Who do you listen to?

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] There have been quite a few stories around this week about American Express’ decision to drop its contactless keyfob as an optional companion for the cards with ExpressPay in the U.S. American Express understand their customers very well, and so its decision must represent a clear mandate from customers. It made me wonder how organisations in the payment space can go about getting a clearer picture of what customer want, since obviously some American Express customer must have — in some early pilot, or test market, or focus group — said that they liked the keyfob otherwise it would never have been launched in the first place.

Yet there’s a problem here because consumers are naturally very conservative about money and therefore find it difficult to imagine or articulate new ways of handling it. I well remember focus groups for a smart card product I worked on many years ago: consumers swore up and down that the pre-paid product needed a PIN to lock and unlock it. This was duly implemented (at great expense) but in practice they never, ever used it. So asking customers what they want can’t be the best way forward. Perhaps the best option is simply to give them new stuff to play with, so they don’t have to imagine it, and then be assiduous about gathering the feedback. There doesn’t seem to be any substitute for having an actual trial and listening to customers.

Eat up

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I have the results of another interoperability test for you. Yesterday I used my UK Barclaycard OnePulse in a contactless terminal at a coffee shop in Singapore and not only did it work perfectly, it was very fast and very convenient. More, please! My expectations have been raised to the point where I was really disappointed that Ben & Jerry’s didn’t take contactless and I was forced to resort boring old-fashioned cash. The coffee shop was the textbook case for the cash-replacement low-value contactless transaction: why can’t more of the coffee shops in London have it? Oh, wait…

Price point

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] At the New Payment Channels conference in London, Julian Niblett gave a presentation about contactless from the major retailer perspective. He is head of cash for Boots, one of the U.K.’s largest retailers. They are a good case study, I think, because there are parts of their operation where contactless would work, but other parts where it would not. Therefore, they have to develop a sophisticated strategy and understand carefully where to make investment.

Their average transaction size is under £10, but that disguises a wide range range (from, say, cosmetics to snacks). So it’s not a simple case of converting big stores or small stores, high street or out of town. Within a store, some departments might benefit but in other departments it would be a waste of money. But how confusing would it be for customers to try and figure out where they could use contactless or not? And how much would it cost to train staff to handle customers properly in these circumstances.

The key figure that Julian gave that will be of interest to people here was that Boots banks £2.5 billion in cash every year and it costs them £1.5 million whereas they bank £2 billion in card transactions and it costs them £14 million. Hence he asks, quite reasonably from his point of view, why cards (that should be electronic and efficient) cost ten times as much as cash. He also gave an excellent insight into the way that retailers think when he said, and I quote, “we’ve had our fingers burned with chip and PIN”. I’m going to do what I can to persuade Julian to make a Digital Money podcast to explore his perspective further.

The bond that fell to Earth

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] This isn’t really about payments, but about the monetisation of intellectual property, which is a topic that will appear in the future of payments for sure. Anyway,

When the back catalogue of David Bowie was offered on Wall Street, the $55 million deal for future royalties on classics like The Man Who Sold The World was hailed as a new form of intellectual property securitisation and the idea of artists raising funds secured by future royalties of their work became known as Pullman Bonds, named after the banker David Pullman who drove the Bowie deal. Now, however, citing weak sales of recorded music and a downgrade to an unnamed company guarantor, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the Bowie bonds. They have gone from an A3 rating to Baa3 – one notch above junk status.

[From Bowie bonds nearing junk status | OUT-LAW.COM]

Well, his bonds may be junk but his music isn’t: Aladdin Sane was the first album I ever purchased with my own money! Whenever I’ve seen David Bowie interviewed on TV, he’s always come across as smart. I can remember him talking about music becoming a utility, like water, and he’d obviously formulated a strategy for the future of music well ahead of record companies or, for that matter, investment bankers. Having seen the writing on the wall for the artificially high price of recorded music, Bowie decided against the “farmers path” (of demanding government support to keep prices high) and instead went down the “market path” (of selling an asset with a declining future to bankers). Good for him.

Dutch lessons

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I saw a presentation in Amsterdam about an NFC pilot going on in the C1000 supermarket chain (check out this video) with real consumers.

