vendor a higher transaction fee when they use it for small purchases??
Well isn’t that convieeeeeeeeenient {church lady voice}
I think card holders ought to consider that kind of info. Especially when they come iin here to whine about what bastards the small merchants are. That’s what I call fair consideration.

Of course. And I am not the only one saying that one should honor one’s contracts as part of the principle of fair consideration.

That’s one thing to consider for sure. Fair consideration is weighing the different factors to determine what is fair for all parties involved.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Not really, no.

The too small profit margin was his reason for not selling gas. The CC fees only made it worse.
[/QUOTE]

It’s kinda funny how you say, Not really and then write this that agrees with the post you responded to. It was, “had to stop selling GAS in part because of the transaction fees.” wasn’t it?
from the link.

Credit card companies and banks get an average of 2.75% on every gallon of gas sold, and credit card processing fees now rank as the second-biggest expense for gas station operators, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores.

I noticed you accidentally left this out. at 2.75% of every gallon they are getting more per every gallon than the station owner. Not the only factor but a pretty significant one.

Actually, it is perfectly OK by me if any business doesn’t accept CC. It is when they advertise that they DO accept them,and then try to rip me off by sneaking an illegal charge in at the end, after I have wasted my time shopping that pisses me off. Either take them- with no fees, no minimum charges and all- or don’t take them.

Be pissed off then but use the correct terminology. They are doing nothing **illegal **

Are the CC companies ripping you off as well by not living up to their contract with you? You must be furious at them.

[Maeglin]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Never heard of that huh? The number you used before was 2%, but would you say 2 1/2 to 3% are fairly common. What about 4%
I assume different merchants pay different rates.
[/quote]

My company’s pricing is not 4% even in the most extreme cases I can think of, and we are priced higher on average than the competition. Our average discount rate is publicly reported and is roughly 2.5%.

So thats 2 1/2 or 3% of every single transaction. Right? Or is it a percentage of the amount processed. Some fee is sometimes determined by the average transaction amount. That’s why merchants want to discourage low dollar CC transactions. Which fee is that?

I can only speak for the credit card company I work for. We have one price: a fixed percentage of the size of the transaction. No fixed fees, no fees assessed against average transactions, no sneaky business. You can reconcile your statement very easily from us. If you submit ten transactions in a batch, you will be charged for the entire volume. It makes no difference.

Add to that a per transaction fee which makes low dollar charges very attractive for CC companies and hard to handle for the merchant.

Low cost charges are very unattractive for the networks. Every transaction processed incurs a cost. If that cost exceeds the revenue made from the transaction, then the transaction is under water from the network’s perspective.

Is that true, made up, or to specific to say?
So if companies offer rewards for card use they can encourage their card holders to use their cards more and more for smaller purchases , and , change the vendor a higher transaction fee when they use it for small purchases??
Well isn’t that convieeeeeeeeenient {church lady voice}
I think card holders ought to consider that kind of info. Especially when they come iin here to whine about what bastards the small merchants are. That’s what I call fair consideration.

Unfortunately this is very true and it is very sleazy. You can probably figure out where I work by now, because my company does not offer product level pricing. You pay the same rate no matter what product the customer uses.

Our competitors make a lot of noise when they lower their rates for certain products. What they don’t tell merchants is that they are spending millions untold upselling higher rate products to their cardholder base. Even though the rate on a particular product may go down, you better believe that your overall rate is going up since the networks use their marketing power to change the product mix at your store.

[Drum_God]

Good evening. Just to review, I am the original poster. Sorry I’ve been absent from this discussion for so long, but real life intruded. I have had time to skim over most of the responses. It seems that a lively discussion has taken place in my absence. Thanks to cosmosdan and Fear Itself for providing so much of the discussion. Thanks especially for Maeglin for his expert perspective on this issue.

For my part, I have not had time to pursue this with my card issuer. I do intend to do that when I get home. You see, the merchant that I bought the ice cream from is a food service business. Does he/she choose what regulations will be followed? That concerns me, particularly in a food service establisment. I am also concerned that I felt that the transaction was a dishonest. The only notice of this charge was a small sign that I never noticed, in spite of browsing the overhead menu for my sweets. Had the sign been more prominent, the situation would have been somewhat improved. However, it still would not have been honest. I suspect that many people don’t know that the merchant agreement prohibits surcharges. They won’t know to complain and the merchant keeps charging.

