Wal-Mart And Chip-And-PIN: Where’s the Business Case?

Written by Walter Conway
May 26th, 2010

A 403 Labs QSA, PCI Columnist Walt Conway has worked in payments and technology for more than 30 years, 10 of them with Visa.

Wal-Mart is waging an aggressive campaign to get the U.S. to adopt Chip-and-PIN (EMV). What I don’t understand is why Wal-Mart is doing this. What is the business case?

I can imagine a few scenarios, but none seems to be the answer. This issue is important to every retail CIO, so we need to understand what Chip-and-PIN will and won’t do, in addition to what the business case, if any, is for the U.S. and other markets to convert from magnetic-stripe cards to Chip-and-PIN cards.

Personally, I wish I had an EMV chip card today. I really do. When I travel to Europe, I’d love to be able to ride a Velib rental bike in Paris or buy my rail ticket from a self-serve kiosk instead of waiting in line, but these services take only chip cards. I would gladly pay my U.S. card issuer extra for the option of an EMV card.

Although I’ve heard stories about travelers having their mag-stripe-only cards rejected by European merchants, this has never happened to me, even in small villages. My own reaction is that while merchants may sigh and pity me, and my card’s backward technology, the problem is more likely to be that they prefer cash. When that’s the case, I just find an ATM (many of which still rely on even the chip card’s mag stripe anyway) and go with local currency.

What I don’t get, though, is why Wal-Mart wants me to have a chip card. What’s in it for them? I’ll begin by ruling out altruism. That means I’m looking for a business justification.

Will Chip-And-PIN Ease Its PCI Burden Or Reduce Its Compliance Costs?

Not really, as we’ve noted before, because Chip-and-PIN won’t help much. Retailers will still have key-entered transactions; mail order and telephone order (MOTO) transactions aren’t going away; call centers will continue to exist; E-Commerce transactions won’t be affected; and back-office operations that use the PAN will continue to do so.

If It Isn’t PCI, Could There Be A Competitive Reason?

For example, Wal-Mart may be ready to make the transition to Chip-and-PIN, but are other retailers equally prepared? Are smaller merchants or chains that do not have the global reach and technology capabilities of a Wal-Mart ready to implement Chip-and-PIN? Moving to Chip-and-PIN would place a technical and financial burden on these competitors and give Wal-Mart an advantage. Personally, I find this reason a bit too Machiavellian to believe. (Actually, I really don’t want to believe this one.)

Is Wal-Mart Looking For An Interchange Fee Break?

If U.S. card issuers decide to move to Chip-and-PIN, they may need to offer merchants an incentive to make the necessary upgrades to their POS and other systems. Years ago, the card brands successfully offered incentive interchange reimbursement fees (anyone else remember TIIF?) to get merchants to install electronic POS terminals. Maybe Wal-Mart thinks history will repeat itself, and that it will benefit more than most from reduced interchange?

European issuers (beginning in France) introduced Chip-and-PIN cards because a phone call cost too much. The cost to authorize a card transaction back to the issuer was so expensive that issuers and merchants had to find an alternative. The result was Chip-and-PIN, which can authenticate a card and cardholder at the POS and minimize the need to call the issuer to authorize the specific transaction. You could think of Chip-and-PIN as a high-tech floor limit.

Chip-and-PIN never took off in the U.S. market, though, for several reasons. First, it costs almost nothing to authorize a card transaction. Phone calls are cheap, so a merchant with a POS terminal (which is a glorified phone, after all) can authorize a transaction with the issuer. And an issuer authorization is the gold standard, better than simply authenticating the card and cardholder.

Second, chip cards cost more to produce than magnetic-stripe cards (although the cost difference is shrinking) and U.S. issuers and merchants do not want to spend extra money either on cards or sophisticated terminals and PIN entry devices.

Another reason Chip-and-PIN hasn’t taken off in the U.S. market is that issuer fraud losses are low. With their investment in sophisticated systems and ability to analyze every transaction as it is authorized (which is not possible under Chip-and-PIN because there are fewer authorizations), issuers have reduced fraud to a level they seem to be able to live with.

So I come back to my original question: Why is Wal-Mart pushing so hard for Chip-and-PIN? Consumers aren’t yelling for Chip-and-PIN because they are already protected from fraudulent card use. And the banks that bear the fraud risk don’t seem to think it’s worth the investment. Although, as a consumer, I hope Wal-Mart is successful, and I have no doubt that the U.S. and every other market will convert to chip cards some day, I don’t understand the giant retailer’s sudden enthusiasm.

What do you think? Clearly I’m missing something. I’d like to hear your thoughts, particularly if you are a European or Canadian merchant. What is your experience? Either leave a comment or E-mail me.


4 Comments | Read Wal-Mart And Chip-And-PIN: Where’s the Business Case?

  1. Ketharaman Swaminathan Says:

    When I read this news item yesterday, I was wondering in my blog whether Wal-Mart will succeed with EMV where they didn’t with their former push for the adoption of RFID a few years ago. At the time, the thought that crossed me about why Wal-Mart is doing this was, they have rightly or wrongly placed a large order for POS machines that support EMV cards, so must make sure people use EMV cards! I’m sure I’m wrong, but this is just another view…

  2. James Balin Says:

    It’s a clear win for Wal-Mart in interchange reduction if they can get Chip & PIN. PIN allows them the same advantage they fought with debit against the card brands – choice in which debit network processes the transaction and steering those transactions to a cheaper network thereby raising the stakes for competition and driving down costs for processing.

  3. Roger Leyden Says:

    It is high time that the USA adopted EMV Cards. They have been working very successfully in Europe for the past number of years and if it takes a giant such as Wal-Mart to start the implementation then I wish them the very best.

  4. AJ Clark Says:

    Maybe the flaws in the EMV Card should be fixed before they’re more widely adopted.


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.