Singapore NFC Trial Rewards Users By Giving Them The Phones

Written by Fred J. Aun
April 8th, 2009

Here’s one way to get people to try using mobile phones to make retail payments: Give them the phones if they buy enough stuff.

That’s the deal being offered by Citibank Singapore, Visa payWave and mobile network M1 as part of a 3-month pilot program in Singapore. For the trial, which involves as many as 300 people, the companies are allowing participants to keep the Visa payWave-equipped Nokia 6212 Classic handsets if they make at least eight transactions with the phones each month.

“The aim of the pilot is to get feedback and insight into consumers’ mobile payment behavior and motivations,” said a statement announcing the trial.

This is hardly the first trial of mobile device payment technology using near-field communication (NFC). During recent years, Visa, and other credit card companies, have tried some creative programs to get folks using, or at least trying, mobile phones as payment devices. More than a year ago, about 230 Oakland, Ca., commuters were involved in a trial where they were issued NFC Samsung phones that could be used to directly pay for the subway, buy food from Jack In The Box restaurants and interact with underground posters to get directions. Six months ago, Visa ran a trial where consumers were able to transfer money using their phones to any other Visa users.

In the Singapore pilot, the phone users are able to make payments of as much as $100. The money is being deducted from their Visa card accounts. The phones work for purchases at more than 750 retailers in the nation.

In a statement, Citibank Singapore Business Director of Credit Payment Products John Denhof said mobile phone payment systems have “great potential to change the future of consumer behavior.” However, he acknowledged the existence of some daunting hurdles even in Singapore “which has one of the highest mobile phone penetration rates in the world.” Those challenges, said Denhof, include commercialization and scalability “in the current environment.”

With security rightfully being a major concern, and a big stumbling block to mobile payment adoption, the Singapore trial gives the testers three security options when using the Nokias to make purchases: They can set the phones to make payments without having to enter a passcode or confirmation, they can set them to display a prompt alerting them that a payment is being requested and asking them to give the OK or they can set them to require the entry of a 4-digit PIN before any payment is processed.

The problem with all but the first of these options is that they slow the payment process and, therefore, defeat just about the only real benefit to having a cellphone serve as a credit card. That problem is likely to be addressed during the Singapore trial by surveys of the participants to find out what they liked and disliked. “A post-pilot assessment will also be conducted to consolidate the trends in participants’ mobile payment behavior and experiences,” said the companies.


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.