I would like to hear more on this. Amazon and PayPal have similar published fee structures for low volume accounts. Over half the things I buy online use one of the big 3 or 4 "gateways". My feeling is that by buying through them I am getting more protection. I certainly like the fact that my credit card info isn't sitting around on many small mom and pop biz mysql DBs.
Are there any metrics showing my intuition is not correct?
I wouldn't say that it feels like I have more protection. I trust my bank. I bank with USAA and I have never had any problems. I ended up filing an insurance claim on an item my dad bought me, and I'm pleased with how it turned out. So basically, I'm a customer for life.
I have not heard good things about Paypal. There are a lot of stories about people getting ripped off using paypal. And as a seller, it is risky. One scam is to buy something off of Paypal, report it as destroyed, and then ship back worthless material.
So basically, I trust my bank's customer service, and I don't trust Paypal's customer service. So I view Paypal as a potential headache if I have a problem with a purchase. I have generally had good experiences with Amazon, so there is no negative association with that brand, but I don't feel like I really need more protection than my bank gives me.
That's what I'd like most substance on: most buyers don't like PayPal. This is counterintuitive to me as PayPal, et al. is adding an extra layer of assurance to the buyer on top of their credit card.
I am very interested in any metrics that show using a well known branding like PayPal, Amazon, Google, etc.. gets less transactions than having your own Vias/MC gateway.
Are there any metrics showing my intuition is not correct?