Anyone Getting PayPal Problems About WF?

Nothing at all wrong with using PayPal.

PayPal is just concerned about fraud - and them ending up holding the bag. And they don't end up holding the bag often anymore because of their vigilance.

When you anticipate a large influx of money via PayPal, you can let them know in advance and that will definitely take the heat off. You may have to answer a few questions. Answer confidently and truthfully. If they get to trust you, you have very little to worry about with them.

I have handled tens of thousands a month with PayPal without any question after finding out how to work with them.

Just understand that they are perpetually worried about ending up holding the bag. Your job is to give them enough information so that they realize that you aren't a/the problem.

If you give them any reason to worry about you, you will have to go somewhere else for payment processing.

Daniel Thompson

You will find it very hard, almost impossible, to attract any affiliates when you are offering alternate payment processors on the same page. Why would I promote a product when they could then purchase it through a different processor and I get no credit for that?

In theory a good idea but not if you want people to promote your offer.

If it were simply the fact that people were using the WSO forum, don't you think that PayPal would simply go after everyone who is using that section? It wouldn't be too difficult to do.

Not to mention that Allen still has his account and so does Mike Lantz. It's clearly not a matter of simply using the WSO section.

Brian, I don't know if he posted about it or not.
The only reason I knew about it at the time
was on account of doing some work for him about
the time his account got closed and he had to work
out an alternative method to pay me.

He didn't go into a lot of detail other than to say
that several of his associates and friends had
their accounts closed after running successful WSOs.

Michael

2) additional buy buttons ? between payment/download button?

what about things like Rapid actions profits, which offer upsell/oto offers?
will they not like this ?

3) PLR/ MRR? so you mean we cant do PLR + MRR packages as wsos, for others to sell, or paypal get suspicious ?>

4) 100% commission offers?
so does that mean affiliates who promote our wsos, for 100% ?
they will not like that ?

I would like to say quite emphatically that MOST OF US DO NOT ACTUALLY TEACH THIS, EVEN IF IT IS WHAT PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE TEACHING.

Colin Theriot likes to talk about feature-benefit-advantage. Making money is usually the advantage. What we are selling is the benefit. And what you get is the feature.

Consider Zombie Blogging:

Learn to make AdSense blogs quickly -> you can make lots of AdSense blogs -> you make money.

Consider Automatic Product Cash:

Learn to turn your ideas into products -> you can make products and sell them -> you make money.

Consider Instant Product Copycat:

Learn to legally and ethically copy other products -> you can make more products in less time -> you make money.

How about .357 Article Method:

Learn to write articles -> you can write articles -> you hire fewer writers OR sell your article writing services -> you save OR make money.

At no point am I selling "make money." What I'm selling is "use what I teach." It's a sad commentary that I can't sell "learn new stuff," because nobody wants to learn anything. So I have to skip forward, and have people imagine being at the other end where they've learned it already.

But in no event does anyone ever get what we sell. We sell sizzle, not steak. Everyone understands that. But there is a certain line you just plain don't cross, because it directly flies in the face of reason and clearly identifies you as someone who intentionally takes advantage of gullible idiots.



There are details to that.

Anthony Aires was selling a product about affiliate marketing... which had an affiliate program (I do not know the commission percentage). And part of his sales page specifically said "buy this and I'll teach you how to sell it."

Individually, each and every one of those things is fine. In combination, they add up to something that looks very much like an illegal pyramid scheme, so they locked his account for selling MLM products.

And if you go listen to that call, he keeps saying over and over "look, it's not MLM." They invited him over and over again to say "look, this product is valuable and useful to the people who buy it," and he never did. He just kept trying to explain how it was not MLM. He didn't get it. They outright accused him of selling something that didn't work and never made anybody any money, and all he said was "but it's not MLM." Never that his product actually worked and really had made people money. And that was his major failure.

I understand why. They said "closed because your product is MLM." He wanted to address the "because." He had tunnel vision on the problem. But PayPal forbids MLM because it's hard to distinguish from an illegal pyramid scheme, which is illegal because the product has no value. He didn't trace the chain back to the source. He was focused on the words, not the intent.

