advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Cheapness Could Kill Walmart/Target Payments Effort

August 23rd, 2012

That flip—retailers exchanging cost and control for interchange—is what MCX is trying to reverse, and do it on the cheap through the magic of modern technology.

Let’s be realistic: MCX is driven by Finance types. It’s not about technology, nor is it particularly about mobile payments. If these guys could issue a single plastic card, complete with magstripe and embossed lettering, that could challenge Visa and MasterCard on interchange, MCX wouldn’t bother with mobile payments at all.

But let’s not dismiss the idea. Could MCX somehow re-create those massive 1960s card drops today, but using technology to cut the costs? To match the card brands’ saturation, MCX would have to get its payment system into the hands of at least one-quarter of the U.S. population. The payment system would have to be free to acquire and free to use. It would have to work as smoothly as the existing Visa/MasterCard system. And there would have to be a compelling reason for customers to switch.

Is it possible? Sure. Imagine a supersized, multi-retailer version of the Starbucks pay-with-phone approach. MCX could send a QR code to every U.S. smartphone, with instructions that the QR code could be scanned at POS to make purchases at select retailers and the total added to the customer’s mobile phone bill.

That would shove the cost of a billing system off on mobile operators, which would still want a transaction fee (but it might be a smaller bite than Visa/MasterCard). It would require getting the mobile operators on board, figuring out how to manage transaction security, and adding in-store signage and associate training.

Oh, and also spending millions on advertising to convince consumers that they really should flash their phones instead of pulling out a plastic card, which is the problem Google, ISIS and, in fact, everyone except Starbucks has failed to solve.

Of course, this ignores questions of whether such a mass delivery of QR codes is legal, what it would take to get mobile operators on board (especially after ISIS very pointedly decided not to get into the pay-by-phone billing business), and how to solve all the security, fraud and dispute issues that Visa/MasterCard have a 50-year head start on.

It’s possible to work around every one of those problems. All it takes is money.

Unless these retail chains are willing to throw a huge amount of money at this problem, they won’t catch Google, ISIS, the rapidly expanding PayPal or even the hesitant Apple in mobile payments. And if the purpose here is to get out from under interchange, they have to compete with Visa/MasterCard, which will involve even more money.

Money isn’t a perfect proxy for success in this game, but it’s close. And until MCX starts to commit some real money, it’s going nowhere.


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.