Most Consumers Use Alternative Payments On Mobile, A Complete Reversal Of Desktop Pattern

Written by Evan Schuman
June 6th, 2012

When an E-Commerce firm this week analyzed two months of recent online shopping data (for all of April and May), it found an interesting disconnect between shoppers using a mobile device versus those using a desktop device. When using a laptop or desktop, 62 percent of shoppers used a payment card, with the remaining 38 percent going for an alternative payment (PayPal, Amazon Payments, Google Checkout, etc.). But when those same shoppers worked with the same retailers using an iPhone, iPad or Android device, 67 percent of them opted for alternative payments.

This research from vendor ShopVisible—where they examined about 23,000 transactions—is pretty much explained by the need for mobile shoppers to use “the fewest thumb taps that they can,” said ShopVisible CEO Sean Cook. That makes sense, but it’s not necessarily the case that alternative payments require fewer keystrokes. The various one-click mobile efforts—from Amazon and others—can match, if not better, the fewest keystroke options from PayPal and others.

The data examined looked at 86 retailers, whose annual E-Commerce revenue ranged from about $5 million to $100 million. That certainly raises the question of whether customers might interact differently with those sites than when dealing with major chains making many billions in revenue.

The vendor said that the most popular of the third-party payment methods in their research was PayPal, which represented 16.8 percent of all desktop payments. (ShopVisible didn’t break out how the third parties split revenue for mobile.)

Was this solely a reduced keystroke issue or was PayPal a much more famous—and, therefore, comforting—brand than some of the smaller retailers examined? With data breach reports becoming commonplace and mobile devices notorious for having weaker security than their desktop older cousins, could it have been the comfort of a major brand that made shoppers make that choice?

To be clear, Visa, MasterCard and American Express are certainly major brands, but they rarely offer quick and easy payment entry options. And as PCI aficionados will stress, Visa payments do rely on the security methods of the retailer, whereas PayPal can be a more direct mechanism. Hence, the issue of trust of that retailer brand is still a major issue.

That’s why it would be so interesting to see this exact study done examining this same question with the top 25 retailers. The split that ShopVisible found may or may not apply to major retail chains.

Retail size aside, the implications of this mid-market survey are clear: Speed of payment entry will dictate payment method chosen, assuming all else is equal. The closer chains can get to one-click speed for all payments, the better.


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.