Reading Time: 2 minutes
E-commerce speaks multiple languages, but of course, English is king everywhere.
Between words that translated mean something slightly different, accents and regions where people just love acronyms, the Babylonian situation often creates some hilarious combinations of “excusable ignorance” and “inexcusable lack of logic”.
Let’s not agree to disagree here. Please. If you have a better definition, by all means, we should all collectively push for it.
What’s your fraud rate?
Sorry, I don’t understand your question. Do you want to know my fraud pressure? The chargeback rate? The net chargeback rate? The fraud chargeback rate? The actual loss rate? Do you want a combined “fraud rate” for all the countries and tenders? Does it make sense that I dilute my good order population with also transactions that cannot be charged back?
I’ll always remember one day when my friend T. came to visit. In 30 seconds we exchanged numbers and immediately knew where the other stand. Imagine meeting an old school friend. Of course, you can (and will) talk for hours about everything, but a straightforward quick communication like “got married and then divorced, working for X doing Y, yadda yadda yadda.
And yes, one of the numbers was what WE called fraud rate. But acknowledging the mistake, when T and I talk about “fraud rate” we actually mean real fraud chargebacks, pre-disputing. If you want, “gross fraud rate” as once disputes take place, the result will be “net fraud rate”.
But when I asked “what’s your fraud rate” to other colleagues, I got the weirdest answers. Very basically, if your customers recur to making a chargeback for service related issues your CS couldn’t handle, sorry, but that had absolutely nothing to do with fraud. Those chargebacks count for other rates, not the fraudulent one. Of course, a fraud analyst and a fraud manager know ALL these rates on the top of their head. This is one of the first metrics your superiors want to see. Because we trained them to look at this.
How many good orders have you rejected to lower your chargebacks? How can you prove the rejected bucket is actually all fraud? So, let me introduce you:
Fraud pressure (rate and value)
Assuming you implemented some solid process to categorize chargebacks correctly, a simple filter (or sort) will show you immediately some categories of chargebacks that are not strictly related to fraud. Write that number down.
Assuming (ha! this is a stretch) that you implemented a “post mortem review of canceled and rejected orders” to understand what is your error rate when rejecting orders, take your rejected rate and deduct the mistakes. Write that number down.
Now, Fraud (cleaned) that you rejected + Fraud (cleaned) that you accepted = Fraud pressure
Forget the rate for a second and analyze the value instead. This big number is what you are saving the company. So if you leave… that’s the threat to the business.
The fraud pressure justifies or explains the fraud rate (however you intend it). If you have zero fraud pressure, how are you rejecting orders? If you have an impressive fraud pressure, a mere 0.01% improvement in the fraud rate may mean an astonishing amount of money.
Does anyone have a good dictionary specific for fraud? 🙂