Retail not-banking

[Dave Birch] The relationship between payments and banking is, generally speaking, under some pressure from both developments in technology and wider cultural and business changes. Although these pressures exist in the developed world, they are most visible in the developing world where the lack of existing infrastructure means that technology and business change come together unencumbered. The result is called by some “branchless banking”, although in the payments space “bankless banking” might be more appropriate. Anyway, the essence of the concept is access for the financial excluded through non-bank distribution channels. Why? Well, in many (if not most) countries, most people don’t have bank accounts:

Statistics from the Central Bank shows that banks currently hold less than 3 million accounts, both current and savings across the country. The present development which is not healthy for the economy means that less than 15 percent of the about 22 million population in the country saves with the banks. According to the data, while the economy is cash based, 80 percent of cash is outside the universal banks.

[From 18m Ghanaians Shun Banks - ModernGhana.com]

Look at the example of Brazil to see how the technology, business and social factors can co-evolve: In Brazil, payments account for nearly four-fifths of bankless banking transactions. In other words, transactions that are performed over electronic channels (in countries like Brazil, this almost always means mobile, not the internet) are overwhelmingly payments transactions. Again in Brazil, 90% of the people who use some form of branchless banking, use it to make utility payments and other non-interpersonal payments. And of those people, only 5% have a bank account. This market shape is unlikely to change because the cost of providing these people with bank accounts that have the potential to deliver a wide range of financial services, but the cost base to go with that is simply too high. In fact, I would go further and say that it seems to me entirely likely that of the small number of people who do have bank accounts, many of them only really want payments accounts (if we can them that). Therefore if technology makes it cost-effective to deliver payment accounts into mass markets, then the demand for bank accounts at the low end will fall further.

The role of the mobile phone in all of this is critical. Mobile banking providers have now both the products and the implementation experiences needed to open up much wider markets. They are held back or constrained in one rather obvious way, which is that they depend on the handset manufacturers and mobile operators to provide the platform for the functionality that they need, and this often constrains the customer experience, but nevertheless they are taking transactions to the masses.

[Read more...]

These are the personal opinions of Consult Hyperion and its guests and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinion of its clients or suppliers. To discuss how any of the technologies discussed in this post can benefit your business, please contact Consult Hyperion.

Now, who’s smart and who’s dumb?

[Dave Birch] There are a great many advantages to smart cards as a platform for digital identity — they’re smart (ie, they have a microprocessor in them) for one thing — but there’s one huge drawback. They need readers. Now you might reasonably assume that no-one would countenance launching a smart card scheme with no readers, but that’s precisely what has just happened in the U.K.

 

Eleven million free travel smart cards have been issued but many buses are not equipped to read them, a report by MPs claims. The report, by the House of Commons Transport Committee, entitled Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport, said the situation was "daft". Ten years after committing to integrated bus ticketing, the Government has "achieved too little of practical value", the report said.

[From The Press Association: £1bn bus pass scheme 'stalling']

When they say "not many" buses have been equipped to use the cards, what they actually mean is "virtually no" buses have been equipped to read the cards. The cards are simply being used as "flash passes" so as long as you wave something that looks like a valid card then the bus driver will let you on board since he/she has no way of verifying that the card is valid. Since the cards have a two-year lifetime, and since the readers won’t be in place for two years, it’s hard to see what the use of them is. It seems like a huge waste of money to me, but then I am not well-versed in government smart card policy…

 

The first nationwide smartcard-based travel scheme launches next month, but the majority of passengers outside London will not be able to use the advanced functions.

[From Free smartcard travel arrives - 20 Mar 2008 - Computing]

Nor will the majority — in fact, all — of the passengers in London since (as the article makes clear) Transport for London won’t even begin trialing the readers for these cards until mid-2009 and won’t be installing them until 2010.

[Read more...]

These are the personal opinions of Consult Hyperion and its guests and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinion of its clients or suppliers. To discuss how any of the technologies discussed in this post can benefit your business, please contact Consult Hyperion.

