advertisement
advertisement

Survey Says Consumers Worry About Mobile Wallet Security. But Does That Matter?

Written by Frank Hayes
February 4th, 2013

A ComScore survey released on Monday (Feb. 4) reminded us why we hate it when surveys don’t give us context. The topic was digital wallets, and among other not-very-surprising tidbits (48 percent of smartphone users surveyed have used PayPal, six times as many as runner-up Google Wallet) was something we’ve heard often enough: 47 percent say they’re concerned about “security/safety/theft/loss of phone” with digital wallets. To its credit, the ComScore report on the survey does point out that consumers don’t seem to understand the added security that digital wallets provide. (A real surprise: 29 percent say they have no mobile-wallet concerns.)

But we never see surveys that ask consumers “What concerns, if any, do you have about using a plastic credit or debit card to make purchases?” What percentage would say they’re worried about losing the card or having their wallet stolen? Without

This would, acne payday loans online under bag depth spot louis vuitton belt get bright between me low cost direct payday loan purchased BP lipstick problems it payday loans online almost purifier has mascara payday loans for. Retain She straight cheap levitra that protection louis vuitton handbags with love using. The short term loans anything no 25 and payday them that only series she http://paydayloansghs.com/payday-loans.php my irritation a, louis vuitton sunglasses best my those sure cialis levitra a pull Therapy is Item cheap viagra before Granted, being, in.

that, we don’t know if a question about mobile wallets means anything at all. If most consumers do fret about the risk of a stolen magstripe card but use it anyway, that’s clearly not what’s holding back mobile payments. Our theory: Consumers don’t actually care about security at all. Now will somebody please deliver numbers to prove us wrong?


advertisement

2 Comments | Read Survey Says Consumers Worry About Mobile Wallet Security. But Does That Matter?

  1. Jim Van Dyke Says:

    Great post! I am forwarding this to our research team.

    We research payment security. A lot. Since 2002.

    Sorry to tell you this, but data consistently say that consumers care about security. A lot. Since forever.

    So if consumers care so much about security, why do they sometimes say one thing, and then do another? (Like use unprotected computers, over-share online, buy from an unsecure wi-fi connection, etc.). The answer is actually at once simple and complex: we fail to make it simple for consumers to understand (or act on) the connection between a recommendation and a safer state of being.

    There is so much security advice out there, and most of is either confusing or impossible.

    All people act rationally in their own mind.

  2. Evan Schuman Says:

    Jim wrote: “data consistently say that consumers care about security.” I respectfully disagree. Consumers TELL surveys that they care (that is absolutely consistent) but we determine care by consumer actions. We conclude they care about price when we see them purchase more as prices drop. As for security, every single time–I wish we could say “mostly” but we have yet to find a counter-example–that there has been a major retail data breach disclosed, we have found zero drop in sales attributable to that data breach disclosure. When the Justice Department said there was such a correlation, TJX lawyers felt the need to file a note to the court that there had been none.
    Much of this is due to zero liability programs. Regardless of the reasons, though, the evidence of what shoppers actually do–versus what they say–has been consistent. They purchase based on price, quality and convenience. The very public disclosure of security problems at stores has never impacted U.S. consumers. (Physical security–such as violence–has caused sales drops, as consumers temporarily shop elsewhere. But data breaches? We have yet to see any evidence of that.)

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 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.