advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Discover: Contactless Payment Sticker Users Inadvertently Crippling Performance

Written by Fred J. Aun
January 14th, 2010

In a cruel twist of fate, hapless contactless payment supporters (a dying breed if ever there was one) were swiped by some more bad news this week, courtesy of a new report from Discover Financial Services. It seems that in a trial of its Zip contactless payment program, most consumers tried to hide the stickers inside their phones, a move that unintentionally cripples performance.

According to a copy of a report that Discover prepared about its initial trial results, 69 percent of those participating in the Zip trial wanted the sticker hidden.

“The pilot management team was impressed by the creativity demonstrated by participants in finding various ways of hiding stickers under the phone’s protective case (‘skin”), under the battery cover and other unseen yet convenient locations,” said the card brand’s document. “Discover believes these results tie very closely to responses provided when participants were asked what information should (and should not) be printed on the sticker.”

Added the report: “Although participants overwhelmingly enjoy the product, they clearly do not want to broadcast that their cell phone is a payment device. Discover suggests that a balance can be struck with subtle branding, by not printing sensitive information such as the account number and cardholder names on the sticker and by creating mobile device accessories that aid in hiding the sticker without negatively affecting performance.”

This move comes on the heels of Best Buy cutting off its Visa contactless rollout.

The Discover report also noted that there is a huge difference between the read range capabilities of traditional contactless devices—cards and fobs—and contactless stickers.

Although “cards and fobs readily meet the read range standards set by the payment networks, 4 cm (or about 2 inches), some stickers have difficulty achieving these standards depending on the mobile device that the sticker is attached to and/or the contactless terminal being used,” the Discover report said. “It is important to note that this discrepancy in read range does not mean that the stickers are not ready for consumer use or that they are unreliable. It only means that issuers must take more care to select a sticker that has been tested and approved by its payments network partner to ensure consistent results in a wide variety of environments.”

The report included a chart that matched various kinds of contactless stickers with various kinds of phones. No surprise, but the weakest range (from one-fifth of an inch to almost no distance at all) was associated with a handset with a metal casing. But even with the metal cased phones, at least one contactless sticker could be read at almost 0.7 inches and a little more than 0.8 inches, suggesting that the sticker choice itself can have a profound distance impact.

The other sticker/phone combos varied sharply, from about one-third of an inch all the way up to about 1.82 inches, which is still shy of the 2-inch target but just barely.

The move has the potential to further undermine contactless’ argument that it improves convenience. We envision wary, sticker-hiding customers waving, waving, waving their phones over contactless payment devices that can’t read the surreptitiously-placed labels. There goes one of the big selling points of contactless, that it is a speedier way than swiping a card to pay at the POS.

Those consumers who tucked away their Zip stickers inside metal mobile devices suffered the biggest performance decline. But Discover found that blocking the contactless card from the phone’s circuitry, through the use of a metallic shield, improved the hidden cards’ readability.

The Discover document said the most popular sectors for contactless payment are likely to be fast food, convenience stores, discounts stores, gas stations and supermarkets.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.