The new amazon payment API looks really good. Support for micropayments, etc.
http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/08/04/why-you-shouldnt-ignore-amazons-new-fps/
Ben Yates wrote:
The new amazon payment API looks really good. Support for micropayments, etc.
http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/08/04/why-you-shouldnt-ignore-amazons-new-fps/
If I recall correctly, when proposals like this come up, the canned reply from foundation-type people (if a reply comes at all) is that at the moment the benefits of adding another option outweight the negatives of having to manage yet another account---between Paypal, moneybookers, direct bank transfers in both Germany and the US, and mailed checks, most people are able to donate with reasonable ease, a large number of currencies are covered, and the fees aren't *too* unreasonable. At least, that was the reply to previous suggestions that we add support for e-gold and for Google's payment system.
Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them,
Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past practice.
-Mark
On 05/08/2007, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
The new amazon payment API looks really good. Support for micropayments, etc.
http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/08/04/why-you-shouldnt-ignore-amazons-new-fps/
If I recall correctly, when proposals like this come up, the canned reply from foundation-type people (if a reply comes at all) is that at
Curious, isn't it odd that we voted in a board that ignores our proposals?
the moment the benefits of adding another option outweight the negatives of having to manage yet another account---between Paypal, moneybookers,
Do the board members really not have enough time to do this, if they don't then they shouldn't be board members. It would take a few minutes every week or month - not much time to ask.
direct bank transfers in both Germany and the US, and mailed checks, most people are able to donate with reasonable ease, a large number of
It really isn't about ease, the Amazon thing AFAICS has lower fees and therefore would be preferred by users who don't have much money to donate (every little helps).
currencies are covered, and the fees aren't *too* unreasonable. At least, that was the reply to previous suggestions that we add support for e-gold and for Google's payment system.
Perhaps our Foundation is in a secret deal with eBay and co. ;) - really we should be providing as much incentive as possible for users to donate and remember one of Google's corporate philosophies is: "Don't be evil" (source: Wikipedia).
Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them,
Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past practice.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-UH.
On 8/5/07, Uber Halogen uberhalogen@googlemail.com wrote:
Perhaps our Foundation is in a secret deal with eBay and co. ;) - really we should be providing as much incentive as possible for users to donate and remember one of Google's corporate philosophies is: "Don't be evil" (source: Wikipedia).
Google are a PLC. Attempting to enforce that would likely result in complaints from shareholders.
Uber Halogen wrote:
On 05/08/2007, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
The new amazon payment API looks really good. Support for micropayments, etc.
http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/08/04/why-you-shouldnt-ignore-amazons-new-fps/
If I recall correctly, when proposals like this come up, the canned reply from foundation-type people (if a reply comes at all) is that at
Curious, isn't it odd that we voted in a board that ignores our proposals?
It is not odd at all. Paypal system is a purely operational issue. The board is not in charge of operations. Sue is. Please contact her. That is her job.
the moment the benefits of adding another option outweight the negatives of having to manage yet another account---between Paypal, moneybookers,
Do the board members really not have enough time to do this, if they don't then they shouldn't be board members. It would take a few minutes every week or month - not much time to ask.
----> Sue
direct bank transfers in both Germany and the US, and mailed checks, most people are able to donate with reasonable ease, a large number of
It really isn't about ease, the Amazon thing AFAICS has lower fees and therefore would be preferred by users who don't have much money to donate (every little helps).
currencies are covered, and the fees aren't *too* unreasonable. At least, that was the reply to previous suggestions that we add support for e-gold and for Google's payment system.
Perhaps our Foundation is in a secret deal with eBay and co. ;) - really we should be providing as much incentive as possible for users to donate and remember one of Google's corporate philosophies is: "Don't be evil" (source: Wikipedia).
Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them,
Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past practice.
-Mark
Bordering trolling in your observations nevertheless. In any cases, this week, we held Wikimania in Taipei. Some board members are back home (Frieda I think), some are still in Taipei, and others are in transit. I am commenting from Hong Kong airport. Last I heard, Sue was still stuck in Los Angeles airport. Contact her on all operations matters.
More on the role of the board:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_board_%28June_2007%29
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-UH.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them,
Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past practice.
-Mark
Bordering trolling in your observations nevertheless.
Huh? I don't see what prompted this personal attack. I was replying to a suggestion that we add Yet Another Payment System with a guess that the Foundation won't do so because it's a huge hassle to simultaneously support a lot of payment systems, and there's little benefit from doing so, and that's why similar suggestions in the past haven't been accepted. How is that "trolling"?
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them,
Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past practice.
-Mark
Bordering trolling in your observations nevertheless.
Huh? I don't see what prompted this personal attack. I was replying to a suggestion that we add Yet Another Payment System with a guess that the Foundation won't do so because it's a huge hassle to simultaneously support a lot of payment systems, and there's little benefit from doing so, and that's why similar suggestions in the past haven't been accepted. How is that "trolling"?
-Mark
"quoting" someone whilst removing the background of an issue, and the comments to which the person was answering, is really not nice Mark. I would prefer you avoid doing that.
In this case, my sentence was not an answer to one of your comments, so you have no reason to feel attacked. I have no memory of you trolling in the past. You often are very passionate about some issues, but I do not remember you saying things just to offend people. What you wrote in that discussion was fair and I have nothing to comment, and no reason to read that as trolling behavior from your part.