To answer cosmosdan, in my opinion, a clearly posted discount for cash customers would be acceptable. Then, I would posses the information required to make an informed purchase. I could then choose to purchase ice cream or whatever from someone else.

Why are credit card transaction fees so special? In my situation, I bought ice cream at a chain store in a regional shopping mall. My money went to pay for the actual product, paid the kid to sloooooooooly serve it to me, paid a percentage to the corporation whose name is on the sign, paid a percentage to the mall management, paid rent and utilities, paid insurance, paid payroll taxes, etc. etc. There are a lot of costs of doing business. This particular chain has mall locations and free-standing locations. Why wasn’t I charged a “mall location” surcharge? I suspect that the higher traffic in a mall makes up for the higher costs of being in a mall.

On the bank’s side, there are costs, too. My bank is a small, independent bank (see, I do support the local businessman). They do not clear their own credit transactions. They contract with a servicer in Houston. So, there is a transaction charge to my bank from their servicing company. My bank does not pass that charge on to me. They simply keep my untold millions of dollars nice and safe (okay, untold dozens of dollars!). Even with those onerous charges, they still find enough money lying around to support local community events, the schools, etc.

There are costs associated with everything. Shouldn’t those costs of doing business be built into the price of the merchandise? Again, what makes the credit card transaction fee so special as to be singled out?

Maeglin, what is an “acquirer”? Is that a company that goes out and signs up the merchant with your company as opposed to some other company? Not to seem totally ignorant here, but what is “Visa”? They’re not the bank. Are they the “acquirer”? Are they the network? Visa and MasterCard are two separate companies, but I never see one without the other. Both cards are read by the same machine (along with Discover and sometimes AmEx and others). Is that the acquiring company?

[Drum_God]

On the chain company’s website, I just read that a typical store costs $300,000 to start. It can rise as high as nearly $400,000. Then, the owner pays six to eight percent of gross sales to the company. The lower number is if he/she owns eleven or more locations. The higher number is for one location.

Now, I assume that the franchise owner builds that cost into his prices. I can’t tell if the prices are set at the corporate level or by the franchisee. So, I also paid a percentage for “name brand” ice cream.

I throw this information out just for everyone’s education.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Drum God]

For my part, I have not had time to pursue this with my card issuer. I do intend to do that when I get home. You see, the merchant that I bought the ice cream from is a food service business. Does he/she choose what regulations will be followed? That concerns me, particularly in a food service establisment. I am also concerned that I felt that the transaction was a dishonest. The only notice of this charge was a small sign that I never noticed, in spite of browsing the overhead menu for my sweets. Had the sign been more prominent, the situation would have been somewhat improved. However, it still would not have been honest. I suspect that many people don’t know that the merchant agreement prohibits surcharges. They won’t know to complain and the merchant keeps charging.

To answer cosmosdan, in my opinion, a clearly posted discount for cash customers would be acceptable. Then, I would posses the information required to make an informed purchase. I could then choose to purchase ice cream or whatever from someone else.

Why are credit card transaction fees so special? In my situation, I bought ice cream at a chain store in a regional shopping mall. My money went to pay for the actual product, paid the kid to sloooooooooly serve it to me, paid a percentage to the corporation whose name is on the sign, paid a percentage to the mall management, paid rent and utilities, paid insurance, paid payroll taxes, etc. etc. There are a lot of costs of doing business. This particular chain has mall locations and free-standing locations. Why wasn’t I charged a “mall location” surcharge? I suspect that the higher traffic in a mall makes up for the higher costs of being in a mall.

There are costs associated with everything. Shouldn’t those costs of doing business be built into the price of the merchandise? Again, what makes the credit card transaction fee so special as to be singled out?

[/QUOTE]

I think as CC users have begun to use their CC more and more for small purchases it has become an increasing problem for certain businesses. That’s why they have decided to try different methods such as minimum purchase or the surcharge for CC transactions. There may be some cases such as the franchise you shopped at that prices are set at a higher level so the merchant doesn’t have the ability to raise prices. I wonder how the cooperate office feels about the CC surcharge.

