Kim Forwood,
16-Mar-98 04:36:00, Kim Forwood wrote to Andy Roberts
 AR>> 12-Mar-98 12:55:08, Kim Forwood wrote to Steve Stacher
 SS>> On 11-Mar-98, Kim Forwood was avidly discussing Re: Registration
 SS>> with Steve Stacher
 KF>>> In the last year that I've been signed up with them I've had
 KF>>> a total of four sales... three of which were made immediately
 KF>>> after my software was first released,
Perhaps more new releases would result in more sales.  It probably
gets more attention when the new file announcement is seen.
Excitement about a product (for whatever reason) results in sales.
Very few products sell well without a marketing strategy.
 KF>>> Unfortunately, I have only seen one of those registrations to
 KF>>> date. 
---
 KF>>> by the time I get them (or a report on sales), there has been
 KF>>> what they call a chargeback...
---
 KF>>> how do I know that I'm not being duped by Albert's Ambry and
 KF>>> they're keeping my registrations?
 AR>> Have Albert's Ambry send you copies of the official chargeback
 AR>> statements they received from their credit card processor.
 KF> now that I know I can I've asked for a copy of them.
That will certainly clear up any any questions about that.
 AR>> Authors can help or hurt their Reg-Sites in many ways.  You
 AR>> could have asked them that question I answered above, instead
 AR>> of risk ruining their reputation by mentioning their name in
 AR>> this public echo in what seems to be part of your learning
 AR>> curve about normal business practices.
 KF>>> P.S. If anybody else out there has ever dealt with Albert's
 KF>>> Ambry, please contact me.
 AR>> I have not had any experience with Albert's Ambry nor even heard
 AR>> of them.
 AR>> But after 3 years of being a US Reg-Site for a couple of
 AR>> different ShareWare and offering to accept 4 different credit
 AR>> cards, I know from experience that there is IMO an extremely high
 AR>> percentage of chargebacks.  Not usually 75% as in your case, but
 AR>> easily 10-25% on the average with a much higher percentage around
 AR>> Christmas time.
Unless the merchant does extra verification.
 KF> Well, in speaking with the people at Albert's Ambry, they
 KF> themselves stated that 75% was extremely high. I know you might
 KF> want to suggest that my software must be of poor quality,
I'm not suggesting that at all.  I know nothing about your software.
And I am sure that chargebacks on ShareWare have nothing to do with
customer satisfaction.  Most chargebacks are due to credit card
thefts, lying customers, and negligent credit card issuing
companies that don't try to stop the 1st 2 reasons, but dump the
burden on the merchant.
Several thought your software was good enough to be worth stealing.
 AR>> Thus it is totally useless to attempt to refute a chargeback.
 KF> Do you think I should just shut up and let this sort of thing
 KF> be the order of the day, or should I make it apparent that
 KF> there is a concern here that needs to be dealt with so that
 KF> others can get their registration fees for the software that
 KF> has been delivered?
I don't think your voicing your concern has much to do with others
getting their registration fees.  If they follow normal business
practices, and include protection in their software against theft,
then they will get paid for what ever sells.  IMO it is all about
your learning curve.  
 KF> I can't help but feel that you're telling me to put up and
 KF> shut up.
No I'm not.  Instead I was trying to say deal with your business
partners in private in a business like fashion.  And don't imply
anything against them in public unless you have proof.  Don't blame
the retailer for your lack of knowledge about normal retail
practices.  There are several other software merchants that
participate in this echo.  Feel free to ask all the questions in
public you need to fill your learning curve.
 KF> From all you've said, it would appear that credit card
 KF> handling companies really aren't a safe way to go for software
 KF> authors,
I don't think it is the very safest way from the merchant's view,
but it certainly is the most commonly accepted and easiest way from
the customer's view.
Safety depends on how much effort the merchant spends on
verification.  It also depends on if you can disable new versions
from working for those users who stole the previous version.  Or
track down those who stole the present version.
OTOH if your software is not too time critical and includes
documentation about sending Money Orders, then you probably won't
loose many sales, for refusing credit cards.  Here is a suggestion
if you want to cover you credit card looses and sway users to pay
with Money Orders:  state a price for credit cards that is high
enough to average out the chargebacks, and state a discount price
for those who will pay with a Money Order.  You'd be surprised at
how many users will opt for a $10-15 discount.
Unfortunately many credit card processing providers will not allow
the merchant to add a surcharge for credit cards over cash, which
would be the honest way to do it.  But AFAIK none have any policy
against a discount for cash or Money Orders.  It amounts to the same
thing except for the wording.
 KF> and I may just give up on them altogether until digital sales
 KF> can be done safely and inexpensively, if that'll ever be
 KF> possible (which I don't see in my lifetime).
Speaking as a customer rather than a merchant, I buy using credit
cards anytime I have to wait to receive my product or need a
guarantee that if the product is not satisfactory or not delivered,
that I will be able to get my money back.  Although the satisfactory
part does not apply to ShareWare, the waiting part does.  Basically
everything I buy via mail order is paid with a credit card.
Perhaps you should consider boxing your software and selling it via
store fronts.  Granted that is not ShareWare, but you get paid.
     Thanks and Good Luck,        Andy Roberts
                                  andy@shentel.net
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro*at 
---------------