>I was going to buy 3 diagrams today for a total of $4.5. >I am not going to buy anything now because: >1) Electronic payment is not available >2) I don't want to give my card information on the web (I gave it once to >Paypal, and that's enough).
This is interesting. --Here we have a purchaser who wants to buy some files. --The files are available for sale. --The purchaser is satisfied with the price. --The purchaser has a credit card that is accepted by the online store. --The purchaser has been willing to provide his card information to at least online vendor. BUT --He feels that because he has given his card information to a completely different vendor that has nothing to do with the vendor he is shopping at, that should somehow suffice for this vendor. Where does this logical progression come from? >Jean-Christophe Helary Ahh. Okay... Presumably, JCH is trying to make the point that he wishes that The Origami Source accepted PayPal as payment (albeit in a sort of roundabout way). OK, point made and noted. He's made his own tradeoff evaluation: deciding that forgoing the benefit of the files he was willing to purchase is, to him, worth the value of the point he's trying to make. In the same way, OrigamiUSA had to decide whether forgoing the additional sales that might accrue if PayPal were accepted was worth the higher fees that PayPal charges. In the case of The Source, the available numbers (admittedly rather limited) didn't support the case for accepting PayPal. As more data comes in, the case (and policy) might well change in the future. At any rate, we now know that we've forgone $1.35 due to our policy choice. Good to know, that now goes on the scale of evidence. We'll watch for the tipping point in the future. Robert O/b/o WebTeam and The Source