I agree with you that policies should be clearly posted so customers can make an informed choice. Even then you might not have seen it. I find that many customers just don’t read those signs until the issue actually comes up and you point it out. In my store the return policy comes up a lot. I’ve always found the issue of what is the merchants responsibility and what is the customers pretty interesting.
Incidentally I had a buddy from work who ran into this at a Quick Stop. He doesn’t carry much cash and needed a couple of things. The lady insisted that he either buy more items to meet the minimum or use the ATM which will charge a $2.00 surcharge that she gets a piece of. He opted to leave without purchasing because it just annoyed him and he won’t stop there while that is fresh in his memory. I think that was a bad call on the merchants part.
From reading the responses it seems that people would rather pay higher prices overall for the convienience of CCs than actually pay specifically for that convenience. Kinda funny ain’t it? We’d rather not think about our CC costing us more at the cash register. Just do it and don’t point it out to me.

So an extra nickel, dime, or quarter on** everything we buy** that goes to the CC companies is better than the merchant reminding us at the register that CC convenience cost money. Let’s be clear. That’s what we’re talking about. If that’s how it is then okay but I find that being preferred to be very odd. Maybe it would be better for the customer and the merchant if we had to lay down that extra dime or quarter for every CC purchase. Then the relationship of convenience and price would be clearly apparent to us and we’d be making the more informed choice.

The credit card industry is the most profitable one in the United States with annual earnings in the $30 billion range. Many people might be surprised to learn that a single credit card issuer – MBNA – earned 1.5 times more profit than McDonalds in 2004. Citibank, another major credit card issuer, earns more profit than both Microsoft and Walmart.

It might interest you to know that transaction fees in the US are significantly higher than in Europe. Someone’s getting rich and it ain’t your ice cream shop guy.

I’m glad these last threads have made me think more about this. I’ll be carrying more cash now and giving more of my money to the merchant who sells me a tangible product.

[iamthewalrus_3]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
From reading the responses it seems that people would rather pay higher prices overall for the convienience of CCs than actually pay specifically for that convenience. Kinda funny ain’t it? We’d rather not think about our CC costing us more at the cash register. Just do it and don’t point it out to me.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not it. I wouldn’t much care if I had to pay a fee to use a credit card. It would just mean that I wouldn’t use the credit card much, because it would no longer make financial sense.

I use my credit card for every purchase I can because there are obvious incentives. When I go up to the register, the choice I have is not one of whether the fees should be implicit or explicit. It’s either:

Pay cash, which requires me to keep track of my cash, deal with change, go to the bank regularly, take the risk of it being lost or stolen, etc.

or

Pay with plastic, which requires none of the above, and gives me 1.4% back on everything I charge (ends up being about $200/year I get back), and provides a nice itemized download of my transactions, and protects me with warranties and chargeback abilities if the item breaks or the seller decides to be unreasonable/fraudulent.

Of course I realize that prices go up to account for the increased use of credit cards. But they go up for me regardless of whether I, personally, use a credit card for a given purchase. Everyone using cash is an unstable equilibrium once there are incentives not to. It’s the standard special interest problem. Benefits are concentrated in the card users, but costs are spread among all customers. Why would I want to put myself in the group that pays costs and gets no reward?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
That’s not it. I wouldn’t much care if I had to pay a fee to use a credit card. It would just mean that I wouldn’t use the credit card much, because it would no longer make financial sense.

I use my credit card for every purchase I can because there are obvious incentives. When I go up to the register, the choice I have is not one of whether the fees should be implicit or explicit. It’s either:

Pay cash, which requires me to keep track of my cash, deal with change, go to the bank regularly, take the risk of it being lost or stolen, etc.

or

Pay with plastic, which requires none of the above, and gives me 1.4% back on everything I charge (ends up being about $200/year I get back), and provides a nice itemized download of my transactions, and protects me with warranties and chargeback abilities if the item breaks or the seller decides to be unreasonable/fraudulent.

