Are Credit Cards About To Be Dethroned?

Written by Evan Schuman
April 24th, 2007

Although retailers have loudly complained about credit card fees for years, 2007 is suddenly seeing a surge in active support for alternative payments. The credit card companies aren?t worried, but perhaps they should be.

The retail industry is traditionally slow to adopt new technology and new payment methods, but once some retail leaders get comfortable with the idea, it can snowball into a very rapid trend.

It’s happened with self-checkout, buy-online-pickup-in-store and?most recently?with contactless payment. Are alternatives to credit cards next? Although Visa, MasterCard and AmericanExpress have substantial staying power, several recent events suggest a challenge to the three Princes of Payment unlike anything retail’s ever seen.

Earlier this month, an analyst firm released the results of a practical survey it conducted, where the analysts visited the top 100 largest E-Commerce sites to see what payments they accepted. Alternative payments for that survey were Google Checkout, EBay’s PayPal and Bill Me Later. Between a visit in October 2006 and a folo in Feb. 2007, acceptance of alternative payments soared 267 percent. Note: this wasn’t an opinion survey of either consumers or retailers. This was an elegantly simple tactic of looking at their sites. For the credit card companies, that’s strike one.

Then came word last week that Wal-Mart is bucking the industry trend by supporting e-Check procedures. That will allow the chain to electronically accept checks, a move that one Wal-Mart exec estimated would save a billion dollars a year. Even though most retailers had declined to support e-checks, the backing of the $345 billion chain is going to cause many retailers to reconsider. That’s strike two.

This week, word came down that two major national retail chains will start accepting?on a trial basis?Bill Me Later payments in their stores. If successful, this could signal the quick migration of alternative payments from merely online to brick-and-mortar. That’s strike three.

Mark Lavelle, the business development VP for I4 Commerce (which owns Bill Me Later), says his internal numbers have shown the trend. Bill Me Later today touts about 450 retailers, compared with 250 a year ago and “between 60 and 80” retailers a year before that.

They also charge retailers transaction fees, but they’re lower fees. On a $100 purchase, Visa and MasterCard typically charge about $2 whereas Bill Me Later charges $1.50, Lavelle said.

An interesting aspect to this area is that these competitors are, in many ways, cheering each other on, at least for the moment. Bill Me Later is the oldest and it started to see a surge in business once Ebay made payment alternatives seem less risky by introducing PayPal. When Google later introduced GoogleCheckout, it further validated the market making retailers even more comfortable.

“In late 2005, PayPal legitimized the market,” Lavelle said. “Then when Google went into the market, the whole (retail) world went hysterical.”

But what about MasterCard and Visa? Surely, they must not be applauding these intruders? Lavelle argues that MasterCard and Visa absolutely love the successes of the alternative payment players because it makes them look less like a monopoly and they can therefore better hold off government regulation.

The primary three payment alternatives operate quite differently. PayPal is designed for consumer-to-consumer transactions and those payments (usually) end up being backed by a credit card. GoogleCheckout is a more elaborate process, intended to be the full checkout system for an E-Commerce site. But it, too, often has credit cards behind the scenes.

Bill Me Later is more of a loan maker. Consumers can make payments using data that, theoretically, they already have memorized (date of birth, last four digits of Social Security number, etc.). They can pay within 30 days for free or they can treat it as its own credit card, paying a minimum amount and then borrowing the rest at 19.99 percent interest.

That raises a related question. Are the so-called alternative payments replacing credit cards or are they simply turning into them?


2 Comments | Read Are Credit Cards About To Be Dethroned?

  1. Zumwalt Says:

    You’re right, there’s a LOT of movement going on. Those merchant complaints might be ubiquitous, but they are proving to be meritorious — after all, there is a real opening for competitors in card payments. That interchange fee has been a big moneymaker for Visa and Mastercard, but it looks like it could be their undoing. I work with a group working on the issue. Click on my link to check out our site — lots of good info there. If you want to know more about those complaints, you’ll find plenty of answers there.

  2. claudette hedgepeth Says:

    this is the best thing to happen with computer age it would be nice to order something and then pay for it without those high rates it really should be against the law they seem to do what ever they want i say habg in there and kep going going going please please thank you claudette o by the way the one that started this should be named best citizen of many years


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.