[ic] how "user friendly" is authorize.net for non-tech merchants?
Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:43:29 -0500
I set up MV w/Authorize.net for a client, and they seem to be doing
fine. This particular client is not a techie, but he's computer savvy. I
think over time, several people in their office have handled the
Authorize.net web-based admin system and batch processing without asking
for additional help from me. Personally, I haven't looked at the
Authorize.Net web-based admin system in a while so I can't give direct
review of it. I've also worked with Cybercash a bit too, as well as
"LinkPoint". My impression is that they all have kinks still be worked
out, but Cybercash and Authorize.Net are a little more experienced and
refined than the others.
One thing is clear to me is that it's immature market-- it's changing
quickly and in some cases, actually improving the way it works. :)
> Can anyone share with me experience regarding how "user-friendly"
> the authorize.net system will be for a non-technical merchant?
> All of our existing merchants have over time abandoned the online
> processing (cybercash) in favor of local batch processing; it seems
> they get too many exceptions and it takes too long to settle them
> online. We write and read that batch file for them as part of order
> transmission typically over a full-time connection.
> But for a low-volume store run by a non-technical merchant on a
> part time dialup would authorize.net make sense? (Or maybe I
> should revisit cybercash if they are still standing, hmmm, another
> verisigh company....)
> These non-tech users are going to have their hands full booting
> their machines and keeping them virus free; it seems like a
> disservice to put them on a batch system where we will have
> no reliable way to read and write the batch files. They don't need
> real time processing; it's the everything in one place, simple, secure
> administration with lots of help files and tech support that they want.
> Seems like the right way would be to set up something like ccvs here
> and provide that as a service; we're not prepared to staff a help desk
> for that. :-)