Wrong.

With a lot of how-to courses, the vendor stands to further profit from your use of the information. There's a conflict of interest, because what he teaches you impacts his bottom line in the future. (MLM always has this problem, incidentally.)

PayPal do, funnily enough, consider the gestalt of your marketing funnel. And here's a common one they don't understand.

Crap you can buy -> 100% commission -> how to sell that same crap

Wait, what? Let's trace the chain here.

Buy this crap for $10. Then read it, and it will teach you how to sell that crap yourself. And when you sell it, you'll get $10.

Diagram this out. Go ahead. Start tracing the money and where it goes. Start considering number of prospects and customers and conversions. What is this picture you are drawing? What does it look like?

A pyramid!

Do you know what happens at the bottom of the pyramid? Nothing! If you're on the bottom row of the pyramid, you will be a dork and not make any money. You still paid your $10 to the guy above you, so you kind of take it in the shorts.

This is exactly how an illegal pyramid scheme works.

It remains to be seen whether the courts would agree that it is, in fact, an illegal pyramid scheme. But PayPal are not taking chances.

Absolutely. I have always recommended this. We agree 100% on that.

I like this idea myself and have often been bothered getting hit up with an OTO when I don't even know if my initial purchase is any good.

But I doubt this will happen because studies show when we buy something we far more likely to buy more at that moment.

"Would you like fries with your meal?"

Will,

As soon as we even mention that, people will start howling about how we took something away just to squeeze some extra money from them. Doesn't matter that the goal is to help them avoid Paypal issues, or that their prospective affiliates can get the info from the relevant platform without needing an ad in the affiliate center.

That would be an excellent place to advertise a program for a product AFTER a WSO had run its course, assuming the product has value enough to stand on its own in the broader market. I don't see a real need for it for a WSO, though.


Paul

That wasn't referring to this thread.

We've often let threads run a bit that some folks think shouldn't, including some of the "WSO's Suck!" threads. Really, they ought to be deleted on sight, but they do have occasional redeeming benefits. Not very often, but sometimes. The hope is that someone will come up with practical ideas that could make the section better, which is a very rare thing. But, it's just happened here.

Previous ones we hadn't considered but were useful have made a big difference. Like removing signatures, and not counting posts in that part of the board. I personally think that removing all references to WSO affiliate programs in that section would have an even bigger long-term benefit for the members who sell there: Helping to reduce the temptation to do things that could get their Paypal accounts shut down.

Those threads have also occasionally brought out people with actual problems, who didn't know to tell the mods about them. I've been able to get quite a number of them straightened out after seeing them in that kind of thread.

It's probably true that we shouldn't allow them at all. They are overwhelmingly negative and destructive, taken on balance. But they've served some useful purposes.


Paul

Aha... for example a giant graphic button that says "Affiliates Click Here" lol...

Ya I've only done it as a link mixed in with legal form links at the bottom of a page.

Paul,

I don't really believe this will cause a problem with Paypal, either.

But...
I do still see that as a sales page leak, and never offer an affiliate sign up link on my own pages. Good affiliates will find you, if you have a contact/support link at the bottom of the page.

Most good "help desk" systems include the "Knowledge Base" functionality, and a merchant could easily provide affiliate sign up procedures in a Knowledge Base article. If the merchant's help desk system does NOT have a Knowledge Base, the prospective affiliate can just request the information via a help desk ticket.

There are many ways for a merchant to find/recruit affiliates - all of which are preferable to recruiting directly from the sales page (IMHO).

I agree with Tim, PayPal does seem to unfairly scrutinize digital resellers and this seems odd as the internet is a digital world. I purchase and sell digital products and expect refunds as a part of the business (that is customer service). I think the warrior Forum is the best digital forum for resellers/programmers and digital product developers. I think PayPal is making a big mistake by getting in a huff over digital products.It is their loss in $$$ if they start penalizing affiliates and resellers

True, but now crummy sellers are taking advantage of this Paypal policy by selling junk, and still getting paid.