My comment was attached to Uber comment, which was, for memory
"Do the board members really not have enough time to do this, if they don't then they shouldn't be board members. It would take a few minutes every week or month - not much time to ask."
This sentence is, from my perspective, an attack on board members. When I read this sentence, I feel no "constructive" comment. I only read nasty criticism. It is not the job of the board to change payment system from Paypal to another. And implying that not spending just a few minutes a week to fix paypal system is ground for removal of a board member, just reveal a total misunderstanding of the role of a board member, and an attempt to pain people. I think we are all together in the same story. Our goal should not to hit on each other each time something is not working as well as we would wish. I am more than happy to help when I have time, when I have the ability, when I think it makes sense. But I think it should always be with the assumption of good faith from all parties. There is no good faith in Uber comment.
ant
I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal. And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then. Now that Wikimedia has hit the big time, our support for any particular payment method may actually become important.
~Mark Ryan
On 8/12/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal. And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then. Now that Wikimedia has hit the big time, our support for any particular payment method may actually become important.
When you accept credit cards, a percentage goes to VISA, Mastercard, etc., another percentage to your merchant account provider. How's that different from Paypal/eBay taking a cut?
Either way, the question that should drive our decision regarding available payment methods is fairly simple: what methods do a significant number of donors (or a few donors with donations of a significant amount) prefer? If it's Paypal, that's what we ought to have. If it's checks, money orders, wires, debit transfers, credit cards, debit cards, Moneybookers, gift cards, etc. then we ought to offer those too.
Sebastian
On 8/12/07, Sebastian Moleski sebmol@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/12/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal.
Most of the horror stories about Paypal are from the early days, and/or from tiny businesses with grey-area business practices.
And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then. Now that Wikimedia has hit the big time, our support for any particular payment method may actually become important.
When you accept credit cards, a percentage goes to VISA, Mastercard, etc., another percentage to your merchant account provider. How's that different from Paypal/eBay taking a cut?
Merchant accounts are often cheaper, but they also are often harder to manage than paypal, especially when dealing with people in so many countries, using so many different currencies, etc.
Either way, the question that should drive our decision regarding available payment methods is fairly simple: what methods do a significant number of donors (or a few donors with donations of a significant amount) prefer? If it's Paypal, that's what we ought to have. If it's checks, money orders, wires, debit transfers, credit cards, debit cards, Moneybookers, gift cards, etc. then we ought to offer those too.
Support for micropayments is a cool feature, and something which isn't really offered by paypal. Then again, the impact such a feature would have on foundation revenue would probably be small percentagewise.
If I were King of Wikipedia I'd probably try out amazon's payment system for the cool factor, to have a readily available backup, and just to learn more about micropayments, but not for financial reasons. I'm a big fan of trying out new stuff.
On 12/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
When you accept credit cards, a percentage goes to VISA, Mastercard, etc., another percentage to your merchant account provider. How's that different from Paypal/eBay taking a cut?
Merchant accounts are often cheaper, but they also are often harder to manage than paypal, especially when dealing with people in so many countries, using so many different currencies, etc.
Yeah. And even more hassle when people start messing around, which occasionally happens.
Right now, we're effectively outsourcing the overheads of collecting the donations to a third party; we could *perhaps* do that cheaper internally, but it strikes me as equally likely we'd end up spending more in staff time and energy handling it than we'd save on commissions.
Support for micropayments is a cool feature, and something which isn't really offered by paypal. Then again, the impact such a feature would have on foundation revenue would probably be small percentagewise.
If I were King of Wikipedia I'd probably try out amazon's payment system for the cool factor, to have a readily available backup, and just to learn more about micropayments, but not for financial reasons. I'm a big fan of trying out new stuff.
The only real question is "is it worth the effort". If we need to pay a setup fee, will our income back through that cover it; will the additional income from adding a n'th payment system offset the amount of time and hassle to set it up and keep it going.
(If we make $5,000 through donations after we let people use X service, it's probably worth us setting it up. If we make $50, it's probably not. But it's hard to predict this)
Amazon is probably a fairly good bet as a non-trivial service - they do have a large established userbase - and it might be worth trying to estimate what proportion of potential donors that payment method represents compared to Moneybookers. (I very much doubt it's going to beat paypal...)
However, we do need to keep focused on a "main methods" approach. There is (anecdotal? but I've heard it a few times) evidence that offering more than two or three methods of payment confuses people and makes them less likely to shell out - because they get confused and annoyed. Right now, we have moneybookers, paypal, and a general "how to pay us with real money" (the latter probably needing some pruning and a bit of layout). There'd be nothing stopping us having a link underneath to a page of "other ways to donate", though, with the various 'backup' methods.
When you accept credit cards, a percentage goes to VISA, Mastercard, etc., another percentage to your merchant account provider. How's that different from Paypal/eBay taking a cut?
It's more complicated.
In any transaction in e-commerce we have three levels:
1.the PSP (who manage the e-commerce platform) 2.the acquirer (generally connected directly to one bank) 3.the credit card
American Express and some other credit card are also acquirer and for this reason they seems to be more expensive.
