By: Dave Birch

Dave Birch — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:11:43 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I thought the story was about the differential rates between Visa contactless debit and Visa credit, as I didn’t understand what you meant by “traditional” cards. Hence my puzzlement.

By: Evan Schuman

Evan Schuman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:37:24 +0000

The original story was correct. It said that retailers–Best Buy, for one–are paying more when a customer uses Visa contactless debit than if they used the traditional version of the same card. And Bruce concedes that. So what precisely was untrue at all, let alone “patently untrue.”
The reason it’s a higher charge involves whether contactless PIN debit is permitted–something that MasterCard permits and Visa doesn’t–…. and that is explicitly stated in the column (again, as Bruce confirms). So before you make implied insults by saying “why I should stick to reading the blogs of people who know what they are talking about”…. perhaps you should first establish if the original post indeed had anything inaccurate in it. (It didn’t, by the way. Just ask Bruce.)
But given that major retailers have to pay more for those contactless cards by Visa than non-contactless Visa products (as well as all MasterCard products), that’s why many are becoming very hesitant. You think Best Buy issues statements like that without being certain?

By: Iang

Iang — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:00:39 +0000

I’m fascinated by the notion that the story changes its character when we find out why the customer is being charged more money … does the customer care?

Comments on: I didn’t understand this story

By: Dave Birch

By: Evan Schuman

By: Iang