When a buyer disputes an intangible transaction, the seller no longer needs to 'discuss' the dispute with the buyer. The seller simply escalates the claim right away, and reminds Paypal of this policy.

Paypal now has an 'automatic' response message set up to cater to these type of escalations. It's a form email that tells the buyer that the dispute falls under their intangible product policy. Paypal doesn't look at the dispute at all!

In order to re-open a valid case, the buyer must call Paypal by telephone and tell them that the transaction was fraudulent or violates the seller terms of agreement in some way. Then Paypal will re-open the case from within their fraud division, and actually look at the dispute.

The [post] by PM is a VERY real and accurate statement of information that should be considered.
IMHO, I preface my remarks in that the intent(s) expressed are being made to be taken for
constructive purposes only.

Personally, I have had this exact discussion with Paypal. Paypal will deny a buyer refund request
specifically when a seller makes the intangible product statement [ie. TOS regarding Paypal] in
response to a buyer refund request. So, YES the seller is protected but the buyer IS NOT protected
which was in some cases why the buyer used Paypal to buy with. They are not clear on this "small"
caveat and do not realize they may be at the mercy of a seller being "honorable" with regard
to a "GUARANTEE" of refund if not satisfied on the product purchase.

In reality, [tongue in cheek comment], the seller can promise to pay off the kids college education
and cap your teeth for life and never have to honor such a "guarantee" under the Paypal TOS
since the product being purchased is an intangible product therefore not refundable by the
seller if the purchase is made via Paypal if the seller decides to operate in this manner.

Obviously, Paypal benefits from the perception in the marketplace that the buyer is "protected"
if they use paypal when purchasing. In reality, this only amounts to physical products not digital
and really is reference to the "security" of the buyers purchasing information not being
compromised during the sales process.

The problem is unscrupulous sellers are using this model to take the money and
run. Their digital product(s) do fail sometimes from the onset and/or not updated
or the teeth never will get capped and my child will never go to college.

It is a matter of time before this model gets exploited in a larger fashion
and taint the seller(s) who use Paypal. That was the crux of my conversation with
Paypal which is I think the fear for lack of better words that the OP mentioned.

This is in my estimation a "real" concern and I realize taking out -- promotion or "insinuation"
of profitable gains [within a sales page] if a person joins as an affiliate -- is a step in the right direction,
but it isn't going to solve entirely the non-refundable digital product sale from an unscrupulous seller
"out there" which is ultimately how all sellers get measured in the marketplace. In other words
we are all alike. I am sure many people have had the pleasure of Google indicating
with their recent "updates" [to protect ' their ' customer experience] by lopping many IM'ers
websites or accounts into the negative ranking category or worse closing the account due to
such a "all them IM'ers are duh same mentality".

Paypal sends out the denial of refund notice to their client who used Paypal to buy yet they
are not the seller but 'only' the conduit for payment.
Essentially, they have no business making such a decision
BUT have to deny the refund request to a buyer when intangible product is invoked by
the seller as a part of the Paypal TOS. As the OP basically stated, have eggs in
other baskets too in regard to payment for digital services.

This is a real issue albeit not Huge [yet] and a buyer will be PO'd [that's what I hear].
For those of us who sell digital products and especially mobile services,
this is a problem in the digital realm if Paypal were to be the "only" payment system in
place as a seller or vendor of services.

Paypal does not review any Seller TOS as far as it is related to seller product
guarantees nor does it ask about the seller honoring such an offer of refund
therefore a seller can essentially say whatever to get the sale and not
have to live up to the guarantee. This is great for a seller of products actually
but it can backfire on honest sellers if a buyer does not feel protected in
their purchase(s) from a seller if Paypal is a payment option.
[ie] perception that -- anyone using paypal to buy with may not get a
refund if a problem with this digital product or service occurs].

