Exactly - the banks keep playing up that 3D secure is good for the
merchant due to less liability when it comes to chargebacks. Which is
great news if your site is prone to chargebacks - however most aren't.
What is far more regularly an issue though is conversion rates, so
putting more obstacles or complexity in the way of end users sounds to
me like a daft idea at best. If you haven't seen the verified by visa
popup before it totally looks like a phishing attempt and you can
understand why people might instinctively not want anything to do with it.
The point about putting more liability onto the cardholder I find
interesting too. Cardholders have it sweet at the moment (unless it's a
debit card), so I'm struggling to see the benefit for the cardholder to
switch as well.
I'm sure the time will come in the not-particularly-distant future where
there isn't any choice in the matter and everyone will have to be 3D
secure enabled, but I just don't see the benefits of being an early
adopter here (ok, it's not exactly new technology but I'll wager most
people have no idea what it is or does).
Harvey.
On 27/08/2010 12:36 p.m., Olwen Williams wrote:
When we got the go-ahead to not use 3D Secure we had to accept that we
might have chargebacks (the experience with the NZ shop is that this
is not a big problem). The other factor which allowed us to to be
spared 3D Secure is that we are using DPS and not the bank's own gateway.
--
NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug
To post, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to
[email protected]
