advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

MasterCard’s Retail Data Grab: Forget PayPal, It’s About Chains

March 26th, 2013

Only about one-third of PayPal’s accounts get paid with credit cards, and Wall Street analysts figure PayPal will swallow the charge. PayPal’s card network, Discover (NYSE:DFS), says it won’t mimic MasterCard’s new charge. Visa (NYSE:V) and American Express (NYSE:AXP) are noncommittal. And exactly how Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) and Apple (which uses a PayPal-like “staged” arrangement for purchases from its own stores through iTunes accounts) will deal with this remains unknown.

And then there’s MCX. No, it doesn’t exist yet. But it’s being designed specifically for the twin purposes of cutting interchange costs and letting chains keep control of CRM data. That makes it the blood-enemy of card brands.

If MasterCard’s SDWOANAF is supposed to nudge third-party wallets toward more transaction-data sharing, that’s something wallet operators might be able to work with because they have cards in the loop anyway. It’s really just a technical challenge. Apparently “asking nicely” isn’t in the Card Brand Official Playbook.

There’s an irony here: Google Wallet, which signed up MasterCard as its first card brand, tried storing card numbers on phones, the way MasterCard and the banks prefer. But banks were so slow to provision their cards to the phones—we’re talking weeks here—that Google finally gave up and went cloud-based. Now MasterCard is slapping Google with a fee for working around the issuers’ foot-dragging.)

But MCX is the anti-card. It’s only going to be really worthwhile for chains if customers pay directly from bank accounts, either with debit or ACH. MCX wants to cut out credit-card transactions and their effectively unlimited interchange.

Until now, the biggest reason for large chains to have misgivings about MCX was Walmart (NYSE:WMT)—every other chain’s biggest competitor and MCX’s biggest backer. It’s still true that MCX is first and foremost about Walmart. Everyone else is along for the not entirely comfortable ride. And of all the big chains that have paid to sign up with MCX, most probably figured it would take something very big to make them feel a lot better about it.

MasterCard may be that very big thing. For the first time, a card brand is making it crystal clear that it really cares about something besides interchange.

Maybe that shouldn’t be so surprising after all. MasterCard’s issuers have their own loyalty programs. They compete for “ownership” of customers. The more CRM data they can collect, the more they can work those customers in profitable ways. And the biggest source issuing banks have for CRM data is what comes by way of the retailer’s POS.

It’s too early to say that CRM data is the new interchange—but we’re now a lot closer.


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.