When Replacing NFC, Tech Is Really Not The Issue

Written by Evan Schuman
August 7th, 2013

Seems that the thing to say today, when discussing a retail mobile interaction method (be it for payment or loyalty or couponing)is to say it’s an alternative to NFC (Near Field Communication). What a horrible thing to say about a technology (in the U.S., at least). But the characterization—or is it an insult?—misses the point about NFC.

More precisely, it misses why NFC has fared so extremely poorly in the U.S., especially for payment. The comparison of technologies—be it Light Field Communication (LFC) or using the touch-screen of a phone such as is being done by TouchBase—to NFC usually implies that if NFC phones were more plentiful or if the POS interface was simpler or if the phone connection was faster, then NFC would have flourished. The reality, though, is that while those tech issues are true and were obstacles, tech problems weren’t anywhere close to NFC’s biggest headache. It has always been the business issues—and none of today’s much-touted approaches seem to have a solution for that.

At one level, the problem for NFC has been that no retailer had a reason to push it. There’s a huge difference, for example, between a Macy’s and a Walgreens initially accepting Google Wallet and such retailers really pushing it, with customer financial incentives, E-mails to shoppers, prominent signage, extensive associate training (with associate monetary incentives for how many shoppers they convince to use it), including references in broadcast commercials, magazine ads, billboards and anything else a chain can do when it really wants to push something.

No, what just about every chain did was enable it—and pretty much the effort ended there.

It’s easy to blame retailers, but when all of this was happening, what was going on with the rest of the payment and mobile community? Where were the card brands, who are always thrilled to say how much they want mobile to succeed? What about the processors, the banks, the POS manufacturers, the handset manufacturers, mobile OS companies? Everyone was proud of their talking points that sang how much they loved mobile, but everybody quickly concluded that any financial investment to fund incentives was going to have to come from retailers.

If one of those tech companies wanted to really make a difference, they could approach one of the largest chains and argue that they could use the technology for free—and here’s a big check to cover marketing, training, shopper incentives and collateral costs. Chains are looking to mobile as a way to get away from—or at least shortly minimize—interchange fees.

That’s why these approaches are much more effective with tiny merchants, where standard POS operations are daunting.

There are many very impressive technologies out there for payment and related retail functions, but once we hear from some that choose to stress the business case and not the tech case, that’s when we’ll we have a contender for a true NFC replacement.


One Comment | Read When Replacing NFC, Tech Is Really Not The Issue

  1. A reader Says:

    Folk wisdom on the net suggests that if you are given a “free” product, look carefully at the terms because you are no longer the consumer – you are the product. If Google offered free readers to merchants, what would they be getting from those merchants? Data. They would be able to close the loop on when and why customers who research on line buy from a bricks and mortar store.

    This would enable Google to know retailer price points, which searches are most effective to get those products in front of on line advertisers, and to be able to sell that advice to others.

    Not every retailer would want to provide such data to their competition.


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.