About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

August 21, 2017


Are Our Wallets About to Get Thinner?

In February 2011, I was in Salt Lake City for the annual Smart Card Alliance conference, and a representative from the now-defunct Isis Mobile Wallet was delivering the keynote address. As part of the keynote, the speaker played a video clip from the Seinfeld show that famously depicts the "Costanza wallet," a wallet so overstuffed that it gave George a backache from sitting on it. The conference speaker had us imagining a world where our mobile phones replaced our physical wallets. Six-and-a-half years later, that world remains a dream. But are we closer to it, with private-label cards possibly leading the way?

As I was paying for my coffee this morning through a mobile phone app, it dawned on me that I haven't used a physical card for this specific retailer in at least three years. The retailer's mobile app has replaced my physical card, a private-label prepaid card, as my payments credential. I no longer have a need for the card at this retailer, nor do I want one—I'd prefer to keep my wallet from becoming a "Costanza wallet." And while my example describes a prepaid card, I believe that this retailer's model is indicative of what's on the horizon for private-label store credit cards as well.

I usually quickly turn down any offers for private-label credit cards at retailers. Even though these cards come with some sweet deals and benefits, I just don't want more plastic in my wallet. But what if this credential could be issued directly within the retailer's mobile application without ever issuing a plastic card? Sign me up!

I remain skeptical about the future of the so-called "pay wallets," but continue to believe that the future of mobile payments will be driven by retailers' mobile apps. And I think these mobile apps present these retailers the ideal opportunity to drive their private-label prepaid or credit adoption and usage without ever having to issue a plastic credential. If the credential that retailers issued were in electronic form, such as a token or virtual card, it could disrupt the plastic card industry—approximately 360 million credit and 4.5 billion prepaid cards in 2015, according to the Nilson Report. Plus, merchants would benefit by avoiding the cost of issuing and distributing cards.

So back to my original question: Are we closer to a world with thinner wallets, and with private-label cards possibly leading the way? I don't think our physical wallets will ever go away, but I do believe that they will slim down as we witness a substantial rise in the issuance of private-label virtual credentials in the future on a wide range of connected devices. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that these credentials will eventually overtake the number of physical cards. What do you think on the future of plastic in the private-label space? And what new challenges, if any, will the virtualization of plastic have on the personalization and authentication of payment credentials?

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 21, 2017 in cards, innovation | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 24, 2017


FIDO Tightens Authentication's Leash

Our blog often covers user authentication challenges confronting financial institutions and merchants. We feel this topic is essential given that consumers are increasingly going online to make payments and their passwords tend to be weak. Financial institutions and merchants face a difficult balancing act. They must be confident that their authentication tools effectively confirm the legitimacy of the individual attempting a transaction, but they also have to make sure these tools don't create a bad experience for the customer.

A meeting in 2009 between a fingerprint-sensor manufacturer and a global, third-party payment provider to fingerprint-enable online payments quickly turned into a conversation on how to develop an industry standard for the general use of biometrics to identify online users. Ultimately, this meeting led to the formation of the FIDO (Fast IDentity Online) Alliance in 2012. FIDO currently has a global membership of more than 250 companies and agencies spanning the payments, mobile, PC, and transaction security industries.

FIDO's principal effort has been to develop a set of specifications and certifications covering consumer devices, mobile and web applications, and biometric authentication methods for e-commerce applications. Products certified to these authentication specs reduce password dependence, transaction friction, and stolen password attacks such as phishing, man-in-the middle attacks, and transaction replays.

FIDO initially focused on mobile devices—which allow authentication with the fingerprint sensor, microphone, and camera—and developed the Universal Authentication Framework. This framework provides enhanced security using public-key cryptography, with the keys and biometric templates remaining on the mobile device. The user goes through a device registration process that creates the biometric template and a cryptographic key pair on the device and registers only the public key with the online service. To perform a transaction, the customer uses one of the phone's biometric sensors to unlock the private key on the device.

To expand these strong cryptographic authentication capabilities to second-factor use cases on the web, FIDO established a second set of specifications known as FIDO U2F, or Universal Second Factor protocol. With this protocol, the user inserts a certified U2F device, also known as a security key, into a device's USB port or uses the device's Bluetooth or near-field communication features. The application running in a FIDO-compliant web browser first challenges the user for a password and then authenticates the user with the cryptographic private key on the U2F device.