 

One hundred consumers who shop at the C1000 grocery store in Molenaarsgraaf, the Netherlands, have begun paying for transactions with mobile phones equipped with Near Field Communications (NFC) RFID chips. The group is participating in a six-month pilot conducted by Schuitema, the nation’s second largest retail chain,

[From RFID Journal – – RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Technology News & Features]

Well, the pilot is now complete and the results are in. The guy from the retailer who was presenting said that he was extremely surprised because he had "never, never" seen such a positive results from consumers and that they never had a single technical problem in six months. Wow.

The market research contained, I think, an interesting nugget of information that will be grit in the oyster of someone’s business plan. It turned out that the service was a fantastic success with the customers, and 49% of them said that if the service were offered then they would buy a new handset to get it! More than half, and I suspect this is the important figure at the current state of evolution, said that they would switch operators to get an NFC service. Overall, there was a something like 90% approval rating for the service.

Yet, when pressed on costs, 78% of those consumers said they would not use their NFC payment "card" if they had to pay more than they do for using their existing payment card. Just to reiterate: they would be happy to spend money on buying a new phone, but not on a paying a bank a little more.

Realistic dynamics of contactless

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] In a recent post, Aneace observes that if improved speed is the key merchant benefit of contactless (which I’m not sure about: as discussed before, it’s one of a portfolio of benefits) then the use of magnetic stripe cards under $25 (ie, with no signature required) undermines the business case:

Contactless has always been positioned on one single merchant benefit: speed. So waiving the signature for transactions under $25 just kills contactless.

[From Waiving signatures for small purchases torpedoes contactless]

This is true to some extent. But it’s really only true in the U.S., where all transactions are online, and in comparison to similar card transactions. In chip environments, an offline chip-based transaction is going to take a couple of hundred milliseconds. Contactless is very fast, remember, partly because of the technology’s heritage in the transit world, where it is turning full circle: transit companies don’t really want to run ticketing operations at all, so they would be more than happy to have “pay at gate” where bank and other payment cards are used to enter/exit the transit system. This is why pilots and trials in this direction are useful indicators of the way the payment environment might develop. For example,

MasterCard is teaming with The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and NJ Transit for the eight month trial, which is set to kick off in early 2009. Customers will be able to pay fares on buses and trains between New York City and New Jersey by tapping their contactless device at turnstiles and on fare boxes.

[From Finextra: NY commuters to trial contactless payments on buses and trains]

In the non-transit environment, or I should say non-“closed” environment, the only way to get 200ms transactions is to go offline. But even then, while you’re standing around waiting 10 minutes for your latte, 200ms may be neither here nor there! So in most markets (ie, markets where not all the transactions are online), contactless products will run adequately fast and are a better option than no-signature stripe cards because of the improved security.

Decoupling the small print

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I went to Germany for a couple of days. Amongst other things, I saw a presentation from of Vodafone Germany, talking about the new retail payment scheme that they are launching in partnership with O2…

The new payment system combines the direct debiting system (German: Lastschriftverfahren) with SMS payment confirmation through mobile phones. That means:

1. you order a product on a mobile portal or web shop
2. then you type in your mobile phone number and password
3. following you will receive a text message (SMS), which you have to confirm in order to debit the amount from your bank account via direct debiting system.

[From PavingWays – web applications on (mobile) devices : O2 and Vodafone starting new payment system]

The system is open to all mobile phone users and anyone can register but of course the registration is much simplified for Vodaone and O2 subscribers who already have bank details filed with their operators ready for direct debiting (because there existing phone subscription works that way). I spoke to Vodafone about it and they said that they anticipated two revenue streams: additional text messaging for one, a merchant service charge for the other. I got the impression that the MSC would be pitched around the same as for credit card acceptance. As for the future, they said that

We hope to have more NFC-enabled POS-Systems in the future to combine both technologies.

and furthermore

Security is the key requirement in germany

This might well be the way in for mobile phones: yes, they are more functional than cards but they are potentially far more secure as well. Look at Japan again: remote application locking, 24/7 shutdown, location services. These are all security capabilities that come with the mobile environment to deliver a level of security far above the card platform. It’s 9am, do you know where your cards are?

