Visa's market research suggests a significant increase in Visa usage and Visa brand value among consumers aware of their Olympic sponsorship (which has been ongoing since 1986, and already committed through the next 4 Olympics games):

> According to the U.S. Sponsorship Tracker, a Visa commissioned study following the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games conducted by Performance Research, an independent research company, Visa cardholders who were aware of Visa’s Olympic Games sponsorship claimed a 16 percent and nine percent increase in Visa card usage in Canada and the US respectively. The same report found Visa’s brand equity was 32 percent and 38 percent higher among consumers who were aware of Visa’s sponsorship in Canada and the US respectively.

http://corporate.visa.com/_media/olympic-games-media-kit/vis...

> I've been trying really hard to understand why Visa would make such an obviously unfriendly and counter-productive decision

The first Olympics game where Visa was exclusively accepted was Calgary 1988. This isn't a decision they just made.

When a company is paying for research about its own decisions, the research always comes back that the decision was wonderful, or that research firm doesn't get hired again.

This is the key part. Research funded by biased parties can produce valid research and results. There is the case of the physicist that was skeptical of global warming that was funded by the Koch brothers to study global warming. As a scientist, at a well known college for physics, he was skeptical but not blinded by money/politics. His research changed is mind completely.

But, like you said, he won't be hired again by two brothers that are wealthily through oil.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climat...

This kind of thing is par of the course for company politics. But probably unlikely to persist this long.

http://paws.kettering.edu/~jhuggins/humor/banana.html

That said, it's not surprising that the overall effect of the sponsorship was positive since refusing MasterCard and debit was only one small aspect of Visa's campaign. Reading about this again in London made me all riled up again, but Morgan Freeman's soothing voice will likely undo the damage soon enough.

This is a direct pay solution used with online terminals, the Visa/MasterCard-part of your debit card is just for offline transactions or credit.

It would be the height of stupidity for Mastercard and Visa to allow banks to issue cards with their labels and then have these cards be part of some secret "strictly Northern Europe" Mastercard/Visa network. Talk about confusing the customers.

But this is all moot: I have both Mastercard and Visa debit cards issued in Sweden. They work perfectly well outside of Europe...

I'm sure people appreciate VISA's Olympic sponsorship, there is little question about this. Exclusive sponsorship if different from limiting the choices of vendors and customers.

People do not like being limited in their choices, I do not think that benefited them.

Couldn't this be that heavy-Visa users notice the company's sponsorship and usage more generally? This doesn't really prove that Olympics sponsorship increases usage.

> The same report found Visa’s brand equity was higher among consumers who were aware of Visa’s sponsorship.

Again, couldn't it just be that the kinds of people who notice that Visa sponsors things are the kinds of people who already like Visa? This doesn't establish that sponsoring the Olympics helps Visa.

Could be, but it's highly unlikely that a company who does surveys as its core business doesn't know this and tries to control for it, or at least explain it in they methodology section of the report they deliver.

Where is the evidence that actually preventing people from using mastercard helps?

This is more like BMW deciding to sponsor the construction of a road and only allowing their cars to pass.

Denmark had something similar with Visa as well. Apparently it works since I am now very likely to get a Visa-card next to my Mastercard for those just-in-case situations.

I'm sure your card failed to work but I doubt it had anything to do with a big Visa logo on the machine.

So, I'd say it indeed may be a good idea to have a Visa card - along with their competitor's cards.

I had two Visa cards that I couldn't use, so frustrating.

EDIT: typo

It's like "for your convenience."

"For your convenience, all toilets have been closed."

Unlike Visa in the US, Visa Europe is still owned by its 3000+ member banks. It's only responsibility is to make its shareholders happy.

Americans have a lot more personal debt than Europeans. 'In Free Market America, banks own YOU!' would be more appropriate.

But wrong. Or at least 'they own the unwary and dumb'.

I bank with a credit union, got rid of my credit cards in favor of debit, and working real hard to pay down my debt. Already I've bought two vehicles for cash.

Now, granted, they were not _great_ vehicles, but they run and they're paid for. Looking forward to paying _cash_ for a really _nice_ (but used) car in a decade.

Why did I?

Because it was too easy to use credit, not pay the balance in full. The debt built up. Things got out of hand.

And because I really did not like dealing with the credit card folk, even when I was in their good graces. Too much complexity.

The context I've heard of people getting in trouble with this is when they used the card for business purchases and then used the discounts for personal purchases.

You aren't doing as badly as you think.

[edit] I assumed you were based in america, but apparently you are in sydney, sorry for confusion and random assumptioness. However, this means that according to the first chart on the page I linked, you guys are doing worse than the americans on household debt. Not that I can point fingers from the uk, cos we are either screwed or up to something fiendishly smart. But if it is the latter, I have no idea what it is.

It would be interesting to see how that compares to Greece, Spain, Italy, and other more troubled EU countries. The EU situation suddenly seems a lot scarier to me financially.

I should add that Steve Keen's writings on debt are absolutely must-reads for anyone interested in macroeconomic outlooks especially because he discards Neoclassical models in favor of debt-based models.

Two of my favorite quotes by Keen from his presentations are:

"The one thing Neoclassical economists don't understand is Neoclassical economics."

And

"The Marxist economists hate me even more than the Neoclassicals, which is quite an achievement."

> According to the U.S. Sponsorship Tracker, a Visa commissioned study following the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games conducted by Performance Research, an independent research company, Visa cardholders who were aware of Visa’s Olympic Games sponsorship claimed a 16 percent and nine percent increase in Visa card usage in Canada and the US respectively. The same report found Visa’s brand equity was 32 percent and 38 percent higher among consumers who were aware of Visa’s sponsorship in Canada and the US respectively.

http://corporate.visa.com/_media/olympic-games-media-kit/vis...

Ah.. Just looked it up. - http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Visa-Will-be-Only-Credit-C...

OK. Fair enough. They haven't just miraculously turned into complete bastards on this, they were just complete bastards all along and the press happens to be making a fuss about it at the moment, just cos it is news with the word 'olympics' in it.

For example, in the past when I found a flashy new b2b service I would grumble when I couldn't find a price list and continue my research. Now, when I visit a company's page and there are no listed prices, I immediately close the tab and forget about it.

Saying "We only accept Visa" is like saying "We only serve white people." Exclusive, yes. A reminder of ethnic and class privilege, yes. Desirable by any progressively minded individuals? Absolutely not.

A note about online payments when it comes to credit cards, I pretty much stopped using my Mastercards with the exception of Amazon because of that damn Securecode implementation. I think payment processors and providers who erect any restrictions or barriers will find them self quickly suffocated out by services who are going the other direction. (I'm one of the guys who believes within the next 5 years you'll just be able to walk out of most stores with a product and seamlessly be billed for it, uber style.)