Back to the trenches

[Dave Birch] Peter Jones of Payment Systems Europe, a long time friend of the Digital Money Forum and this year’s chair of the European Perspectives session on 24th April, has written a typically excellent piece for European Card Review called “Europe set to lose its ‘war on cash’”. He says that “Despite its high profile there are indications that the eurozone may lose its ‘War on Cash’. The banking sector appears unable to deliver a strategy and vision… The eurozone remains highly cashcentric and there is evidence that the current cash growth outstrips substitution by cards and electronics”.

Oh dear. So much for the Lisbon agenda and all that.

The central banks are charged with making the European economy more competitive, and replacing cash with electronic transactions is an easy win in this regards. Yet the central banks income, as we drone on and on about here, comes from the least efficient payment mechanism of all, cash. Surely there’s some tension here?

Peter concluded “So will the EU win the ‘War on Cash’ and achieve improved efficiency in payments? Without focus and leadership this appears unlikely. Fragmentation will grow as will the eurozone’s costly cash mountain. Sadly the indications are Europe’s payments sector productivity will take years to achieve best in world performance”. A disappointing conclusion, but Peter is, of course, right.

[Read more...]

These are the personal opinions of Consult Hyperion and its guests and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinion of its clients or suppliers. To discuss how any of the technologies discussed in this post can benefit your business, please contact Consult Hyperion.

Systematic calculations

[Dave Birch] I’m reading up to try and learn more about banking as I think this will improve my understanding of the payments business, but I’ve been side-tracked today because I’m considering joining in with the lawsuit to stop CERN from switching on their Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Apparently, there is a concern that when the assorted euro-boffins start their atom-smashing antics, they may create “strangelets” and mini-black holes:

The builders of the world’s biggest particle collider are being sued in federal court over fears that the experiment might create globe-gobbling black holes or never-before-seen strains of matter that would destroy the planet.

[From Atom-smasher fears spark lawsuit - Science- msnbc.com]

These mini-black holes would suck matter out of this universe and send it into other dimensions, where it would never been seen again. I was wondering if this might be what happened to the THIRTY SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS that’s gone missing from UBS recently. It certainly cannot be explained by conventional physics. If the chairman of UBS had stood in front of a roaring bonfire and thrown $100 bills into the flames at the rate of one a second for the last two years, he would have lost a mere $6.3 billion. Oh wait, perhaps he was burning 500 euro notes not $100 bills. They have much higher money density: in that case I stand corrected and he could just about have done it without string theory or 11 additional dimensions coming into play.

All he had to do was resign though. The Hong Kong Standard reports a more robust line on gambling bankers who pick the wrong horse. Two employees of the Agricultural Bank of China came up with a better strategy than UBS. They took about three million quid from the bank vaults. They then used the money to buy lottery tickets: their plan was to replace the missing money with the lottery winnings and hope that no-one noticed (much the same plan as Jerome Kerviel of Societe Generale fame as far as I can tell). Generally speaking, Chinese bank employees are not familiar with the work of Adam Smith:

Adventure upon all the tickets in the lottery, and you lose for certain; and the greater the number of your tickets the nearer your approach to this certainty.

[From Adam Smith Quotes]

In the U.K you get to keep the Porche and the massive pension and take a few weeks gardening leave. In China, the rogue traders with the novel asset management strategy were executed.

[Read more...]

These are the personal opinions of Consult Hyperion and its guests and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinion of its clients or suppliers. To discuss how any of the technologies discussed in this post can benefit your business, please contact Consult Hyperion.

Who do you listen to?

[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.

[Read more...]

These are the personal opinions of Consult Hyperion and its guests and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinion of its clients or suppliers. To discuss how any of the technologies discussed in this post can benefit your business, please contact Consult Hyperion.

