Community

A Russian card payments scheme has been expected for a while now. It should come as no great surprise. It will join the growing number of alternatives to Visa and MasterCard.

This is a great example of consumers using new devices and payment technologies to improve the user experience and convenience.

It does though highlight the need for card processig rules to keep up with current options and practices.

The economics of card acceptance underpin the whole card payments industry. These dictate the costs and who has to pay them. Many stakeholders do not have this specialised knowledge and so are unaware of the cost implications. Changing from Face to Face to Customer Not Present means different rates will apply.

Who will the winners be? The card issuer; merchant acquirer; merchant or consumer? The ones impacted most are likely to be those least aware of the intracies.

The time has come for clearer definitions of "mobile payments". It covers a wide variety of scenarios and use cases. It is too broad.

We should start using more specific terms when we are discussing the topic. 

One good example is the increasing usage of the term MPOS when talking about the use of a smartphone (in conjunction with a PIN pad) as a payment acceptance terminal for micro-merchants. 

Many of the industry stakeholders prefer the status quo and are resistant to change. 

They often take a domestic or parochial viewpoint.

Customer wishes and needs may be heard and understood but rarely are given sufficient importance or priority.

Alternative payment methods create a clash between new thinkers and established players.

Matthew makes good points in his blog posting.

Mobile banking like all new financial technology solutions must be:

• Trusted by customers
• Secure
• Easy to use

and backed up by rigorous processes and excellent customer service.

The recent launch of IOS 7 has demonstrated how mobile banking customers can be inadvertently impacted. 

Thank you for the various comments made on this blog so far.

My view is that as an industry we should be moving to electronic PIN delivery as an alternative to paper based PIN mailers.

Just because there are many new payment technologies and challenges this is not a reason for banks not to make the first steps.

Consumers should be offered choice and this can include current and new PIN delivery options. Banks are often criticised for providing poor customer service. Electronic PIN Delivery is a small way to show they are looking to serve customer needs better.

The banking industry knows how to deliver secure banking services and these can be applied to PIN delivery.

Early adopters of electronic delivery can establish competitive advantage. 

I hope to learn of many implementations soon.

It is always good to hear about new payment solutions being announced. There is room for more choice.

Bank account to bank account transfers are now an alternative to cards particularly with the emergence of smart phones. IDEAL from the Netherlands has had great success. PINGIT has also revealed how new technology can disrupt the current status quo.

In order for them to achieve significant success (and mass adoptioon) they do though have to deliver benefits to all stakeholders.

Retail merchants will want to see lower costs than the existing payment options. Or see that they will help in the recruitment of new customers and in the generation of incremental revenue. They will also be keen to minimise the impact on their in-store systems. This tends to add cost, tie up valuable IT resources and result in the need for a further rounf of bank certifications.

Consumers will be looking for greater convenience and choice. They will also need to be convinced of security. Financial incentives drive adoption. Lots of education of consumers will be required, often this is overlooked.

Banks too can benefit. They are sensitive to cost and would be happy to disintermediate parties in the current value chain.

But before anyone gets too excited about ditching the current card based systems they must not overlook the many things that currently work well. Like the universal acceptance and dispute handling processes. These have taken many years to refine and cant all be replaced overnight.

I look forward to leaning more about Zapp over the coming months.

Mobile payments mean many different things to different people. The same can be said about payments itself.

Mobile does offer new options and opportunities but these have to solve real issues and as mentioned previously be adopted by consumers and retailers.

Infrastructure challenges are just one example. This is why mobile payment solutions are very different in developing economies to mature economies. Think of the success had with MPESA in Kenya.

I am a strong believer that consumers should be offered choice in regards to payments and rather than all payments switching to mobile from cash and cards it becomes just another option.

Retail card payments used to be known by the abbreviation EFTPOS which was meant to stand for Electronic Funds Transfer at the Point of Sale but was known to others as Extremely Fancy Technology for a Perfectly Ordinary Sale. 

We are starting to see the potential for mobile payments, but there remains a long way to go.