Starbucks, Target, In Largest U.S. Mobile Payment Trial

Written by Evan Schuman
April 7th, 2010

A very limited trial of a mobile payment application that Starbucks introduced in October 2009 has suddenly become very-not-limited. The covert, cashless coffee collaboration now tops 1,000 stores nationwide, courtesy of a deal with Target. This is likely the most extensive mobile payment trial to date in the U.S..

The original program allowed for consumers in some 16 West Coast Starbucks (eight stores in Seattle and eight more near Silicon Valley: Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Jose) to directly pay for Starbucks offerings via their iPhones.

That app, called Starbucks Mobile Card, allows consumers to enter their Starbucks loyalty card number and then to see balances and related information. It also allows consumers to enter a credit/debit card number and to use that payment card to add money to their Starbucks CRM card. Consumers walking into a Starbucks could then show their phone’s screen and allow it to be scanned as payment, in lieu of using the actual CRM card.

The new deal extends that presumably successful program to 1,002 Target stores, which already have Starbucks locations inside. The program now includes iPods as well as iPhones (could iPads be far behind?).

The program also integrates CRM functionality, allowing consumers to set up and register a Starbucks Card, check their Starbucks Card balance and reload their Starbucks Card using a payment card.

The potential significance of such a large-scale trial—especially given the three powerful players behind it: Target, Starbucks and Apple—to mobile payment can’t be overstated. But it will also be far too easy to overanalyze the results.

The initial favorable results from the October Starbucks trial may not prove to be that meaningful. Many of those sales may have been driven by the “gee whiz” novelty aspect, activity that would likely drop sharply over time. That skew is magnified by an order of magnitude because of the high-tech young consumer communities in which the trials were conducted. Seattle, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Jose are hardly a diverse representation of American communities.

So, on the plus side, this 1,002-store Target rollout will likely yield much more credible results. If the Target consumers react favorably across the country, that’s much more than a large trial. Such diversity means the results—if the trial runs long enough—could be an almost precise predictor of national acceptance.

However, there are some substantial mobile payment hurdles. Retailers are madly in love with the idea of mobile payment because of its efficiency, the potential tonnage of CRM data that a phone could deliver, the almost ubiquitous nature of a mobile device (consumers would suddenly almost always have their loyalty card on them) and the slight possibility of eventually escaping or minimizing interchange costs.

But as has happened so often (think self-checkout and the early ATM rollouts), just because businesses embrace new technology doesn’t mean consumers will. Retailers often forget to give consumers a reason to embrace the options. At least with the ATM rollouts, banks quickly adopted their “you’ll use it because you have little choice” tone. That seems unlikely to be an effective technique here, though.

Once the novelty wears off—and in the absence of discounts being offered to use the phones—will consumers stick with it? It’s hard to say. On the plus side, there are honest-to-goodness advantages for consumers to use mobile payment. On the down side, it is a definite change in behavior, with no concrete advantages. Is mobile really going to be faster than whipping out your MasterCard?

Then there are the security/privacy issues, both real and imagined. To make mobile payment work easily, there should be not only the aforementioned discounts offered to get people comfortable but an aggressive in-store advertising campaign stressing the security features. That approach is 50 times more critical now that the trial has moved away from Seattle and Silicon Valley.

Besides, after Starbucks admitted last year to double-charging one million consumer transactions, more than its assurance that mobile payments are secure may be needed.


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.