This bites shareware developers in the hindquarters every once in a while. Typically, the payment processor that you're paying 8%+ to to represent your interests decides "Why charge $2.50 for this transaction when I can instead charge $2.50 and then get a $40 CPA from Scums R' Us?"
Astonishingly when shareware vendors call them on it, they defend the practice. This is one reason I refuse to do business with any of them. I respect that many folks have a visceral dislike of Paypal, but Paypal has never tried to steal from my customers and tell me its right.
Here are some blog posts about it. See, in particular, the comments for the justifications from their PR/CS people.
Every few months I get "reputation management" requests about that post. Apparently its on top of Google for something embarrassing to the company. Shucks.
With all its faults, Paypal does provide a useful option in the one time credit card numbers. I've been using them pretty much everywhere. (I like the analogy with one time pads in cryptography, use and throw away)
I am sure there is some downside to using these one time cards, but putting your regular CC number in the wild seems worse. The less people/entities know it the better.
I've gotten sales emails from TrialPay saying that I should offer it as a form of payment on my site.
I refused, of course, because I'd imagine those people would be the worst customers and I'd probably get a bunch of support emails asking about canceling Netflix. I don't know why any software developer would go with them.
I know one guy who sells a zip utility who swears by them. That said, I'm with you: it strikes me as highly likely that the increase in my blood pressure will cost me a lot more than the marginal revenue gained. In addition to having confused customers to worry about, I simply do not want moral association with many of things sold via CPA offers, even on TrialPay (which is, by all accounts, an upright and honest company in a pond of scum).
Yeah. Poor innocent CEOs have no idea, just no idea, where all those tens of millions of dollars are coming from. And they "are committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct in the workplace and in all business dealings and operations" (Orbitz, one of the named companies, at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=212312&p=iro...).
Perhaps they can explain how this differs from a shopkeeper that stations a pickpocket at the till, handles him the customer's wallet, and divvies up the loot.
I recall reading a book once where an AOL exec boasted they could probably put a popup-ad that said "Click here to pay $5 for absolutely nothing" and they would get clicks from their subscriber base.
The article conflates selling marketing info with credit card numbers. Selling my marketing info (name, demographics & email) to companies who want to advertise to me is annoying, but not deeply wrong. Passing on my credit card number so a 3rd party can charge me for stuff I never wanted is deeply wrong. Credit card acquirers used to self-regulate that sort of thing, but clearly many of them are in on the swindle.
Is there software that warns me about devious business practices, similar to anti-Phishing software? I'd install something that highlights & explains fine print or deceptive practices that have burned people in the past. I'd pay for a version that protected my kids. They're cautious about scammy offers, but it sucks that I had to teach them about it.
Whoa- I used 1800-Flowers to send flowers to my mom. I didn't fall for the loyalty garbage, but they spam the bejesus out of me. I guess I need to find someone else for these holidays.
Yep, same here. I got sick of the spam, and just started using local florists in my parents home town. They were more than happy to set me up over the phone.
I always support the local business especially when dealing with something like flowers. If the local shop costs more, I can just send half a dozen instead of a dozen flowers. This is unlike electronics where you can't take home half an HDTV and are forced to shop at the big box stores.
I'm not a cryptography expert but it seems like it would be possible to come up with a scheme where I don't have to provide my cc number to the merchant so they couldn't turn around and sell it. Maybe the merchant could provide a key that I could hash my cc number with and then Visa/Mastercard would verify it for a one-time or recurring charge.
Some credit cards offer that service: you are registered with them, go to their site, get a one-use number with a charge limit you pick. You provide that to the merchant, the "card number" validates fine.
In my corner, the banks have associated and offer a single site that covers American Express, MasterCard and VISA. (Site, in Portuguese, is here: https://www.mbnet.pt )
It said that they tempt the customers to enter their email address with a promise of a coupon or discount. Maybe they email the customers with discounts? Or maybe they're even sneakier, and only give the discounts to customers that go to their website and plug in their email address.
I'm not entirely comfortable with some unknown editor changing my title for this story. Yes, in one manner this title is accurate. However, my original title was simply "Avoid these companies". I had a very specific reason for posting with that title, both in order to catch the reader's eye and to summarize the reason for my posting this link in a succinct manner. Additionally, after I posted the link I added a comment that more thoroughly explained the content of the article. That comment was removed, apparently, as I confirmed that it existed on this posting as soon as I posted it.
The upside of a benevolent dictatorship, such as the moderators on HN, is that unsuitable submissions are killed, bad headlines changed, etc. This makes for a much better site, and keeps LOL cats, Ron Paul and politics out.
The downside is that you may not always agree with the moderators.
You're free to argue your case of course, and personally I think that's a good thing. Which is why I upvoted you, even thought I don't personally agree with your arguments.
I prefer the re-edited (original C|Net) headline to your original.
Your original added spin and removed useful detail. I prefer more info and making up my own mind -- including about whether to click-through at all, which is assisted by a more detailed headline.
Astonishingly when shareware vendors call them on it, they defend the practice. This is one reason I refuse to do business with any of them. I respect that many folks have a visceral dislike of Paypal, but Paypal has never tried to steal from my customers and tell me its right.
Here are some blog posts about it. See, in particular, the comments for the justifications from their PR/CS people.
http://successfulsoftware.net/2007/07/04/swreg-customers-bew...
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-pay...
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2008/03/09/regsoft-scam/
Every few months I get "reputation management" requests about that post. Apparently its on top of Google for something embarrassing to the company. Shucks.