In these levels we have some charges fee:
1.the PSP generally applies a fee for a transaction (if you make a transaction of 1,00,000 euros of a transaction of 1 euro the fee is the same) this fee is normally 0.3-0.4 cts (some PSPs are very expensive and apply also a percentage fee normally 0,5% on amount) 2.the acquirer applies a a percentage that depends on credit card, normally 2%
This numbers can change because the PSP can have a direct access to the transaction databases or the acquirer make available you money quickly.
Paypal or moneybookers seems to be PSPs. Onestly I don't know the fee that they apply, in any case if the total of fee is more than 2,5% is a very bad solution.
Either way, the question that should drive our decision regarding available payment methods is fairly simple: what methods do a significant number of donors (or a few donors with donations of a significant amount) prefer? If it's Paypal, that's what we ought to have. If it's checks, money orders, wires, debit transfers, credit cards, debit cards, Moneybookers, gift cards, etc. then we ought to offer those too.
The credit card has a limit, in any case for X.000 euros the best way is the credit card.
Ilario
Hoi, For your information, it is possible to have a Paypal account that is NOT linked to a credit card. This makes for less costs. Thanks, GerardM
On 8/12/07, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
When you accept credit cards, a percentage goes to VISA, Mastercard,
etc.,
another percentage to your merchant account provider. How's that
different
from Paypal/eBay taking a cut?
It's more complicated.
In any transaction in e-commerce we have three levels:
1.the PSP (who manage the e-commerce platform) 2.the acquirer (generally connected directly to one bank) 3.the credit card
American Express and some other credit card are also acquirer and for this reason they seems to be more expensive.
In these levels we have some charges fee:
1.the PSP generally applies a fee for a transaction (if you make a transaction of 1,00,000 euros of a transaction of 1 euro the fee is the same) this fee is normally 0.3-0.4 cts (some PSPs are very expensive and apply also a percentage fee normally 0,5% on amount) 2.the acquirer applies a a percentage that depends on credit card, normally 2%
This numbers can change because the PSP can have a direct access to the transaction databases or the acquirer make available you money quickly.
Paypal or moneybookers seems to be PSPs. Onestly I don't know the fee that they apply, in any case if the total of fee is more than 2,5% is a very bad solution.
Either way, the question that should drive our decision regarding
available
payment methods is fairly simple: what methods do a significant number
of
donors (or a few donors with donations of a significant amount) prefer?
If
it's Paypal, that's what we ought to have. If it's checks, money orders, wires, debit transfers, credit cards, debit cards, Moneybookers, gift
cards,
etc. then we ought to offer those too.
The credit card has a limit, in any case for X.000 euros the best way is the credit card.
Ilario
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Ryan wrote:
I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal. And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then. Now that Wikimedia has hit the big time, our support for any particular payment method may actually become important.
I perfectly understand where it gives the impression that we support pig capitalism, but that still needs to be weighed against the practicalities connected with its general availability. Some systems do require that the transaction commissions are the responsibility of the purchaser instead of the merchant, but that opens up the question for commercial transactions, not just charitable ones. The cure could be worse than the sickness.
Ec
Mark Ryan wrote:
I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal. And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then.
When Richard Stallman visited my town and gave a speech, I asked him if he saw any freedom issue with Paypal's dominance, i.e. if he felt a need to fight for the establishment of an alternative. He didn't seem to think so. Indeed, www.fsf.org receives donations using Paypal and credit cards, https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/donate
I'm not following every move and idea of RMS, but if there really was a problem, I guess he would know and be concerned.
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives, but the need doesn't seem to be urgent.
On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives, but the need doesn't seem to be urgent.
I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on a mailing list.
Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to answer before finding the "perfect" fundraising tool.
First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world achieving the success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not sending emails or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of doing it, is quite an achievement.
Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are:
1) who gives and how do they give? ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the Foundation is primarily addressing US donors since it is a registered charity in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors?
2) Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool Considering tool X is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's worth thanks to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool).
3) International efficiency of that fundraising tool Considering the Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has a vocation to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool to make sure that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential source of donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily to donate?
These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool.
This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would be:
"Why do people give? (or not give, actually)" - Because it's easy to give (as in practical) - Because it's in their language - Because it's in their currency - Because it's tax-deductible (in their country) - Because they love us - Because they trust the organisation(s) - Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and that's the first thing that came to mind - Because their donation does make a difference - etc. - Some of those reasons combined - All of those reasons
Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best" API, because it would become evident what is the best solution. Keeping in mind that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and everyone of us" but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-)
Delphine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost financial collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
Other charitable organizations around the world are in awe of what WMF has achieved. We are leaders in the field. Can it be better? Sure. Is there are way to build a consortium of non-profit philanthropic organizations to get this lowest-cost financial system built? I'd love to see it.
But it will take that level of novelty to make a serious dent in costs.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives, but the need doesn't seem to be urgent.
I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on a mailing list.
Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to answer before finding the "perfect" fundraising tool.
First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world achieving the success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not sending emails or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of doing it, is quite an achievement.
Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are:
- who gives and how do they give?
ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the Foundation is primarily addressing US donors since it is a registered charity in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors?
- Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool
Considering tool X is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's worth thanks to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool).
- International efficiency of that fundraising tool
Considering the Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has a vocation to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool to make sure that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential source of donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily to donate?
These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool.
This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would be:
"Why do people give? (or not give, actually)"
- Because it's easy to give (as in practical)
- Because it's in their language
- Because it's in their currency
- Because it's tax-deductible (in their country)
- Because they love us
- Because they trust the organisation(s)
- Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and that's the
first thing that came to mind
- Because their donation does make a difference
- etc.