Of course I realize that prices go up to account for the increased use of credit cards. But they go up for me regardless of whether I, personally, use a credit card for a given purchase. Everyone using cash is an unstable equilibrium once there are incentives not to. It’s the standard special interest problem. Benefits are concentrated in the card users, but costs are spread among all customers. Why would I want to put myself in the group that pays costs and gets no reward?
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you’ll understand if I recount something a customer taught me.

I used to work at Sears and of course we were instructed to push the service agreements. One day a customer was buying a computer and I was about to go into my much rehearsed spiel about the benefits of the extended warranty. He polkitly stopped me and said

“Dan I shop at Sears a lot and I like the service so I used to buy the extended warranty on just about anything they offered it on. One day when I was paying my warranty bill I realized that for what I was spending for my extended warranties, I could replace any two of my Sears products. It made me realize I was better off pay any repair bill that might come up, considering that chances are that two out of the five were not very likely to croak or need serious repair.”

I had no argument to counter that accurate financial logic.

I hope you get the point. The “benefits” you describe are almost certainly costing you more in increased prices than you get as merchants pass on overhead to buyers. The fact that you don’t see it just means that the CC companies have been very successful at marketing their product and created an illusion of value that you have accepted.

You say if you saw a fee you wouldn’t use it as much and that friend is exactly my point. Merchants who pass on the fee openly at the register are giving a clearer view than those who don’t. If we successfully halt that practice the fee will still exist and you will still pay it. You just won’t see it.

It looks like you’re saying this is reality so why not accept it. I’m saying we should appreciate the fact that merchants who are drawing the lines at the register are giving us a more realistic choice and shouldn’t be complain about them doing that.

btw credit cards are lost or stolen too and although you can eventually straighten that out it can be a lot more aggravating than losing a little cash on the rare occasion.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

You say if you saw a fee you wouldn’t use it as much and that friend is exactly my point. Merchants who pass on the fee openly at the register are giving a clearer view than those who don’t. If we successfully halt that practice the fee will still exist and you will still pay it. You just won’t see it.
.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, and you right, those *are *conveniences and they do cost the merchant money. But there are a lot of conveniences so let’s do this:

"If you pay by CC, and the charge is under $10, add 50cents. If you pay by CC and the charge is $10- $100, add 2%. If the charge is over $100, add 1%. If you pay by cash, add .5%. If you pay by check, add $1+ 5%. If you come in and the air conditioner is running add .5%. If the Lights are on, add 1/10th of 1%. If the store is empty and I have to pay empoyees just to stand around and help you, the lone customer, add 10%. If you come in when the store is very busy and I have had to call in extra help, add 10%. For every hour or portion thereof you keep an employee busy helping you, add $18.50. If you need my personal attention, add $50. If you parked in my lot, add $5/hour parking fees. Since I have had to move from Downtown to this Mall, add 20% on to every purchase. "

But they don’t. Why? Because although all those things- cash, checks, utilities, staffing, parking and most especially rent are conveniences, they- including the fucking CC fees- are part of overhead and are added into the price of everything. They don’t split out the costs like that. Well, not normally- but I have seen parking charges, teller transaction fees, Utility surcharge (in hotels), and what not,* but *they are all despised by customers as nickle and dimeing them to death, and they all are pretty much a way to go out of business.

And puleeeeze don’t argue that parking spaces aren’t conveniences- they cost a business a pretty penny. Why should the customers who walk or take public transit subsidize the customer who take up those costly conveniences?

Rent? Well, it’d be a damn sight cheaper to rent in the old downtown areas- but NOOOOOOO- the customers want the convenience of shopping in the malls- malls where the rent is 3-4 time higher than in downtown. Why should the customers who would happily shop downtown subsidize the customers who want the convenience of shopping in the Mall?

Overhead is overhead and no part of overhead is any more “special” than any other part, and thus worthy of being passed on as a surcharge. If CC fees, why not Utility surcharges? Why not parking fees? Teller transaction fees? “Being a pain in the ass fee” (which you’d go broke having to pay )

Your argument is beyond specious into just plain silly-assed.