Slow penetration

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] The roll-out of contactless payments is proceeding, but it’s still slow, because it takes a long time for merchants to change or upgrade their POS technology, even when they want to. Bu they may not want to, because they don’t perceive enough value for them, or because they anticipate incentives from other players in the market.

An absence of incentives—particularly for merchants—is handicapping contactless payments in the U.S., and by extension mobile payment at the point of sale could suffer, according to a new report by Aite. About 40,000 U.S. merchants now accept contactless cards and fobs, or 0.5% of all merchant locations. That number will grow to 271,000 over the next six years, but the penetration rate after that time will still be only 2.5%. If these projections prove accurate, it will mean rough going at best for near-field communication (NFC). To make NFC work, cashiers must be equipped with contactless readers. The painfully slow merchant penetration by contactless “kills NFC”, according to the report author Nick Holland.

[From Digital Transactions News]

Nick is, of course, right to highlight the feedback loop that is operating here. There are some banks and retailers who are investing in contactless for its own sake, but there are many who are investing in contactless because they see it as a stepping stone to the greater value-added possibilities around mobile. Now, I certainly see myself in the mobile camp, but that doesn’t mean that contactless can’t be successful in its own right as well, as I was reminded yesterday when driven insane by a Woking Borough Council parking machine that purported to accept cash (credit cards, having been invented less than fifty years ago, are not yet on the menu) but refused my tenner and my 5p pieces, rendering me unable to pay until I found some more coins on the floor in my car. How can it be more cost-effective to operate antiquated system than to accept cards? Anyway, the point is that converting unattended points of sale to contactless must be a good idea if you want to drive acceptance:

MasterCard Worldwide and USA Technologies announced the expansion of ePort cashless payment terminals to 17,500 vending machines nationwide, adding more than 4,000 new locations that accept MasterCard PayPass contactless payments.

[From MasterCard Expands PayPass Acceptance to Over 17,000 Vending Machines]

I wonder if the roll-out will naturally accelerate as merchants replace their POS terminals and systems or whether specific incentives (as noted above) will be required to tilt the balance? If I was a merchant, I’d think it worthwhile holding out and even though I know that it makes commercial sense, I’d still want to try and get a better interchange rate out of the bank if I could. In theory, if the benefits are distributed between banks, consumers and merchants then the costs should be distributed similarly, but in practice in the short term it means banks spending money issuing contactless cards and the acquiring side catching up later (this, incidentally, is one of the lessons from the DoCoMo “curves” in Japan). Therefore, so long as the merchant benefits are sufficient, the infrastructure will sort itself out.

SEPA is 0 today

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] I’m sorry not be at the official high-level event, obviously, as I clearly see myself as distinguished, but I’m sure a good time will be had by all…

To mark the official launch of SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area), Charlie McCreevy (Internal Market and Services Commissioner, European Commission), Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell (Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank) and Gerard Hartsink (Chairman, European Payments Council) are organising this high-level event with distinguished guests from the EU payments market.

[From ECB: SEPA goes live]

I will probably join in the street party instead, as happy IT vendors citizens laugh, drink, carouse, dance in the streets and set off fireworks to celebrate this significant step in Europe’s progress towards a single market. I intend a practical celebration as well: I shall log in first thing and try a SEPA credit transfer to one of our European forum friends.

Safe and sound

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] As the whole TJX matter trundles toward a settlement, it does serve to remind us that cost is not the only area for dispute between banks and retailers at the moment. There’s also security. In the U.S., the National Retail Federation has already launched a campaign to get credit card companies to permit retailers to not store credit card numbers and have the details stored by the issuers instead (so, perhaps, you the merchant has some sort of reference number that gives them access to the data for transaction purposes). The NRF say

It makes more sense for credit card companies to protect their data from thieves by keeping it in a relatively few secure locations than to expect millions of merchants scattered across the nation to lock up their data for them.

This seems fair enough. But would it solve the problem or it would it just mean that a data breach would result in more (and more accurate) data being stolen? Either way, it seems unlikely that it would mean no more breaches at all even if the House of Commons Justice Committee gets its wish and to criminalise data breaches.

Technorati Tags:

Subscribe to our newsletter

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

By accepting the Terms, you consent to Consult Hyperion communicating with you regarding our events, reports and services through our regular newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime through our newsletters or by emailing us.