<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conflict of Interest: Payment Processors vs uISVs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs</link>
	<description>Patrick McKenzie (patio11) blogs on software development, marketing, and general business topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:02:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1007</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1007</guid>
		<description>Hi all,

Please know that we take complaints seriously. We’re definitely looking into these issues and addressing them with the proper approach. Feel free to provide any recommendations you may have that will help improve our overall service.

Again, please visit our SWREG customer service page (http://cs.swreg.org/) and FAQs (http://faq.swreg.org/) for any questions or concerns you may have.

We look forward to your suggestions.

John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>Please know that we take complaints seriously. We’re definitely looking into these issues and addressing them with the proper approach. Feel free to provide any recommendations you may have that will help improve our overall service.</p>
<p>Again, please visit our SWREG customer service page (<a href="http://cs.swreg.org/" rel="nofollow">http://cs.swreg.org/</a>) and FAQs (<a href="http://faq.swreg.org/" rel="nofollow">http://faq.swreg.org/</a>) for any questions or concerns you may have.</p>
<p>We look forward to your suggestions.</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Debbie</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1006</link>
		<dc:creator>Debbie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 09:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1006</guid>
		<description>I am posting this on multiple sites in the hopes that it helps everyone out there get their money back who were involved with WebLoyalty in whatever guise they are using (Reservation Rewards, Shoppers Discounts and Rewards etc.)

I had worked for this company briefly and can tell you EXACTLY how to get every penny of the money they took from you...going back years if it has been that long (why don&#039;t you look at that bill more often?!) It is actually very easy, all you have to do is say one of the following when you call them:

Either,

1) &quot;This was done by accident by my child (under 18 please)&quot;  or......
2) &quot;I will be contacting the company (i.e. Pizza Hut, Fandango etc.) to complain about you to them&quot;

Each and every person that works in the call center is taught that even if the customer doesn&#039;t know exactly how much has been taken out of their account the agent MUST refund every penny he or she see&#039;s if either of those two statements are made (not verbatim, say it however you want.)  If the customer mentions that their banker will be or has already been contacted the agent is only obligated to refund 2 months worth of payments UNLESS the customer specifically states otherwise.  Another point is that I have personally refunded 5 years worth of deductions back to one person on my last day there and not because she said she knew about them all, only because I felt sorry for her and figured screw it, I am out of here anyway.  Some people just don&#039;t look closely enough at their bill every month.  Can you imagine years and years of statements (and not just with me but almost every day with multiple agents!) that a person never noticed before?????  It takes two to tango, as they say and if people aren&#039;t going to be more diligent with watching for fraud and the like by checking their bill then they almost (I said almost, not entirely) deserve to be taken by companies like Webloyalty.  Remember, you don&#039;t get something for nothing so the next time you see that banner at the end of a transaction online that says something like &quot;$10 off your next purchase&quot; or whatever, there is probably a catch so DON&#039;T DO IT!!   Hope this helps all of you get your money back!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am posting this on multiple sites in the hopes that it helps everyone out there get their money back who were involved with WebLoyalty in whatever guise they are using (Reservation Rewards, Shoppers Discounts and Rewards etc.)</p>
<p>I had worked for this company briefly and can tell you EXACTLY how to get every penny of the money they took from you&#8230;going back years if it has been that long (why don&#8217;t you look at that bill more often?!) It is actually very easy, all you have to do is say one of the following when you call them:</p>
<p>Either,</p>
<p>1) &#8220;This was done by accident by my child (under 18 please)&#8221;  or&#8230;&#8230;<br />
2) &#8220;I will be contacting the company (i.e. Pizza Hut, Fandango etc.) to complain about you to them&#8221;</p>
<p>Each and every person that works in the call center is taught that even if the customer doesn&#8217;t know exactly how much has been taken out of their account the agent MUST refund every penny he or she see&#8217;s if either of those two statements are made (not verbatim, say it however you want.)  If the customer mentions that their banker will be or has already been contacted the agent is only obligated to refund 2 months worth of payments UNLESS the customer specifically states otherwise.  Another point is that I have personally refunded 5 years worth of deductions back to one person on my last day there and not because she said she knew about them all, only because I felt sorry for her and figured screw it, I am out of here anyway.  Some people just don&#8217;t look closely enough at their bill every month.  Can you imagine years and years of statements (and not just with me but almost every day with multiple agents!) that a person never noticed before?????  It takes two to tango, as they say and if people aren&#8217;t going to be more diligent with watching for fraud and the like by checking their bill then they almost (I said almost, not entirely) deserve to be taken by companies like Webloyalty.  Remember, you don&#8217;t get something for nothing so the next time you see that banner at the end of a transaction online that says something like &#8220;$10 off your next purchase&#8221; or whatever, there is probably a catch so DON&#8217;T DO IT!!   Hope this helps all of you get your money back!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: doug</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1005</link>
		<dc:creator>doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1005</guid>
		<description>i dont have the card that it is comming off of have not had it for over a year i have wrote yall about a year and it keeps comming out of my account i have turned it in as fraud so u can get back to me at that e-mail</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i dont have the card that it is comming off of have not had it for over a year i have wrote yall about a year and it keeps comming out of my account i have turned it in as fraud so u can get back to me at that e-mail</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-999</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-999</guid>
		<description>I received a $404 charge on my CC this morning from regsoft and had never heard of them until now. I searched and found this page, apparently other people have been having problems too. Now to start the obnoxious dispute process. Awesome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I received a $404 charge on my CC this morning from regsoft and had never heard of them until now. I searched and found this page, apparently other people have been having problems too. Now to start the obnoxious dispute process. Awesome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Regsoft Picks Up the SWREG Scam &#171; MicroISV on a Shoestring</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1004</link>
		<dc:creator>Regsoft Picks Up the SWREG Scam &#171; MicroISV on a Shoestring</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:06:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1004</guid>
		<description>[...] their updates for the submission service, and lo and behold, it seems that Regsoft is now doing the same scam that SWREG got into hot water for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] their updates for the submission service, and lo and behold, it seems that Regsoft is now doing the same scam that SWREG got into hot water for [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Bilski</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1002</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Bilski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1002</guid>
		<description>We&#039;ve been with SWREG for nearly 10 years now and I always recommended their service and (especially) superb support. After DR took over it *did* get a bit weird and they threw in some silly marketing too.