Sights that offer no feedback on the sellers or contact vehicles for buyers to contact the
Portal that allows such a vendor [seller] are really a culprit to feeding this
negative opportunity to taint honest sellers. Thankfully, WF does offer this to buyers and
sellers equally. Also, as sellers, honoring the offer of a guarantee if offered should be
"honored" or not offered since it too can be "used" as a SALES tactic and the buyer(s)
should also honor that if the product operated as offered, a refund is not possible for a
digital product. Therein is an issue to be reconciled.

A real digital product payment solution that protects BOTH the buyer and the seller
equally is needed in addition to monitoring or reviewing of the sellers offer of "guarantee"
of refund regardless of being a digital product.

Perhaps there is such a payment option and I am plainly ignorant. In that case as Roseanna
Danna says then --->>> Never Mind.

Sid, not necessarily unless one would attribute that exclusively to WF transactions. I, as a buyer had 2 disputes to file for digital products [not from WF though] due to 1 total misrepresentation and the other for non-delivery of the full product. Both claims were granted without a hitch within days actually.
Joyfully I cvan state that I never had such a problem with any of my WF purchases. - If in doubt, shoot an email or Im first to the WSO offerer to clarify. Simple.

After all you've read in this thread, why would you even want to? I would think that the WF/WSO rule aside, after hearing the 'PayPal' viewpoint on this, most would be rushing over to all their old WSO's to REMOVE any referrals to their affiliate program.

I'd also like to point out that Allen has an excellent thread in his "My Ideas, Strategies and Plans" section of the War Room where he explicity advises product creators 'don't cut my throat by having a link to your affiliate program right on your sales page."

The fact that engaging affiliate recruitment this way goes beyond the 'curreent' 'PayPal' reason.

-Dani

Thanks Paul. I appreciate it. I will add this info to my weekly newsletter.

Yours truly,
Jeff Noyes

Vendor-Lock Software co.

Hey Chris,

The affiliate networks already do a pretty good job of advertising the existence of the affiliate program. Ever seen one of those "Powered by ..." notices on the buy buttons?

You won't even have to scroll all the way down to the second post in the thread. Those buy buttons will be in the original post.

Yep - and the only one of those that is out of place... is the sales page.

Maybe it's not... if the affiliate hasn't learned to ferret out an affiliate program, or the merchant is too cheap or too lazy to advertise it. But then, that's part of the job. Good merchants will be actively recruiting affiliates, and good affiliates will be actively seeking out good offers for their leads. Either one that doesn't feel it's worth the effort probably needs to find other work.

If they're not really motivated... do you really want them as an affiliate?

As for finding a merchant's contact info, I think a background check really isn't necessary. Here, on the WF, there's 1) the buy button that often advertises the affiliate network, and/or 2) the merchant can advertise his/her affiliate program in the classified ads forum, and/or 3) an affiliate could easily PM the WSO poster requesting a link to their affiliate sign up page.

Outside of the WF, there are plenty of ways to recruit affiliates. Willie has already mentioned the download page, follow up emails, or within the product, itself. On the sales page, a motivated affiliate can simply click on the link to your contact/support form, and request a link.

Once you've collected affiliates from your first product (you do maintain a separate list for your affiliates, don't you?), announce your new (upcoming) WSO to them so they can help build the initial "buzz" for it once you launch. Besides promoting your product for commissions, they are helping your affiliate program go viral (they almost always have other affiliate marketers on their lists).

A little more work for the merchant and the affiliate? Sure, but I think it's worth it to help "qualify" the merchant to the affiliate, and vice versa.

In the process, not only will there be one less thing to upset the payment processors, but it'll be that much more difficult for some of the bottom feeders who are just here looking for a way to scam the members for a quick buck.

I've read through this entire thread and am much more educated about some of the intricacies of the PayPal land mine system. Now, I'd like to offer a little different perspective about my own PayPal situation in a different type of business - NOT digital products, NOT IM, NOT "how to make money", or any of the other areas that have been discussed here.

