Credit Card Processing

[theRocket]

To continue this discussion...

> Vern Cole verncole at gmail.com
> Wed Jul 30 02:12:45 GMT-8 2008
>
> Hello,
> I work in information security and deal with alot of credit card
> transaction sites. There are a number of alternatives to actually taking
> card information through the site that I would highly recommend looking
> into. This takes a huge load off the requirements around the site in
> terms of security, data encryption, etc. Happy to help with this area.
>
> Would be great to see this get into a groove.

I had been leaning towards <a href="http://
www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/">BrainTree</a> as a gateway, mostly
due to this recommendation:

http://railskits.com/blog/2008/05/using-braintree/

and other chit-chat I heard around RailsConf. I was looking for
something that had a reputation of playing nice with Rails, or at
least Rails developers. Nuggets like this are pretty compelling:

http://github.com/braintree

They are publishing a ruby gem straight from GitHub (which now shows
up on the default remote gem sources, I believe, but if not, read the
first line of this how-to: http://gems.github.com/). That is friendly
enough to compel me try it right there.

But I have not done all the homework on this one.

[theRocket]

Oh, another important question in this department. Will WSBA be
providing the service, with registration payments going directly into
their account, and the promoter will get paid out after the event?

Will there be a charge for that service, considering the CC processor
will not be free?

If so, we still have the problem/question of the promoter passing that
on to the participants, depending on the amount.

Please discuss...

[Ian Mensher]

That brings up an important point about the costs associated with the online payment system.  The big question is who pays the 3% or whatever it is that the cc company will collect on the transaction.  Here are some ideas:

1) require racers to register online and pay online for races.  Online payment will have to include the 3% cc charge that falls on the racer.   This permits the promoter to recoup the costs of the race more efficiently and to increase payout. 

2) require racers to register online, but make online payment optional.  The racer who pays online will absorb the cc charge, but the racer who pays day of race or mails in a check pays nothing (or the cost of a stamp).

3) require racers to register and pay online, but split the cost of the cc charge between promoter and racer.

4) require racer to register online, but make online payment optional.  Split cc charge between promoter and racer.

5) require racers to register and pay online.  Promoter absorbs the cc charge.

6) require racer to register online, but make online payment optional.  Promoter absorbs the cc charge.

To choose between these options I think there is some general information we need to know.  Do promoters prefer not to collect money day of race?  Do promoters save time and money by having just a check in where waivers are signed and no money is transacted?  If so, then they ought to absorb some or all of the cc charge, as they benefit from it.  In my limited experience it seems like the promoter doesn't really save much, since registration is usually easy to run with a couple of volunteers, and whether they are taking waivers only, or waivers and money is of no moment. 

I'd recommend the second option.  This permits the racer who wants to use the cc to pay online and those who want to pay day of race without cc can avoid the cc charge.  We disclose that to all racers so they understand why it is a little more expensive to register online.  One side effect of this would be diminished online payment if the charge is more than a dollar, I imagine.  This might undermine the desirability and cost-effectiveness of setting up the online payment system, I'm afraid.  To that extent, it might make it better to split the cost of the cc charge between the promoter and racer.  Assuming both parties gain some benefit, you could call it an equitable result.

If it makes more sense to have the WSBA collect online payments and disburse the money to the promoter, then I think that makes sense.  However, that's an added strain on the WSBA to establish some account and disburse funds quickly to promoters who may need the money asap to cover costs.  If it is possible to set up a system that routes cc receipts to the individual accounts of the particular race promoter we'd cut down on a lot extra time.  But maybe that's a costly option.  I'd be interested to know what the WSBA folks have to say.

ian

[Scott]

Yeah, I also have a positive second-hand opinion of BrainTree, but no
first-hand experience.

Online reg + payment hasn't been important for OBRA, so the WSBA (and
maybe Cross Crusade's) needs should drive our choices on this one.

On Jul 30, 6:30 am, theRocket <edaroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To continue this discussion...
>
> > Vern Cole verncole at gmail.com
> > Wed Jul 30 02:12:45 GMT-8 2008
>
> > Hello,
> > I work in information security and deal with alot of credit card
> > transaction sites. There are a number of alternatives to actually taking
> > card information through the site that I would highly recommend looking
> > into. This takes a huge load off the requirements around the site in
> > terms of security, data encryption, etc. Happy to help with this area.
>
> > Would be great to see this get into a groove.
>

> I had been leaning towards <a href="http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/">BrainTree</a> as a gateway, mostly

[Vern Cole]

This is a great solution. Anything that keeps the credit card number out
of WSBA systems is the best approach in my opinion. And the transparent
redirect minimizes the impact to customers. The token approach they
discuss would also allow returning racers to maintain a ecurring payment
option without WSBA having to address the security requirements to
retain the information - often a huge pain in the butt.