Anyway, I asked SWREG about this whole mess and this is their official reply (it&#039;s obviously templated so I&#039;m sure they won&#039;t mind me putting it here):

&quot;SWREG recently released a marketing option for clients utilizing our 2.9% + $1 pricing that continues to increase their
revenue or lower their effective cost through our revenue sharing.   The promotion was on the post-purchase page so it does
not affect the order.  The customer has the option to “continue” to learn more about the offering where they answer several
survey questions, there is a full disclosure, and a double opt-in before they are signing up for the offering.   The offering
is rewards on travel, entertainment, restaurant, other stores based on their area where they can receive discounts.      In
choosing partners, we selected only those used by other reputable online marketers (i.e. Amazon, Barnes &amp; Nobel, etc.) that
have a history of customer care and satisfaction.

In our error, the post-purchase page offer was released across the 2.9% + $1 plan and our default order form users.    Once
we were notified of this error, in a couple days we were able to rollback the problem.  We apologize for the issue, and thank
you for bringing it to our attention.  The offering was only supposed to be released for our 2.9% + $1 users where share
revenue with any offering lowering the effective costs for our clients.  The permission to present these offers was granted to
SWReg in the new 2.9% contract. In return, we negotiate offers with third parties that generate the greatest return to our
clients. &quot;

We are using the old, more expensive plan precisely because of the fine print in the new agreement (we explicitly opted-out to be 100% sure they don&#039;t &quot;upgrade&quot; us) and our order form has no &quot;optional extras&quot; (I&#039;ve checked by buying one of my products and then refunding it).

Good luck with your payment processor!