- Some of those reasons combined
- All of those reasons
Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best" API, because it would become evident what is the best solution. Keeping in mind that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and everyone of us" but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-)
Delphine
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place. Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost financial collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
Other charitable organizations around the world are in awe of what WMF has achieved. We are leaders in the field. Can it be better? Sure. Is there are way to build a consortium of non-profit philanthropic organizations to get this lowest-cost financial system built? I'd love to see it.
But it will take that level of novelty to make a serious dent in costs.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives, but the need doesn't seem to be urgent.
I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on a mailing list.
Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to answer before finding the "perfect" fundraising tool.
First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world achieving the success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not sending emails or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of doing it, is quite an achievement.
Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are:
- who gives and how do they give?
ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the Foundation is primarily addressing US donors since it is a registered charity in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors?
- Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool
Considering tool X is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's worth thanks to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool).
- International efficiency of that fundraising tool
Considering the Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has a vocation to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool to make sure that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential source of donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily to donate?
These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool.
This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would
be:
"Why do people give? (or not give, actually)"
- Because it's easy to give (as in practical)
- Because it's in their language
- Because it's in their currency
- Because it's tax-deductible (in their country)
- Because they love us
- Because they trust the organisation(s)
- Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and that's the
first thing that came to mind
- Because their donation does make a difference
- etc.
- Some of those reasons combined
- All of those reasons
Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best" API, because it would become evident what is the best solution. Keeping in mind that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and everyone of us" but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-)
Delphine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGw8A95txwQhyxnbIRAuSoAJ0a8VtH87C9+Y10C9yK1yHzbB6Y3gCeP/EH Hw7VMbsXqOca/j2ftGceB7I= =9W58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Gerard
I know nothing of Google collection systems.
How many days does it take to transfer the money from Google to WMF using this system? If the system delays for even a day that means Google are getting the interest on the monies held. If it is direct transfer then Google are making it just on the marketing side which is OK.
Nothing in this life comes for free ;-)
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 16 August 2007 06:29 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place. Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost
financial
collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
Other charitable organizations around the world are in awe
of what WMF
has achieved. We are leaders in the field. Can it be
better? Sure.
Is there are way to build a consortium of non-profit philanthropic organizations to get this lowest-cost financial system built? I'd love to see it.
But it will take that level of novelty to make a serious
dent in costs.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives,
but the need
doesn't seem to be urgent.
I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on
a mailing list.
Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to
answer before
finding the "perfect" fundraising tool.
First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world
achieving the
success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not
sending emails
or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of
doing it,
is quite an achievement.
Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are:
- who gives and how do they give?
ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the
Foundation
is primarily addressing US donors since it is a
registered charity
in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors?
- Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool
Considering tool X
is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's
worth thanks
to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool).
- International efficiency of that fundraising tool
Considering the
Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has
a vocation
to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool
to make sure
that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential
source of
donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily
to donate?
These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool.
This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would
be:
"Why do people give? (or not give, actually)"
- Because it's easy to give (as in practical)
- Because it's in their language
- Because it's in their currency
- Because it's tax-deductible (in their country)
- Because they love us
- Because they trust the organisation(s)
- Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and
that's the
first thing that came to mind
- Because their donation does make a difference
- etc.
- Some of those reasons combined
- All of those reasons
Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best"
API, because
it would become evident what is the best solution.
Keeping in mind
that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and
everyone of us"
but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-)
Delphine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGw8A95txwQhyxnbIRAuSoAJ0a8VtH87C9+Y10C9yK1yHzbB6Y3gCeP/EH Hw7VMbsXqOca/j2ftGceB7I= =9W58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Google wants to get into the action and consequently they need people to adopt their service. It is an accepted practice to provide a service in a start up period for free. This is what Google is doing.. They do have sufficient money to start a service in this way :) Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi Gerard
I know nothing of Google collection systems.
How many days does it take to transfer the money from Google to WMF using this system? If the system delays for even a day that means Google are getting the interest on the monies held. If it is direct transfer then Google are making it just on the marketing side which is OK.
Nothing in this life comes for free ;-)
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 16 August 2007 06:29 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place. Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost
financial
collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
Other charitable organizations around the world are in awe
of what WMF
has achieved. We are leaders in the field. Can it be
better? Sure.
Is there are way to build a consortium of non-profit philanthropic organizations to get this lowest-cost financial system built? I'd love to see it.
But it will take that level of novelty to make a serious
dent in costs.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives,
but the need
doesn't seem to be urgent.
I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on
a mailing list.
Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to
answer before
finding the "perfect" fundraising tool.
First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world
achieving the
success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not
sending emails
or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of
doing it,
is quite an achievement.
Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are:
- who gives and how do they give?
ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the
Foundation
is primarily addressing US donors since it is a
registered charity
in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors?
- Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool
Considering tool X
is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's
worth thanks
to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool).
- International efficiency of that fundraising tool
Considering the
Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has
a vocation
to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool
to make sure
that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential
source of
donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily
to donate?
These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool.
This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would
be:
"Why do people give? (or not give, actually)"
- Because it's easy to give (as in practical)
- Because it's in their language
- Because it's in their currency
- Because it's tax-deductible (in their country)
- Because they love us
- Because they trust the organisation(s)
- Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and
that's the
first thing that came to mind
- Because their donation does make a difference
- etc.
