I don’t understand what you are saying here. Merchants have a motivation to check ID because it discourages some people from actually paying with their credit cards. Then the merchants are guilty of bait and switch. They claim to accept credit cards to induce people to shop in the store, but then they raise barriers to acceptance at the point of sale.
There are three parts to the credit card business. The card issuer lends the money and owns the relationship with the cardholder. The processor owns the infrastructure on which the transaction is processed. The acquirer signs merchants onto the network, floats the money to pay the merchants, and provides them customer service. The card issuer assumes all the risk of the cardholder not paying; the acquirer assumes all of the risk of the merchant going bankrupt. When an airline seeks bankruptcy protection, cardholders have tickets purchased months in advance for which the airline has already been paid. So when cardholders get reimbursements because the airline doesn’t fly the ticket, the acquirer pays.
Visa/Mastercard are associations of banks. V/MC is the processor, but the banks that are part of the associations individually issue cards that run over the V/MC networks. American Express is the issuer, acquirer, and processor all in one (with some exceptions).
Acquirers take suppression at point of sale very seriously. ID suppression is a much bigger deal when large merchants do it. If a mom & pop shop does it, you’re right, no one gives a shit. But acquirers do have multi-million dollar budgets set aside for fighting suppression. One of the most common schemes is to hire mystery shoppers to investigate suppression. If there are enough complaints about larger merchants, they hire people to pretend to shop in the store and fish for suppression. If there are suppression events, then the acquirer starts to take some action.
To clarify, I don’t think that’s a weird retail policy. I’m just grouchy because last time I got a haircut, I went there on Sunday morning (closed), then I went there on Monday evening (also closed, should have read the store hours more carefully), then on Thursday evening (they closed early, despite what the store hours said!!) before finally getting a haircut on Saturday.
If it’s truly fraud (stolen card), then the merchant doesn’t lose any money. If it’s a disagreement between the customer and merchant, the merchant loses the money.
Man, you need to try my husband’s barber. He is semi-retired and there are NO posted hours. Just the phone number. You want a haircut? Make an appointment and he will come in to the shop to give you one.
He is really only still doing it because his wife was going to kill him when he was home all day.
This is a different scenario. This is a ‘card not present’ transaction, since the customer (& their card) was in a different location & only talking to you on the phone. Therefore, you didn’t have a copy of the signed receipt because they weren’t there to sign one. Unless you have recorded the call & still have the tapes & can pull them, you can’t prove the customer authorized this txn; it’s a he said/she said issue.
Merchants that do CNP txns are charged higher rates because of higher potential for fraud/this type of scenario.
They lose the merchandise. Or have to do an insurance claim. My opinion here may be colored by the fact that most of what I sold in retail was big-ticket (for department stores) stuff.
I know in the UK when they changed from cards that required the user to sign to cards with chip-and-pin, there was a switch in policy- previously it had been the card company’s problem if a card was used fraudulently, providing the retailer had followed due process, but in the small print for the chip-and-pin machines was a statement that it was now the merchant’s responsibility, and no refunds were available to the merchant if a card turned out to be stolen.
I think this only applies to actual use of chip-and-pin though, a friend spend some months earlier this year trying to get a very obvious fake purchase refunded (he’s a single guy, and apparently had ordered over £1000 of designer handbags over the phone from a fashion boutique in London, to be sent to an address which was not his… ummm). I’m assuming, from the impressive level of evasion engaged in by the bank, that they were the ones who were going to be out of pocket on that transaction.
It’s hard to say. I’m the guy that deals with all the credit card disputes for the hotel I work for and here’s what happens from the merchant’s perspective.
If a cardholder disputes a charge the credit card company pulls that amount from our bank account and sends us a form asking us to justify the charge. I pull up all the documentation we have to support the charge and send it off to VISA/MC/AMEX and wait.
Sometimes we win and get our money back, other times we lose and are out the money; what I can’t say is how often the credit card company says ‘Yes, this is fraudulent but the merchant followed procedure so we will eat the cost’. The only information I receive after a dispute is ‘Here’s the money back’ or ‘We’re keeping the money’.
There are procedures to appeal but it simply hasn’t been worth it for any dispute we’ve had so far.
Really? That’s all I usually hear is how evil and mean Wal-Mart is because they drive small business owners out. And my response is that they certainly should be out in the cold for having business hours that were last relevant in the 1950s.
June Cleaver the housewife isn’t there to shop at their stores with inflated prices from 9am to 4pm. Both couples work nowadays and sometimes I get home close to 9 or 10pm. If I need to stop and pick up something from groceries to paint to car parts, Wal Mart is there. Our hero the small retail merchant is home in bed.
Good for him. He made the trade-off and now he’s losing his business because he didn’t adapt. I feel no more sympathy for him than I do the buggy whip makers that went out of business because of Henry Ford.
I mean, I do feel sorry for them on a personal level, but like any business, they need to keep up with changes in the industry. The local guy that used to help me work on the boat tells me that he can get the starter I need in two weeks. Well, good for him, but I can get it in 3 days on Amazon or another online site without his markup. To stay in business, he needs to provide something I can’t do cheaper elsewhere.
If working business hours suits him, then I will be buying at his going out of business sale, whether I like the guy or not.
In theory, that is true. In practice, employee theft is a real concern for small businesses of the sort. You have to trust the person opening/closing the store, or running it without an owner present. This can be difficult. Especially, as some suggest, if you aren’t willing to pay a decent salary to a non-family member. Or, you can use a family member, if you have a sufficient sized family or partnership.
I’m not asking them to stay open all hours, I’m suggesting they should consider accommodating people with 9-5 jobs (which are really 8 to 5 here). If I can’t get from my work to your store during your open hours, I can’t buy anything there.
Seems to me, if you’re going to have to hire someone trustworthy to cover those shifts, you could find a way to use them to cover other hours, so they don’t just work one or two days a week, and thus justify getting paid adequately.
Perhaps not in this thread, but it is the most common complaint about the death of mom-and-pops and the evilness of chains, whether retail or restaurants.
What are “Swedish pancakes”? And I just can’t understand not selling something because it is too popular. Shouldn’t you anticipate that, get more supplies, and rake in the money? Or is it a factor that the specialty item takes extra prep time and/or time to eat, thus reducing turnover somehow?
Just google them - they’re a wetter, eggier, less airy pancake, served with lingonberries (or strawberries). Just as easy to make as pancakes. No other breakfast place that serves them that I’ve ever been to has had any trouble keeping them coming. Now I’m hungry.
