This is page 3 of:

Google Wallet Struggles With Being Open, But On Only One Platform: Its Own

June 1st, 2011

A Forrester report on Google Wallet points out how few NFC-capable phones exist today. “Relying on an installed base of phones that is today indistinguishable from zero, a single payment system, a single card issuer and a modest network of merchants capable of accepting these phone-based payments means that the near-term impact will be negligible,” wrote Forrester Analysts Charles S. Golvin and Thomas Husson. “However, Google’s interest here isn’t in the payments. It’s in the data that underlies the complete chain of commerce, including consideration, promotion, transaction details, coupons and receipts.”

Remarkably enough, that means the interests of Google and retailers are in synch. Retailers don’t want to be in the payments business any more than Google does. The more that can be pushed off on the processors and the card brands, the better. The only interests in POS involve CRM and boosting (and tracking) sales. OK, if the system can help with anti-fraud/loss prevention, that’s nice, too.

The CIO at that major apparel chain said Google’s move is making it explicit that retail mobile will have very little to do with actual payment. “The future potential here is huge and it actually is having less and less to do with payment itself. Think CRM. Sadly, payment is likely the ticket to entry so we’ll have to scrape the losers off the battlefield before we can start leveraging the real value. But who are the CRM plays that really get what this technology could do in-store? Please stand. Hello? Hello?”

Getting back to the Google trial and the very near term, how much back-end POS work does the Google Wallet require? According to Google partner Verifone, quite a bit.

What about the chains that are already using NFC readers? Surely they should have an easy transition? Nope. “Of the NFC readers out there, the majority—close to 100 percent—will need to be updated,” said Paul Rasori, Verifone’s senior VP for Global Marketing. “These readers are much more advanced than” current PayPass terminals, he said. On top of those upgrades will be the usual software changes throughout the network.

With all this effort and cost, is it worth it to get involved in one of these early stage mobile-payment trials? Quite possibly. There are two reasons to want to do so. First, it always has been about the data and improving the customer experience—and upsells. These trials will almost certainly provide much critical data that will be useful no matter what happens next.

The second reason to do so is what we’ll call the Gambler’s Choice.


Comments are closed.


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!

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...

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.