- Some of those reasons combined
- All of those reasons
Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best"
API, because
it would become evident what is the best solution.
Keeping in mind
that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and
everyone of us"
but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-)
Delphine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGw8A95txwQhyxnbIRAuSoAJ0a8VtH87C9+Y10C9yK1yHzbB6Y3gCeP/EH Hw7VMbsXqOca/j2ftGceB7I= =9W58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Gerard
But do they delay in transferring the monies and if so for how many days? If there is a delay then the service is not free as they gain interest on the monies held; this is a classic way for financial collection systems to make money.
Best
Debbie
_____
From: GerardM [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Sent: 16 August 2007 11:09 To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Hoi, Google wants to get into the action and consequently they need people to adopt their service. It is an accepted practice to provide a service in a start up period for free. This is what Google is doing.. They do have sufficient money to start a service in this way :) Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi Gerard
I know nothing of Google collection systems.
How many days does it take to transfer the money from Google to WMF using this system? If the system delays for even a day that means Google are getting the interest on the monies held. If it is direct transfer then Google are making it just on the marketing side which is OK.
Nothing in this life comes for free ;-)
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 16 August 2007 06:29 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place. Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost
financial
collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
Other charitable organizations around the world are in awe
of what WMF
has achieved. We are leaders in the field. Can it be
better? Sure.
Is there are way to build a consortium of non-profit philanthropic organizations to get this lowest-cost financial system built? I'd love to see it.
But it will take that level of novelty to make a serious
dent in costs.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I agree we should keep our eyes open for alternatives,
but the need
doesn't seem to be urgent.
I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on
a mailing list.
Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to
answer before
finding the "perfect" fundraising tool.
First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world
achieving the
success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not
sending emails
or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of
doing it,
is quite an achievement.
Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are:
- who gives and how do they give?
ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the
Foundation
is primarily addressing US donors since it is a
registered charity
in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors?
- Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool
Considering tool X
is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's
worth thanks
to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool).
- International efficiency of that fundraising tool
Considering the
Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has
a vocation
to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool
to make sure
that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential
source of
donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily
to donate?
These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool.
This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would
be:
"Why do people give? (or not give, actually)"
- Because it's easy to give (as in practical)
- Because it's in their language
- Because it's in their currency
- Because it's tax-deductible (in their country)
- Because they love us
- Because they trust the organisation(s)
- Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and
that's the
first thing that came to mind
- Because their donation does make a difference
- etc.
- Some of those reasons combined
- All of those reasons
Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best"
API, because
it would become evident what is the best solution.
Keeping in mind
that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and
everyone of us"
but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-)
Delphine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGw8A95txwQhyxnbIRAuSoAJ0a8VtH87C9+Y10C9yK1yHzbB6Y3gCeP/EH Hw7VMbsXqOca/j2ftGceB7I= =9W58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8/16/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi Gerard
But do they delay in transferring the monies and if so for how many days? If there is a delay then the service is not free as they gain interest on the monies held; this is a classic way for financial collection systems to make money.
So? Seriously, Google--just like any other company operated for profit--is not a charity. If there are no explicit transaction costs, a one or two day float doesn't sound too bad actually.
Sebastian
I agree, one or two days is not too bad for a "free" service but is it 10 or 20 days? My question was really aimed at making people look at the small print.
Best
Debbie
_____
From: Sebastian Moleski [mailto:sebmol@gmail.com] Sent: 16 August 2007 11:22 To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
On 8/16/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi Gerard
But do they delay in transferring the monies and if so for how many days? If there is a delay then the service is not free as they gain interest on the monies held; this is a classic way for financial collection systems to make money.
So? Seriously, Google--just like any other company operated for profit--is not a charity. If there are no explicit transaction costs, a one or two day float doesn't sound too bad actually.
Sebastian
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration.
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place.
Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly.
Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one?
I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it?
I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone?
What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact.
Delphine
Hoi, Google is an intenational organisation, you can expect them to provide a service in France and Germany in the not too distant future. Important to notice is that they provide their current service in the country where we make most of our money. When we do not have to pay the three, four percent on the money we receive from people in the USA it amounts to a serious amount of money.
I have read what you wrote in the past and you have a point. But that point only goes so far. At this moment Paypal has it relatively good, there is no real competition. However I will never give money to the Wikimedia Foundation through Paypal because I care to see all my money go to the Foundation. In Europe that is not a real issue as you know.
When it is stated that other organisations are surprised about the amount of money we make, it shows how much of a trailblazer we are in this field. The consequence is that we are also the organisation that have to find ways in order to get a better deal. We can provide really strong arguments to Paypal because their competition is out competing them.
I see nowhere in your arguments a strategy that will bring the cost of the money transfers down. Consequently, I agree that Google does not provide a global service but equally you have to admit that you do not cover the whole of the argument either.
By expressing our preference for people to use Google Checkout, we do not have to stop providing Paypal as a payment option or allow for transfers to a European bank account for Europeans. Their are many options; it is not a black and white affair.
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/16/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration.
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if
they
can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through
Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the
attention
of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get
people
to use it in the first place.
Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly.
Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one?
I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it?
I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone?
What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact.