Best regards,
Martin Bilski
Xtreeme GmbH</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve been with SWREG for nearly 10 years now and I always recommended their service and (especially) superb support. After DR took over it *did* get a bit weird and they threw in some silly marketing too.</p>
<p>Anyway, I asked SWREG about this whole mess and this is their official reply (it&#8217;s obviously templated so I&#8217;m sure they won&#8217;t mind me putting it here):</p>
<p>&#8220;SWREG recently released a marketing option for clients utilizing our 2.9% + $1 pricing that continues to increase their<br />
revenue or lower their effective cost through our revenue sharing.   The promotion was on the post-purchase page so it does<br />
not affect the order.  The customer has the option to “continue” to learn more about the offering where they answer several<br />
survey questions, there is a full disclosure, and a double opt-in before they are signing up for the offering.   The offering<br />
is rewards on travel, entertainment, restaurant, other stores based on their area where they can receive discounts.      In<br />
choosing partners, we selected only those used by other reputable online marketers (i.e. Amazon, Barnes &amp; Nobel, etc.) that<br />
have a history of customer care and satisfaction.</p>
<p>In our error, the post-purchase page offer was released across the 2.9% + $1 plan and our default order form users.    Once<br />
we were notified of this error, in a couple days we were able to rollback the problem.  We apologize for the issue, and thank<br />
you for bringing it to our attention.  The offering was only supposed to be released for our 2.9% + $1 users where share<br />
revenue with any offering lowering the effective costs for our clients.  The permission to present these offers was granted to<br />
SWReg in the new 2.9% contract. In return, we negotiate offers with third parties that generate the greatest return to our<br />
clients. &#8221;</p>
<p>We are using the old, more expensive plan precisely because of the fine print in the new agreement (we explicitly opted-out to be 100% sure they don&#8217;t &#8220;upgrade&#8221; us) and our order form has no &#8220;optional extras&#8221; (I&#8217;ve checked by buying one of my products and then refunding it).</p>
<p>Good luck with your payment processor!</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Martin Bilski<br />
Xtreeme GmbH</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: weekly linkdump - max - блог разработчиков</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1000</link>
		<dc:creator>weekly linkdump - max - блог разработчиков</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1000</guid>
		<description>[...] Conflict of Interest: Payment Processors vs uISVs &#8212; скандал вокруг SWREG (сервиса-посредника для продажи ПО через интернет) и поучительные выводы [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Conflict of Interest: Payment Processors vs uISVs &#8212; скандал вокруг SWREG (сервиса-посредника для продажи ПО через интернет) и поучительные выводы [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xavier</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1001</link>
		<dc:creator>Xavier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1001</guid>
		<description>So, what guarantee de you have that Google or Paypal won&#039;t do the same (or worse) to your customers?

It&#039;s a matter of trust. You choose to trust Paypal, I choose to trust Element5.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, what guarantee de you have that Google or Paypal won&#8217;t do the same (or worse) to your customers?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a matter of trust. You choose to trust Paypal, I choose to trust Element5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin White</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1003</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-1003</guid>
		<description>&#039;opt out&#039; is another way of saying &#039;more people will fail to opt out than would ever opt in, thus we will make more money this way&#039;.

It&#039;s like gift cards (people will probably not use the entire balance) or rebates (people won&#039;t fill them out / do so improperly).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;opt out&#8217; is another way of saying &#8216;more people will fail to opt out than would ever opt in, thus we will make more money this way&#8217;.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like gift cards (people will probably not use the entire balance) or rebates (people won&#8217;t fill them out / do so improperly).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Landsman&apos;s Weblog v2.0</title>
		<link>http://www.kalzumeus.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-998</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Landsman&apos;s Weblog v2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://microisvjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/conflict-of-interest-payment-processors-vs-uisvs/#comment-998</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Why Do You Use Third Party Payment Processors?&lt;/strong&gt;

Patrick has a long and thoughtful post on the scam currently being run by the payment processor SWREG, which was uncovered by Andy Brice. Obviously what they&apos;re doing is horrible, no doubt about that. My question is though, why do all you guys use...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Why Do You Use Third Party Payment Processors?</strong></p>
<p>Patrick has a long and thoughtful post on the scam currently being run by the payment processor SWREG, which was uncovered by Andy Brice. Obviously what they&apos;re doing is horrible, no doubt about that. My question is though, why do all you guys use&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