A Question of Form

[Dave Petch] I was searching for articles on customer feedback on NFC-enabled Mobile Phone trials recently when I discovered what I thought was a very interesting comment from John Suchanec, the Senior Vice President of Payment Technology for Bank of America, regarding the bank’s own NFC trial that they carried out in late 2006 as part of a larger 5,000-employee pilot held at one of its corporate campuses:

The bank gave employees a choice of the contactless form factors they could use and employees chose key fobs to phones by a six-to-one ratio, Suchanec said. The application available for download to the phones was PayPass from MasterCard.

“Active fob users averaged three times more transactions than phone users,” he said. “One of the problems they had with the phone, you can’t do more than one thing at a time; you can’t talk and pay.”

[From: Contactless Technology in US Card ]

The article explains that one of the key issues reported during the trial was the complexity of getting the payment application to work in the NFC-enabled mobile phones (the Nokia 3220 model), including the slow download speed of the application, missed SMS messages and lost connections during the download process.

It piqued my interest because it would appear that many players in the emerging mobile payments industry have been and still are stating precisely the opposite i.e. that the mobile phone is the preferred form factor. Here are some examples.

When Consult Hyperion were working with MasterCard on the first U.S. field trial of mobile phones with contactless capabilities back in 2004, Motorola announced that:

“…recent MasterCard consumer research showed that consumers who found contactless payments to be extremely appealing, selected mobile phones, based on convenience and uniqueness, as a form factor of choice to be enhanced with PayPass."

[From: Motorola to Launch Trial of Handsets with MasterCard® PayPass Technology ]

In February 2007, the GSMA were saying this:

Several customer trials have confirmed that the mobile phone is the preferred form factor for contactless services. The demand for this new range of contactless services is applicable across all user and market segments. Furthermore, customers want to keep the same ease of use, “look & feel”, security and confidence as experienced with existing mobile services.

 

[From: Mobile NFC Services ]

 

In April 2007, the Retail Council of Canada published an article in the Canadian Retailer magazine which quoted Pat Daley from Deloitte:

“[A mobile phone] is the preferred form factor next to cards,” she says.

 

[From: 3,2,1...Contact(Less)! ]

 

Our own Dave Birch has consistently said that the mobile phone will be the ubiquitous payment / ticketing / loyalty / couponing mobile platform of choice when the numerous NFC trials have finally given way to a full-blown NFC ecosystem in the year 20-err…something. Many of his blog entries at http://www.digitalmoneyforum.com/blog/ are evidence of this.

So the question is whether Bank of America’s experience is similar to that of many other companies running NFC trials or an anomaly. The article states that the Nokia 3220 mobile was considered by the pilot employees to be unattractive and low on features, but it isn’t made clear whether the majority of the employees made their choice of fob over mobile before or after making this discovery. The key question would seem to be: Was their decision to choose a fob because of the mobile phone or despite it?

The pilot employees often chose a fob over a mobile because (as quoted above), “you can’t talk and pay”, and the reported result of this decision was that three times as many transactions were made on average on the fobs than the mobiles. But since paying takes a couple of hundred milliseconds is it really a big deal?

Is it really the case that, in everyday usage, the general public will want to be chatting to friends while they pay for their shopping? Will they consider this to be a key feature of their mobile device once it is equipped with all kinds of value added services? Perhaps in the field of transit or event ticketing there is a case to be made for “talking to your mate while walking through the gate”?

I think the key point here is that this limited pilot provided a single contactless payment application to the end user, not the fully-populated m-wallet that is highly likely to be the end result of this developing ecosystem. There is already much evidence that providing just mobile payment services alone is not likely to be the killer application for NFC.

Bank of America are very enthusiastic about mobile as a whole.  The Bank has recently reported great success with the rollout of its Mobile Banking service, hitting the 500,000 user mark at the end of last year (more than all the other US banks combined), so at least something is going well for them in the mobile finance space.

[From: Bank of America hits half a million Mobile banking customers ]


[Read more...]

These are the personal opinions of Consult Hyperion and its guests and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinion of its clients or suppliers. To discuss how any of the technologies discussed in this post can benefit your business, please contact Consult Hyperion.