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I see nowhere in your arguments a strategy that will bring the cost of the money transfers down. Consequently, I agree that Google does not provide a global service but equally you have to admit that you do not cover the whole of the argument either.
And it is your interpretation to think that I was trying to propose a financial strategy of any kind for the Wikimedia Foundation. On the contrary to you, I do not try to impose my one and only solution as "the best", i try to lay out the traps of adopting one solution too rashly, without wieghing the pros and the cons.
And in case you have the feeling that I am against Google, please rest assured that I am a believer in Google is Good and not Evil (tm), and it just happens to fall on them, but my arguments would have been exactly the same if your proposed solution had been offered by the UN, the Red Cross or the Deutsche Bank.
Delphine
Hoi, May I quote what I wrote earlier: "By expressing our preference for people to use Google Checkout, we do not have to stop providing Paypal as a payment option or allow for transfers to a European bank account for Europeans. Their are many options; it is not a black and white affair." Please do not misunderstand my position.
I am in favour of paying as little as possible to any middle man, and I like to see the next fund-raiser succeed. I am sure we can agree on that.
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/16/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I see nowhere in your arguments a strategy that will bring the cost of
the
money transfers down. Consequently, I agree that Google does not provide
a
global service but equally you have to admit that you do not cover the
whole
of the argument either.
And it is your interpretation to think that I was trying to propose a financial strategy of any kind for the Wikimedia Foundation. On the contrary to you, I do not try to impose my one and only solution as "the best", i try to lay out the traps of adopting one solution too rashly, without wieghing the pros and the cons.
And in case you have the feeling that I am against Google, please rest assured that I am a believer in Google is Good and not Evil (tm), and it just happens to fall on them, but my arguments would have been exactly the same if your proposed solution had been offered by the UN, the Red Cross or the Deutsche Bank.
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Gerard
Yes, there are many options and I think it would be good for WMF to provide a variety of options for donors with explanatory information as to the costs of those options. We agree.
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 16 August 2007 12:23 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Hoi, May I quote what I wrote earlier: "By expressing our preference for people to use Google Checkout, we do not have to stop providing Paypal as a payment option or allow for transfers to a European bank account for Europeans. Their are many options; it is not a black and white affair." Please do not misunderstand my position.
I am in favour of paying as little as possible to any middle man, and I like to see the next fund-raiser succeed. I am sure we can agree on that.
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/16/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I see nowhere in your arguments a strategy that will
bring the cost
of
the
money transfers down. Consequently, I agree that Google does not provide
a
global service but equally you have to admit that you do
not cover
the
whole
of the argument either.
And it is your interpretation to think that I was trying to
propose a
financial strategy of any kind for the Wikimedia Foundation. On the contrary to you, I do not try to impose my one and only solution as "the best", i try to lay out the traps of adopting one solution too rashly, without wieghing the pros and the cons.
And in case you have the feeling that I am against Google,
please rest
assured that I am a believer in Google is Good and not Evil
(tm), and
it just happens to fall on them, but my arguments would have been exactly the same if your proposed solution had been offered
by the UN,
the Red Cross or the Deutsche Bank.
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. --
Boris Vian in
*Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi
I am coming into this discussion rather late and am, as usual, reading emails backwards :-) Apologies if my comments have already been covered.
Perhaps it would be an option to allow a number of different ways to donate. For instance IF Google truly is free (financially - I take on board your other comments on "free" and agree completely) there could be a note on the donor page saying " Please use the payment option that best suits you as a donor. If Google payments are used there is no financial cost to WMF" and "If Paypal is used there is a financial cost to WMF of £?/% per transaction."
Personally, I have a Paypal account and would find it too onerous a task to setup a Google account - especially if I could not use it with Amazon.
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message-----lyl From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delphine Ménard Sent: 16 August 2007 11:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration.
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will
not cost
us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are
happy to help
the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money
given to the
WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place.
Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly.
Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one?
I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it?
I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone?
What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact.
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, How about suggesting to Google to pay the same amount of money on a certain day or something for the money we receive through Google Checkout ? They can deduct it either as a charitable donation or as money spend on marketing. Thanks, GerardM
On 8/16/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi
I am coming into this discussion rather late and am, as usual, reading emails backwards :-) Apologies if my comments have already been covered.
Perhaps it would be an option to allow a number of different ways to donate. For instance IF Google truly is free (financially - I take on board your other comments on "free" and agree completely) there could be a note on the donor page saying " Please use the payment option that best suits you as a donor. If Google payments are used there is no financial cost to WMF" and "If Paypal is used there is a financial cost to WMF of £?/% per transaction."
Personally, I have a Paypal account and would find it too onerous a task to setup a Google account - especially if I could not use it with Amazon.
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message-----lyl From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delphine Ménard Sent: 16 August 2007 11:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration.
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will
not cost
us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are
happy to help
the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money
given to the
WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place.
Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly.
Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one?
I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it?
I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone?
What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact.
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think this could be a very good option to explore. Certainly, the marketing aspect for Google in getting this new service up and running is worth a donation per transaction to WMF.
best
Debbie
_____
From: GerardM [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Sent: 16 August 2007 12:16 To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Hoi, How about suggesting to Google to pay the same amount of money on a certain day or something for the money we receive through Google Checkout ? They can deduct it either as a charitable donation or as money spend on marketing. Thanks, GerardM
On 8/16/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi
I am coming into this discussion rather late and am, as usual, reading emails backwards :-) Apologies if my comments have already been covered.
