Their engineering support is incredible, and their API is well-documented and so easy to integrate. It is hard to believe that they can't spend a little more time focusing on customer support, especially as they continue to add new features and countries the problem is only going to increase. At least adding a public-facing ticketing system would pull some pressure off. I don't necessarily mind waiting for support, it is the not knowing if you even received my support request that can be frustrating at times, especially when there are real dollars at stake.
I think one thing that is not well understood is that Stripe has a "Freemium" model. Prior to Stripe nearly all other payment processors required a minimum monthly fee. Stripe's lack of any minimum monthly fee is something that makes it very attractive and undoubtedly helped partly fuel their rapid growth. It's a great example of how you can leverage VC funding to build a business. Having said that it must mean a staggering amount of support emails from customers in "production". That developer doing just 1 or 3 transactions a month at $100 each still feels as strongly about getting an issue resolved as someone doing $1 million or $10 million a month. I've always wondered what that was like to manage.
Other payment processors that do not use a 'freemium' model charge less for their processing fees (and varying rates across cards). The reason it seems freemium for Stripe and other competitors is that they charge higher processing fees for the convenience than other traditional processors do.
How nice that spread is does depend dramatically on the size of the transaction, though.
I'm guessing a service like Stripe has plenty of customers in B2C markets, where selling something for $10 is hardly unusual. At that price, they are only making a few cents on the transaction in revenues (not profits).
Obviously on a $100 transaction the figures work out much better for them.
I think Stripe also still charge the same rate for all card types, but behind the scenes they are probably paying significantly higher rates to some card networks than others.
I'm paying 0.15% + $0.26 for those transactions through another MSP. I think many people are paying the 2.9% for the convenience Stripe and PayPal offer over applying for and integrating a merchant account and gateway, not because they're a huge risk and nobody else would take their business at lower rates.
No, it does include that fee. That 0.05% + $0.21 I referenced is the interchange fee charged by Visa. That fee was capped at that low level by the Durbin Amendment of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation in 2010. Stripe's pricing has been 95%+ markup when it comes to debit/check cards since then. Other card types don't have such an enormous fee spread, but unless all your customers are paying with corporate cards and AmEx, 2.9% flat rate is a real nice margin.
At the risk of being dense, are you sure you're not talking about debit cards? I've never seen interchange fees lower than about 1% for credit cards. In what I read from the Durbin Amendment, I've only found the specific numbers you mentioned in reference to debit cards.
If I'm wrong, I want the name of your merchant processor!
I am most definitely talking about debit cards. I said "fee for charging a debit/check card". They make up 25% of my online processing volume despite being a mostly B2B business. They're probably more than 25% of Stripe's volume.
Whoops, you did say that, way back in the first post in our thread. Sorry, I've been focused on credit cards — all is clear now. I hadn't thought at all about that wrinkle of Stripe.
I suppose it's (only partially) balanced by the higher AMEX, etc fees.
Yep. But even then you don't "pay" that fee (it's deducted and you get the net) and you don't have a set monthly fee. So there's no hard cost of setting up and maintaining a site with them.
Yep but you're getting a little hung up on definitions and missing the larger point. Ie by proving that it's not a freemium model you're not really negating the central point which is that the barrier to entry is substantially lower (non existent) than with any/other competing services thus drawing in exponentially more users than similar services resulting in a disproportionate strain on their customer support vs others.
Honestly, right or wrong - I've seen very few 'startups' really grok effective customer service (I realize I'm over generalizing). Yes, a good Knowledge Base/FAQ and ticketing/email system is important - but you need a phone number, you need a call center probably too (even if its only 2-5 people answering the phone) - you need more than email and ticketing - most technology is complex enough that you need a person to talk to over the phone to hold your customers hands - IMO - this is even doubled for anything that need to integrate with your systems or has a device on your premises, but is also applicable to a complex web service - I strongly believe it drives long term customer retention and eases on boarding.
I'll point out as to why I believe this - outside of the technology hubs, the folks with money are not the 'internet native' generation, they're older and less comfortable with technology then we are.
That developer doing just 1 or 3 transactions a month at $100 each still feels as strongly about getting an issue resolved as someone doing $1 million or $10 million a month.
Commercially, of course a big customer is more valuable in isolation than a little customer, and while it's unfortunate if you're the little guy, it's understandable that a business might prioritise supporting its larger customers first.
But even if a little customer is only running a microbusiness on the side -- and as we learned during the EU VAT discussions a few months ago, there are very many such businesses on-line -- it's still going to be a big problem for them if a payment service kicks them off for a 1% chargeback rate. That literally means a single chargeback within several years in the example given, and given the randomness of the chargeback process at the best of times, that could easily result from an accident and not be corrected because the customer's bank doesn't handle it well.
Similarly, the little business might only be doing a few thousand a year in revenues, but if a service is failing to collect 10-20% of their transactions every month for unspecified reasons (and, for subscription business models, probably terminating the entire subscription in practice as a result) then that's still a huge level of attrition as a proportion of their modest income.
I suspect the danger for Stripe lies not in losing the odd small customer, or even necessarily in the cumulative damage if they lose a few small customers the same way before fixing a problem, but in the damage to their reputation that any individual case may cause even if the customer does not go posting about it on HN, Twitter, #stripe, etc.
For example, today I only have one business that is taking money on-line via this kind of payment service, and it's a relatively small one. Losing us as a customer wouldn't exactly show up as a footnote in the payment service's next financial statement.
On the other hand, I have another business that develops systems for clients who may need payment processing in some cases, and often a client will follow your lead if you recommend a service for something and they don't know any better or have other preferences. Similarly, I know a lot of other local business people through work and socially, and through a chance discussion over a drink I once helped a business several orders of magnitude larger to find and ultimately switch to a different payment service.
I'm always happy to recognise good service and positive experiences. Usually everybody involved wins from such discussions, and I imagine that word-of-mouth advocacy is quite a big factor in the early growth of many on-line services. The downside is that presumably someone in a similar position who hadn't enjoyed the same positive outcomes that I have seen would not have made those same recommendations, and that would have cost one payment service a very noticeable amount of revenue in cases like the one I mentioned above.
So I guess it's inherently a tricky thing to balance support and management overheads between larger and smaller customers if you're in the kind of business where your main target audience is knowledgeable and probably technical people. Big customers generate revenues right now, but small customers might not only become big customers themselves but also refer other potential customers, and you probably have a lot more small customers who can make or break your reputation than large ones who don't really care about your reputation anyway.
If I were doing a high number of transactions and relying on Stripe to provide all my CC processing, I would gladly pay an extra $25-50 a month to have priority support in instances where there may be fraud. Shoot, even at a couple hundred in transactions each month I would gladly pay for priority support. I would rather have a $25 expense each month than risk business loss due to real or suspected fraud. Shoot at some level I might even consider an extra nickel per charge to have a dedicated account manager who was always there for me and knew my business inside and out.
If you're putting a lot of volume though Stripe, all those things are possible.
Notwithstanding Stripe's SaaS-y "all pricing and deals are public" branding, they definitely have a BD team who can set you up with more direct contacts for certain types of questions, different rates than are publicly posted, and APIs that aren't public (to name a few things).
