Msg#: 3244092 posted 1:41 pm on Feb 6, 2007 (gmt 0)
We are currently using ProtX in the UK as our payment service provider. However, come June 07 they are making some fairly major changes to their service that will mean we will inevitably have to sign up to 3D Secure.
Considering we have never had a chargeback in over 3 years of trading and over 14,000 orders we feel a little bitter about this - but that's progress eh?
Anyway, I'd like to know of anyones experiences of implementing 3D Secure. Did it have any effect on conversions etc?
Msg#: 3244092 posted 2:10 pm on Feb 6, 2007 (gmt 0)
Back when I used Worldpay, it had all the 3D Secure pop-ups enabled, and it really sucked and I'm sure it confused a lot of my customers. When I made the switch to ProTX I made sure this wasn't enabled, so I too am quite worried what will happen when it changes.
Also we take a lot of orders by phone using the same web interface - we can't ask for the password when they call us!
Msg#: 3244092 posted 9:20 am on Feb 9, 2007 (gmt 0)
we use 3d secure with worldpay on a number of sites - no problems whatsoever - no drop in sales - only about 10% of all transactions are authenticated by 3d secure at the moment but that figure is slowly creeping up in fact, just had a quick look at the figures: 55% of all sales are uk debit cards and 3d secure is not available 45% of all sales are credit cards (issued worldwide) 10% of all sales are authenticated by 3d secure so that makes it about 22% of all credit card sales are authenticated that's pretty good really - means one hell of a lot of protection against chargebacks
[edited by: RailMan at 9:28 am (utc) on Feb. 9, 2007]
Msg#: 3244092 posted 10:34 am on Feb 9, 2007 (gmt 0)
We had it when we were with Worldpay and there's no doubt it caused confusion and we lost sales as a result. That was in the early days of 3D Secure though, and I think banks have promoted it better now. That said, our current payment service doesn't offer it, but our merchant bank has increased its fees for non-3D transactions so it looks like there is a move towards forcing it through. That's fine, but these things have been implemented so clumsily in the past it's been more of a hindrance than a use, especially considering only a handful of transactions are actually covered.