Perhaps it would be an option to allow a number of different ways to donate.
For instance IF Google truly is free (financially - I take on board your other comments on "free" and agree completely) there could be a note on the donor page saying " Please use the payment option that best suits you as a donor. If Google payments are used there is no financial cost to WMF" and "If Paypal is used there is a financial cost to WMF of £?/% per transaction."
Personally, I have a Paypal account and would find it too onerous a task to setup a Google account - especially if I could not use it with Amazon.
Best
Debbie
-----Original Message-----lyl From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delphine Ménard Sent: 16 August 2007 11:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration.
The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will
not cost
us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are
happy to help
the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money
given to the
WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place.
Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly.
Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one?
I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it?
I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone?
What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact.
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16/08/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi
I am coming into this discussion rather late and am, as usual, reading emails backwards :-) Apologies if my comments have already been covered.
Perhaps it would be an option to allow a number of different ways to donate.
We currently offer Paypal, Moneybookers, and a variety of "real ways" to give us money. The problem is, you start getting a negative return; bombard people with too many different donation boxes and they get confused and give up.
So we need to keep it relatively tight; swapping one in or out is sensible, but adding three more might be counterproductive. No easy solutions :-)
The other critical point here is that the "wonderfullness" of any given financial system is not just a matter of the conditions it offers or a slightly better margin on overhead - if it only has a tiny userbase, it's really not much use until that userbase gets bigger.
Hoi, How do we know that we will be getting a negative return ? You assume certain things. Earlier in this thread it was said that the relative success of our fund-raisers is unique. Consequently it is clear that much of what we do is unclear. It was only when I looked into getting money from the USA that I considered Paypal. Moneybookers .. I do not know it and I did not consider it because the people at the other end had Paypal. There is an increasing amount of banks and financial institutions out there on the Internet. From a Dutch point of view they are all way to expensive and I think it an abomination that for the wrong reasons it is expected that we continue to pay through the nose for the convenience of overpriced services.
When you compare the percentage that we pay to Paypal and what we would pay to Google it is more then a slightly better margin. It amounts to a lot of money. Indeed we should clearly indicate what has our preference and why.. that does not make us exclude any service that is on offer.
Thanks, Gerard
On 8/16/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/08/07, Debbie Garside debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk wrote:
Hi
I am coming into this discussion rather late and am, as usual, reading emails backwards :-) Apologies if my comments have already been covered.
Perhaps it would be an option to allow a number of different ways to
donate.
We currently offer Paypal, Moneybookers, and a variety of "real ways" to give us money. The problem is, you start getting a negative return; bombard people with too many different donation boxes and they get confused and give up.
So we need to keep it relatively tight; swapping one in or out is sensible, but adding three more might be counterproductive. No easy solutions :-)
The other critical point here is that the "wonderfullness" of any given financial system is not just a matter of the conditions it offers or a slightly better margin on overhead - if it only has a tiny userbase, it's really not much use until that userbase gets bigger.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Andrew wrote:
We currently offer Paypal, Moneybookers, and a variety of "real ways" to give us money. The problem is, you start getting a negative return; bombard people with too many different donation boxes and they get confused and give up.
I agree, but there are only 5 options on the donor page at the moment. It could be designed slightly differently with two click donation. I don't think you would lose many/any donors for clicking on a Paypal heading to take them to the donor page. I would not advocate more than 3 or 4 online options but the prospect of doing a deal with Google vis-à-vis matching a percentage of the donations as well as a "free" service could be investigated more fully. I don't think a decision should be made until it has been investigated.
So we need to keep it relatively tight; swapping one in or out is sensible, but adding three more might be counterproductive. No easy solutions :-)
The other critical point here is that the "wonderfullness" of any given financial system is not just a matter of the conditions it offers or a slightly better margin on overhead
- if it only has a tiny userbase, it's really not much use
until that userbase gets bigger.
But userbases can rise rapidly. My advice, try to do a deal at the start; you'll get better rates/benefits.
Best regards
Debbie
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
If you're only going to count the direct costs then checks are free too.
How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.
Anthony wrote:
How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.
Again, these hidden costs need to be investigated. Setup costs (time, web design,etc.), percentages, interest lost due to delay in transfer to WMF bank accounts, costs to users etc. All needs looking at in depth. Who within WMF can do this and report back? We could come up with a list of issues to be taken into consideration.
Best regards
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: 16 August 2007 12:26 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
If you're only going to count the direct costs then checks are free too.
How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks Debbie.
Nobody on this list needs to do the actual work. I've commissioned a quick survey of the available options, intended to compare-and-contrast based on the criteria discussed here - plus I think a few others.
It will probably go to the fundraising committee (soon to be fully revived for the 2007 fall campaign) for more discussion, and then decisions will be made.
I'd like to thank everyone here again for their input so far - it's been helpful. (I'll also apologize for any formatting weirdness of this mail; I'm on my Blackberry.)
Sue
-----Original Message----- From: "Debbie Garside" debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:38:13 To:"'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Anthony wrote:
How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.
Again, these hidden costs need to be investigated. Setup costs (time, web design,etc.), percentages, interest lost due to delay in transfer to WMF bank accounts, costs to users etc. All needs looking at in depth. Who within WMF can do this and report back? We could come up with a list of issues to be taken into consideration.