[Martini_Enfield]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Rent? Well, it’d be a damn sight cheaper to rent in the old downtown areas- but NOOOOOOO- the customers want the convenience of shopping in the malls- malls where the rent is 3-4 time higher than in downtown. Why should the customers who would happily shop downtown subsidize the customers who want the convenience of shopping in the Mall?
[/quote]

They do; the prices for a chain store need to ensure that, on average, all their stores are profitable after accounting for things like rent, power, wages, etc. Prices will be the same at a store in the middle of nowhere with bugger all rent as they will at a store in the CBD or a large mall, and since the rents are higher in the CBD/Mall, the prices across the board will be slightly higher than if the company only had stores in the middle of nowhere.

A case could just as easily be made that people who aren’t shopping in malls/CBDs are subsidising those in the sticks, FWIW.

Overhead is overhead and no part of overhead is any more “special” than any other part, and thus worthy of being passed on as a surcharge. If CC fees, why not Utility surcharges? Why not parking fees? Teller transaction fees? “Being a pain in the ass fee” (which you’d go broke having to pay )

Not all overheads are equal. Some places do charge for parking, banks charge you for using their tellers, and if you go into overdraft there are “being a pain in the ass” fees too.

The assumption on most business’ part is that purchasers are paying with cash; the only realistic alternative is to hike prices for everyone and assume all purchases are made with debit or credit cards instead- thus shafting everyone who pays with cash. I know that in our business most sales are credit card or EFTPOS, but we don’t charge a fee because the cost isn’t that much and it means there’s less cash to deal with.

[aerodave]

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Not all overheads are equal…banks charge you for using their tellers, and if you go into overdraft there are “being a pain in the ass” fees too.
[/QUOTE]

So our Doper small business owners are emulating banks now? God help us all.

[Martini_Enfield]

[QUOTE=aerodave]
So our Doper small business owners are emulating banks now? God help us all.
[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily in a monetary sense, but- in electronics for example- there’s a “pain in the ass” scale which determines how much help you get, ranging from “We’ll go out of our way to help you” for people who are nice to us to “Talk to the manufacturer, we just sell the product” to people who ask too many questions, are rude to us, or are simply being a pain in the ass.

[Thudlow_Boink]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Overhead is overhead and no part of overhead is any more “special” than any other part, and thus worthy of being passed on as a surcharge.
[/QUOTE]
And your argument would be compelling only if those other “parts of overhead” you mention were charged to the retailer on a per-transaction basis and could end up causing said retailer to experience a net loss on a transaction (so that more such transactions meant more losses). That’s what’s “special” about credit card fees.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Sure, and you right, those *are *conveniences and they do cost the merchant money. But there are a lot of conveniences so let’s do this:
Overhead is overhead and no part of overhead is any more “special” than any other part, and thus worthy of being passed on as a surcharge. If CC fees, why not Utility surcharges? Why not parking fees? Teller transaction fees? “Being a pain in the ass fee” (which you’d go broke having to pay )

Your argument is beyond specious into just plain silly-assed.
[/QUOTE]

Can you think of any examples in which consumers are offered a direct savings by giving up certain conveniences? There’s plenty.
I just don’t have the time or the desire to explain this to you again. The CC companies love you. If that works for you then best wishes on your relationship.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
And your argument would be compelling only if those other “parts of overhead” you mention were charged to the retailer on a per-transaction basis and could end up causing said retailer to experience a net loss on a transaction (so that more such transactions meant more losses). That’s what’s “special” about credit card fees.
[/QUOTE]

There are no “losser” just smaller net profits. Retailer normally work on a 40% mark-up or a “keystone” (50%). It is true that on some items which are already loss leaders, the store will lose more, but remember we are talking about 2%.

Martini- yes, the prices overall at a mall store might be higher (or, if the sales volume is high enough, lower!), or evn the same if (as you said ) the prices thoughout the chain are leveled. BUT- no one adds that on as a surcharge. Rent- like every other expense- is calculated as part of Overhead and included in the final price.

Of course businesses already add the CC% into the markup. You-we- all are already paying for the CC markup, it’s right there in that 1.69 you paid for that Super-Slurpee or the $2899.95 you paid for that big sceen TV. Also added into that final price is the costs associated with cash (bank charges, hold up insurance, employee pilfering) checks, rent, utilities, payroll, advertising, profit, COGS, and everything else. Of course, CC fees are a very tiny part of the overhead.