On August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann <m...@techdesignpsych.com> 
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>>>> charge
>>>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".
>>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit
>weak. But I'm curious; what is the benefit to displaying a percentage
>that makes you strongly prefer it? I still think a level of indirection
>is a good thing. It almost always is in software. 
>>>
>> First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy.
>>
>> Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes no
>fee,
>> and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. But say there
>was
>> a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I guess we'd accept that at
>any
>> level if we felt it was okay to use (even though that would be higher
>> fee for medium and higher charges vs Stripe). But since this is all
>> post-MVP, we can ignore this point.
>>
>> The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees as
>> percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee (even
>though
>> that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real justification besides
>"we
>> can" for taking a full 5% of a $10,000,000 project given that their
>> costs are about the same as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the
>> merits of fixed amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the
>common
>> thing people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own
>> charts at
>https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
>>
>> I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area of
>this
>> though.
>
>I'd add that whether we display a minimum charge or a maximum
>percentage, the fact is that we're using the percentage as our guide as
>to what's a reasonable threshold, so it's more informative to display a
>percentage, and connects more directly to what the user cares about. 
>They care about how much of their money is going to projects vs
>overhead, and "fee always under 10%" clearly communicates a meaningful
>limit on that, whereas "charge never below $3.50" leaves it unclear
>exactly why we choose that limit and what it translates to in terms of
>what they care about.

In Michael's mockup, when a charge is deferred to the following month, in the 
'reason' field, we can replace "below minimum charge amount" with "to keep fees 
below 10%". That way we don't have to ever change that message *on the history 
screen* unless our policy changes -- if the message appears, it is always true. 
Of course we'd want to list out our providers, their fees, and the 
corresponding min charge on whatever page contains the "10% policy".

As a user, I'd prefer to keep fees at 5% or below. I actually typed out 
something to that effect in my original comment, then deleted it because the 
way I phrased it made it post-mvp.

But, I don't feel *that* strongly about it and we also have to balance our 
desire to keep fees low for users with our desire for payouts to, well, 
actually happen. 
-- 
Sent from my phone; please excuse my brevity.
Email policy: http://smichel.me/email
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to