Best regards
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: 16 August 2007 12:26 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
On 8/16/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period
If you're only going to count the direct costs then checks are free too.
How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brad Patrick schreef:
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost financial collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
[cut]
It is not universally free to all but i comes close;
Money transfers from one European Union bank account to an other EU bank account is the same price inside the EU for all country's as a national transfer inside a member state is.
In practice that means the transfer is free of charge or very cheap deepening of your bank or the way that you give the order (often a transfers by paper order needs to be paid, by internet is free).
A donation made by EU bank transfer of 1 euro is 1 euro that the WMF actually get. A donation made by paypal of 1 euro is 0,62 euro that the WMF actual gets.
The WMF has now for years an EU bank account. It gets donations but not a lot. I think that is for a large part because paypal is more easy, at least if you have a credit card and are willing to use it online.
For paypal people can click on a few buttons and the have made the donation. For a bank transfer the need to go to there bank website and make a transfer like the would pay there electricity bill.
The Paypal system makes an impulsive donation possible, bank transfer is a like a bill you pay, it is not a decision you make in a moment.
Every donation made by a cheap system is extra money for the WMF that can used. But every donation lost because people do not trust/know/understand the payment system or gives them time to think about what the are doing will cost the WMF even more money.
This information should be given on the donor page. If people are taking the time to donate they may choose to donate in a more beneficial way. However, if they are not privy to the information they will use the simplest option - for them.
Best regards
Debbie
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter Vermeir Sent: 16 August 2007 23:18 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal
Brad Patrick schreef:
Well put, Delphine.
Others will look at this again, but there are no zero-cost
financial
collection systems. Moving money costs money. Period.
[cut]
It is not universally free to all but i comes close;
Money transfers from one European Union bank account to an other EU bank account is the same price inside the EU for all country's as a national transfer inside a member state is.
In practice that means the transfer is free of charge or very cheap deepening of your bank or the way that you give the order (often a transfers by paper order needs to be paid, by internet is free).
A donation made by EU bank transfer of 1 euro is 1 euro that the WMF actually get. A donation made by paypal of 1 euro is 0,62 euro that the WMF actual gets.
The WMF has now for years an EU bank account. It gets donations but not a lot. I think that is for a large part because paypal is more easy, at least if you have a credit card and are willing to use it online.
For paypal people can click on a few buttons and the have made the donation. For a bank transfer the need to go to there bank website and make a transfer like the would pay there electricity bill.
The Paypal system makes an impulsive donation possible, bank transfer is a like a bill you pay, it is not a decision you make in a moment.
Every donation made by a cheap system is extra money for the WMF that can used. But every donation lost because people do not trust/know/understand the payment system or gives them time to think about what the are doing will cost the WMF even more money.
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community English - Español - Deutsch - Indonesia
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Ben alerted us to the Amazon payment API. There is another new kid on the block; it is the Google checkout system. They provide there system for free for the whole of 2007. When we would support Google, the money spend on implementing their system would be earned in less fees.
Also when there is not just Paypal but other systems as well, we can at some stage go for the organisation that offers the best conditions. This is only possible when we are able to support the providers of all these systems.
Thanks, GerardM
https://*checkout*.*google*.com/
On 8/5/07, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
The new amazon payment API looks really good. Support for micropayments, etc.
http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/08/04/why-you-shouldnt-ignore-amazons-new-fps/
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi folks,
I’ve been following this conversation with interest, since it parallels a similar one we're starting to have at the office. And the considerations mentioned here are the ones we’ve been talking about too: usability/accessibility, financial implications (i.e., commissions and other overhead), wanting to support multiple avenues for donation versus the risk of clutter, the cost of switching, etc.
What we actually need, I think, is a survey of the available options, laying out the pros and cons of each. I’ve seen a couple of these online –for example, here http://www.idealware.org/donations/intro.php- but they are all pretty dated.
If anyone’s seen anything that's more recent, I’d love to know about it - otherwise, we will likely end up commissioning something specific for us. Although I doubt that will happen prior to the next fundraiser.
Thanks, Sue
GerardM wrote: On 12/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/08/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Ben alerted us to the Amazon payment API. There is another new kid on the block; it is the Google checkout system. They provide there system for free for the whole of 2007. When we would support Google, the money spend on implementing their system would be earned in less fees.
Also when there is not just Paypal but other systems as well, we can at some stage go for the organisation that offers the best conditions. This is only possible when we are able to support the providers of all these systems.
Mmm. We should remember, though, that "best conditions" is not simply a study of how good they are in isolation; a crappy service which has a lock on two thirds of the market is still pretty much essential because of that, despite irritatingly high fees.
The bottom line here is getting lots of money in, not just getting it in in the most elegant way possible :-)
On 8/12/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Ben alerted us to the Amazon payment API. There is another new kid on the block; it is the Google checkout system. They provide there system for free for the whole of 2007. When we would support Google, the money spend on implementing their system would be earned in less fees.
Just a single datapoint, but the one and only time I used Google checkout the merchant wound up losing my order, Google refused to refund my money (saying I had to go through the merchant first), and I wound up having to dispute the charges through my credit card company.
Maybe I'll try them again in a year or two, but not any time soon.
Again, just a single datapoint, feel free to ignore it.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org