advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

PayPal’s In-Store Mobile Pitch Doesn’t Seem To Know Problems Even Exist

September 21st, 2011

Fortunately for PayPal, it has other—apparently completely independent—mobile-payment ideas. Another demo has a customer scanning items at the grocery store as she shops, paying online and then waving her E-receipt at the checkout cashier as she walks out. What could be simpler? OK, what could be simpler once you’ve solved the loss-prevention problems associated with completely unsupervised self-checkout? If PayPal’s solution is an LP employee at the door item-checking every customer without a printed receipt, this isn’t exactly an advance.

Another PayPal offering is conventional mag-stripe cards with PINs. That seems like the least problematic one—every retailer has card-swipe terminals (even though Visa would love to get rid of them as quickly as possible), and everyone knows how to use them. But even PayPal’s entry in the Visa-wannabe category cuts security by removing the raised number from the card. That means no thief can copy the account number off the card, but no cashier can confirm that the mag-stripe matches the number physically embossed on the card.

Yet another PayPal pitch: Let customers shop in-store but use an app to scan barcodes to put items in a shopping cart on the retailer’s Web site and then pay online (with PayPal, of course) and have the merchandise delivered to their home. That offers all the advantages of seeing, touching and comparing merchandise in the store but with what’s unquestionably mobile payment.

Of course, any mobile customer can already look around a store and then buy online. The problem for retailers is figuring out a way to keep in-store customers from deciding on an item and then pulling out their phones and buying it from some other retailer online, so that the store the customer is standing in actually loses the sale because of mobile. There’s no sign that PayPal has solved that problem either.

And although PayPal insists it’s not doing coupons or promotions, just payments, it’s also offering up Foursquare-and-Shopkick-style check-ins that ping a customer who is near a store and offer coupons and credits. Those certainly have potential CRM appeal for retailers. But there’s no sign that PayPal has solved the geolocation problems of automatically identifying a customer’s location.

None of these problems should be insurmountable for PayPal. Or maybe they will be—there are reasons why the mobile-payment start-ups PayPal bought didn’t set the in-store world afire on their own. PayPal has the money and the payment infrastructure to at least mount a credible challenge to the payment-card brands. If anyone can kick the legs out from under interchange, it’s PayPal. That’s the most appealing thing about what PayPal is pushing.

But it’s nowhere nearly enough yet to make PayPal a meaningful mobile player.


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.