The Walmart Mystique: Anti-Interchange Payment Alliance Has New Members, But Why?

Written by Frank Hayes
October 4th, 2012

The retailer alliance that’s trying to come up with its own interchange-free mobile payments system has added a handful of new members, and we’re trying to figure out why. On Monday (Oct. 1), MCX said that Gap, Bed Bath & Beyond, Dillard’s, Dunkin’ Brands “and others” have now signed up for the group, which insists it’s hard at work on a mobile payments platform.

No doubt it is. So is ISIS, which counts Dillard’s as part of its someday-soon trial, and Google Wallet, which 65 Gap stores have been accepting for almost a year. Clearly these aren’t retailers who just want to wait until the perfect payments platform comes along.

Maybe it’s the Walmart mystique—Walmart finance people have reportedly been running MCX, and if you’re a retailer it’s probably worth spending good money and signing a non-disclosure agreement just to keep an eye on what Walmart is doing. For good measure, there’s also an opportunity to spy on Target.

Or maybe it’s the chance to network with other retail finance and marketing execs, with a ringside seat for the inevitable implosion when competitors start acting competitive.

It can’t be because they think the MCX mobile payments platform is just around the corner. ISIS missed its summer debut after a year’s work and the certainty that they’d be ready to go by May. (Although it’s possible that having a consortium of three competing mobile operators caused some problems. But that certainly wouldn’t auger ill for MCX having at least 20 competing retailers, right?)

And it can’t be because they’ve been dazzled by MCX’s vague mobile payments proposal. We see vague proposals every day. MCX would have to add lots of detail to rise to the level of being vague.

Maybe it’s nostalgia. After all, these finance and marketing guys are the direct corporate descendants of the people who thought Visa and MasterCard were such a good idea that they’d dump their own store cards just to get out from under the complexities and challenges of running a credit operation.

Perhaps they’ve got a pool going to predict when Apple will jump into mobile payments and render MCX irrelevant.

No, we’re going with the top of the list: Walmart-watching. Walmart has been throwing its weight around in MCX, which strongly suggests that whatever Walmart wants, MCX will get. Getting an advance look at Walmart’s plans, even if it’s something Walmart competitors would never touch, is worth anteing up for.

Besides, even Walmart doesn’t have enough clout to dictate to all its competitors that they will convince customers to use interchange-free mobile payments instead of mag-striped plastic.

If those competitors could convince customers of that—heck, if Walmart knew how to convince customers to do that—it would already have happened.


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.