Until about 3 1/2 years ago, I was a homebuilder for about 5 or 6 years building high end custom lakefront homes - most costing in the $1.5 Million to $2.5 Million range. I was building for a couple of investors and their expenditures were outpacing their ability to get draws from the bank (translation, they were spending more than their bank loans were for). They asked if I could take credit cards - but my only method was via PayPal. So we agreed to get me paid for anything over the bank draws using our PayPal accounts.

Some weeks, my billings to them was in the $40,000 neighborhood. The first week we tried PayPal, they tried a $32,000 payment, but it exceeded the $10,000 threshhold to trigger the Patriot Act issues. Since each house was owned by a different legally established entity, they just set up separate PayPal accounts for each of those businesses and began to pay me through each of them until I was fully paid each week.

This went great through the third week. On the fourth week, it happened to be a light billing week - just under $10,000 I think. They paid me through PayPal as we had been doing and PayPal froze my account. I couldn't access the funds they had paid me and in fact PayPal reversed the payment from my account, but held it and would not reverse it back to them.

They claimed I had been paid and I had evidence I had not. It almost became a real problem, but they lodged a complaint with their credit card company and I got a "real merchant account" with my bank. Over the next year or so, I was running in excess of $150,000 a month through my merchant account and my bank never even blinked an eye. I always joked that I was the only builder on the lake that could build you a house completely on credit cards if you wanted.

But, my point is, I was selling a real world product and real world services and my PayPal account still was frozen. This was 2006 or 2007 and getting PayPal to speak to you at that time was almost an impossibility. Apparently, it's a little easier now.

Now, before you say it, I will. Were they "gaming" the system? Yes. But each entity that was paying me was a legally established business in the state of incorporation, with their own Tax ID Number, their own bank accounts, their own credit cards, etc. So, technically, each of these businesses were a separate entity and each of their actions should not have impacted any of the others.

When I finally got an answer from PayPal - almost six months later - their answer was that I was having too many sales, too often, to the same people/companies. Well, DUH!!! I was building houses and making weekly draws.

This could have been a really bad situation for me and it was for about a week while I was getting my merchant account set up. But, it taught me a lesson. Just like I've always believed that you have multiple income streams, you should also have multiple payment processors if at all possible. I understand the problem with W+ and affiliates, but I do NO affiliate marketing and I don't sell anything on the WF, so it doesn't impact me. For those of you that do, I completely understand your apprehension.

Regardless, I just wanted to share that it's not IM products - it can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Hey, PayPal is not a bank so they don't have to follow banking rules. In fact, there are very few banking rules that they even have to observe.

JDD

This is how the rumors get started...

Some one reads a post like this one, translates the questions into statements of fact, then proceeds to publish those "facts" elsewhere, or answers someone else's questions with what he/she thinks they learned here.


There is no rule with Paypal regarding OTO's or upsells, beyond the fact that receipt of the product must NOT be prevented after the purchase (i.e. requiring an additional purchase). All that means is that if you do offer on upsell on return from Paypal (i.e. an OTO), there MUST be a clear way to bypass the backend offer so that the original purchase can be received.

Paypal is a payment processor. To the best of my knowledge, the terms one-time offer, OTO, and upsell are not used in their Acceptable Use Policy at all (and I've read all of their legal documents multiple times). Since those terms aren't even in their vocabulary, they have no rule(s) specifically targeting such offers.

Every transaction with Paypal is separate and distinct from any other (with the exception of subscription payments). Trends in activity (fluctuations in transaction volume, refund percentages, chargeback percentages, fund withdrawals) can be monitored and may raise a red flag. Multiple payments from the same buyer, to the same seller's Paypal account, in a single day, is a common enough occurrence (happens multiple times, every day) that it is unlikely to cause a blip on their radar.

It's definitely easier to get your answers from a forum like this, but you'll get a lot of very different answers. You'll probably choose to believe the answer that either a) comes closest to your original understanding/beliefs, 2) poses a solution that is "easier" for you to implement, or 3) seems to have the largest number of other posters who concur.