If you've worked with this before and it functions well with the Ruby
code you've already developed sounds like a match.

[theRocket]

Hello, old friends:

Ian really laid out the options nicely. I am looking into the
possibility of routing the base fee to the promoter (not sure how
likely this is) with the processing fee going according to what the
group decides and promoters concede to.

I would love some feedback. This may be a key step forward in setting
up the registration system, but I don't necessarily want to be the
person to make the decision. Maybe this question needs to go back out
to the WSBA mailing list?

Thanks,
RyanR>

[theRocket]

Oh, you know what? Here's my opinion after thinking about the big
picture a bit longer. I go for option #5, and here's the how & why:

If the WSBA is providing a results software package and a platform to
publish the results in a user-friendly manner (my plan), then the
promoter should eat the registration charge, and the user should chip
in a bit, too.

To recap: racer is required to register online (so we have them in the
database correctly in advance), and payment is required so the CC is
charged while the number is never stored by an amateur (but goes to
the external provider, e.g. BrainTree), and WSBA collects their
percentage (maybe 2%) for providing both the promoter and participant
with the convenience of a results engine.

So that's 5% (3% comes off promoter's registration fee, goes to CC
processor + 2% from race participant, goes to WSBA to cover hosting).
That's only 50 cents a racer for a typical $25 entry fee. Pretty
sweet deal if we get their results up and centralized within a few
days of the race. Promoter is saved the trouble of battling with
Excel formats.

I still think we have to allow the exception of registering on site,
but not really sure what is best at this late hour.

Thanks,
RyanR>

[theRocket]

For those checking my math, I meant 50 cents goes to the WSBA. I'm
assuming the CC processor charges 3%, which would be 75 cents off the
promoter's cut in this example. It's still cheap.

RJR
On Aug 11, 10:36 pm, theRocket <edaroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's only 50 cents a racer for a typical $25 entry fee...
>
> Thanks,
>   RyanR>

[.nathan.]

Are you aware of http://www.bikereg.com? It basically does everything
laid out above (how to charge the promoter vs the participant) and
provide a registration list when on-line registration is closed. It
also provides (via your printer) USCF waivers pre-filled so that the
participant just has to sign there name during on-site registration
and post-race publication of results.

Is the goal to do a WSBA version of bikereg so that WSBA gets the cut
vs bikereg?
.nathan.

[Phil Miller]

"Are you aware of http://www.bikereg.com? It basically does everything
laid out above (how to charge the promoter vs the participant) and
provide a registration list when on-line registration is closed. It
also provides (via your printer) USCF waivers pre-filled so that the

participant just has to sign there (sic) name during on-site

registration
and post-race publication of results."

Well, I guess this conversation has come full circle now! I think what
initiated this was a concern with the quality control of sites such as
bikereg.com, sportsbaseonline.com, etc., and a desire to see if a
locally based effort could be shaped to more closely match local racing
community needs.

Phil Miller

[.nathan.]

> Well, I guess this conversation has come full circle now! I think what
> initiated this was a concern with the quality control of sites such as
> bikereg.com, sportsbaseonline.com, etc., and a desire to see if a
> locally based effort could be shaped to more closely match local racing
> community needs.

Ok, that's cool, I was just making sure we weren't missing the boat on
what was already out there. I guess I was unaware that bikereg fell
short for WSBA's needs. I've had no problems with it in the past, but
then again that was for work outside of WSBA.
.nathan.

[Scott Willson]

On Aug 11, 2008, at 9:22 PM, theRocket wrote:

Maybe this question needs to go back out
to the WSBA mailing list?

I don't know—people on the WSBA list seem pretty cranky about discussions like this! :)

Seems like a decision that the WSBA officers—David and ?—should make.

No reason you can't change your mind on fees later.

[theRocket]

Just did a bit of research on the "disbursement to promoters" problem,
since that seems to be a hang-up. Turns out BrainTree has the
functionality covered:

http://developer.getbraintree.com/articles/1-sending-money-to-your-customers-accounts

Although the feature is turned off by default (for security reasons,
they say), it does not appear to cost extra. Just have to get the ABA
routing information that the promoter wants to use. Then it's a just
bank-to-bank transfer.

I just paid 13% on BikeReg.com to register for StarCrossed. As a
participant, 2% (my previous proposal) sounds like a sweet deal!

RyanR>

On Jul 30, 8:04 am, "Ian Mensher" <imens...@gmail.com> wrote: