advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Starbucks-Square Deal Says More About Square Than Starbucks

August 15th, 2012

I think it would be unlikely that any of the large corporate franchise chains would be open to prepaying millions of dollars in processing fees for their franchisees, even if it meant they could get a bigger discount. Even if you want to think that these actions are unrelated, how do you justify to your franchisees spending $25 million dollars to invest in a payment startup versus addressing declining customer counts?

Having negotiated several of these contracts over my career, I can tell you that the top seven priorities for this type of contract are typically (in this order):

  1. Reduce costs
  2. Decrease time to get the money from the sale
  3. Reduce costs
  4. Increase services (examples: system availability, customer support)
  5. Reduce costs
  6. Add additional services (example: loyalty)
  7. Reduce costs

I would imagine that the existing relationship between Starbucks and Bank of America/First Data was already one of the industry’s best (financially, for Starbucks). For Starbucks to take the risk of switching processors (not a small project), there had to be a significant financial upside to the company. I would speculate that Square is giving Starbucks the processing costs for free, but I’m just not sure of its relationship with Paymentech and how that would work.

It should also be noted that Square merchants are charged a percentage (2.75 percent) of the transaction costs for “interchange.” It is unlikely that the contract with Starbucks is on a percentage basis and is, instead, likely to be interchange plus markup, as most major retailers are configured. If this is the case, I wonder how Square’s billing system can adapt easily (unlikely) or if Paymentech will handle the Starbucks billing.

I have said in the past that I think the payment industry is primed for a major disruption. Too many people are making too much money for executing very simple database transactions. I truly hope somebody can tear down the credit-card processing monopolies and create a system that is built around the realities of today. I think it is going to take a major disruption in the POS and payment ecosystems for that to happen. Unfortunately, I do not see the Starbucks-Square deal doing much in this area.

And yes, I understand that reports are that customers will eventually be able to use their Pay-By-Square application to integrate the Starbucks barcode with an open-loop card (Starbucks currently operates only with closed-loop stored-value cards). Although that may be great for a few Starbucks customers who don’t want to set up auto-reload on their giftcard, I just don’t believe it’s that big a deal. Even though the current program has been a success at Starbucks, you haven’t seen a flood of other restaurants or retailers follow suit.

What do you think? If you disagree (or even, heaven forbid, agree), please comment below or send me a private message. Or check out the Twitter discussion on @todd_michaud.


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.