Given the importance of this thread topic, doesn't it make sense to actually read and understand what Paypal says in their Acceptable Use Policy?

Debit cards have very low daily cash withdrawal limits. PayPal's is only $300-$400, most are $300. If you're processing thousands weekly, using that debit card to withdraw so they can't freeze won't do you much good anyway. Better to transfer it from one bank, then immediately to another. Leaving only enough in there to support your industry's average refund and chargeback risk.

Thats strange to get turned down for a debit card...credit card I'm sure happens plenty, but debit, weird? I find taking money out with my debit card keeps me under the radar.

I have had my PayPal account frozen twice. The first time it took a week to straighten it out. The second time it took almost 30 days and lots of calls and emails. Both times I was informed that it was due to unusual activity in my account. It is a merchant account, and I have their credit card too.

It is very frustrating to have your money frozen. I was afraid that I was going to lose it. I have since opened up 3 other payment processing accounts. It is the only way to go. I also have a merchant account with a credit union and this is one of the best ways for anyone serious to go.

If you plan to or believe that you are going to be processing a large increase in funds with PayPal you should contact them and make them aware of it. This has already been mentioned but it is important. The other thing to consider is using a different processor if at all possible, if you are going to be handling an increase in funds.

Update: I may have drawn attention to my account by logging in from other countries. It was never a factor that I thought of before, but it could have something to do with the unusual activity mentioned by them. They, PayPal, never explained what type or form of unusual activity caused them to freeze my funds. I did have to verify my address in the US and send them a copy of a photo ID. I also had to receive a phone message at my home in the US to verify that I was there, even though I had been calling them from the same phone number.

Yes, I understand the rule with WSO's, but I mean on your own web site business web pages? Thanks!

God bless,
Mark
Isaiah 40:31

You seem to be under the misconception that PayPal has a problem with resellers.

The problem they have is "promoting an opportunity" vs. "promoting a product". If you're paying 100% commissions, you're basically promoting an opportunity.

Do you ever wonder WHY Clickbank won't allow you to pay >75% commissions? Maybe they don't want PayPal to shut THEM off either! But they also operate a gnat's hair away from being considered a "factor" by credit card processors, so they have to be really careful on anything that might cause them problems.

Also, if you promote your reseller program on the sales page, you're BLATANTLY promoting an "opportunity".

Again, why are people trying to argue for, and find new ways to basically shoot themselves in the foot?

What's the problem with making a sales page about ONLY SELLING A PRODUCT?

You can promote the reseller program on the download page, or via a follow-up email. Or if they like the product enough to contact you without buying, then you've probably found a great JV Partner!

Why muddy the waters and risk getting your paychecks seized???

Just on the Debit Card subject.
I was turned down for one and the reason given was PayPal do not issue debit cards outside of USA. And this had nothing whatsoever to do with the Warrior Forum.
I understand Amazon have a similar payment gateway so if this is correct maybe this could be setup within WF?
Gary

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Warrior Forum identifies possible big risk to members' businesses.

Warrior Forum introduces new rule to help reduce risk.

Thank you Warrior Forum.

End of story.


Martin

In context of Paypal, I don't think it's that far off... I understand your case though and can accept that. The only thing is that everyone knows that the people you're talking about are likely solely dependent on WF for their income. So when it's life or death, a policy like this will have little effect, if any. They'll do anything just to make sure they can pay their bills selling their junk products.

I think what really should be in the conversation is a more thorough review/acceptance policy. First off, it should be a requirement that the product is set up and selling for a period of time on your OWN site before you can launch it as a WSO. Too many people launch their crappy WSO's with zero intention of ever selling them elsewhere. How is that exactly defined as a special offer then? By definition, that IS the offer.

Stricter acceptance guidelines is, in my opinion, the only way to actually make a difference. Of course a large number of WSO's fall into the category we're talking about, so obviously that would affect the bottom line if it was harder to launch a WSO. There definitely wouldn't be as many WSO's launched with stricter quality guidelines.