Authentication of customers, especially on a remote basis, will always be a challenge as criminals find more and more ways to spoof identities. The industry's efforts to increase the security of remote payments remain ongoing and the cooperative work demonstrated by groups such as the FIDO Alliance plays an important part in that effort.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 24, 2017 in banks and banking, biometrics, consumer fraud, consumer protection, identity theft, innovation, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 17, 2017


Staging the ATM

As the installation of the first automated teller machine (ATM) recently reached its 50th anniversary (48 years since the first U.S. installation), the core functionality of the present-day ATMs has changed very little. They remain primarily designed to provide customers with cash at their convenience, but now most full-function ATMs also accept deposits with image capture and currency counting capability. Sure, the machines of today are much more technologically sophisticated and reliable than the initial ones that were more mechanical in operation. The industry, however, has undergone some major changes.

Accessed by a magnetic stripe or chip card and authenticated using a PIN, the ATM has served consumers and financial institutions well. The 2016 Federal Reserve Payment Study showed that ATM withdrawal volume remained flat from 2012 through 2015 at approximately 5.8 billion transactions valued at $700 billion, or an average transaction value of $122.

Banks in a number of South American and Asian-Pacific countries have installed biometric sensors in their ATMs either to eliminate the need for payment cards and PINs or to serve as an additional authentication factor. However, a couple of major U.S. banks have taken a different path in a quest to eliminate the payment card and PIN; they have developed a staged transaction process using the customer's mobile phone. While there are some variations from bank to bank, the process generally works as follows:

  • The customer opens the mobile banking application using the normal authentication process.
  • The customer selects the ATM withdrawal option then identifies the ATM location and amount of withdrawal.
  • When at the designated ATM, the customer selects the function button on the ATM for a cardless transaction.
  • The next step depends on the particular bank.
    • Some banks display a 2D barcode on the ATM screen, which the mobile phone's camera reads to validate the transaction and dispense the requested amount of cash.
    • Other banks, to complete the transaction, may require the customer to enter both the normal payment card PIN and a numeric token value that the application sent to their phone when they made the transaction selection.

This technology offers banks a number of financial benefits over biometric readers. The barcode or token process requires only software development within the mobile banking application and ATM, so banks don't have to purchase, install, and maintain biometric hardware sensors. A drawback is that only the ATMs of the customer's own financial institution supports the staged transaction. In addition, card readers will have to remain a key component of ATMs to service customers of other banks as well as the bank's own customers who wish to continue to use their cards. Because criminals continue to insert card-skimming devices and cameras to capture card data and customer PINs—an industry-wide and global problem—the new functionality will only minimize, not prevent, such fraudulent activity.

Many financial institutions seem to be making a concerted effort to migrate customers from payment card-based transactions to options such as mobile pay wallets and now staged ATM transactions. Mobile wallet adoption rates by consumers have been low to date, so it will be interesting to see if the adoption rate of cardless ATM transactions will be any different. What do you think?

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 17, 2017 in banks and banking, innovation | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 10, 2017


Can Migrants Teach Us Anything about Millennials?

While attending a recent conference, I became involved in a discussion regarding millennials and their alleged rejection of banks. The other people in this conversation thought that this millennial mindset is negatively affecting banks and other financial institutions (FIs). One person cited a Goldman Sachs report that said 53 percent of millennials surveyed indicated they have no need for a bank in the near future. Another mentioned the Millennial Disruption Index, which found that 71 percent of millennials would prefer to go to the dentist than listen to what banks are saying.

It would come as no surprise to those who know me or have read some of my previous blogs on similar topics that I was the outlier in the conversation. And after reading Inter-American Dialogue's May 2017 report, On the Cusp of Change: Migrants’ Use of the Internet for Remittance Transfers, I feel as strongly as ever that this generation will, in fact, need banking relationships.

While the survey behind the report focused on migrants' use of remittance transfers, Inter-American Dialogue also surveyed migrants on bank account ownership. The survey found that over 70 percent of Mexican migrants in the United States own a bank account, up from only 29 percent in 2005. The report concludes, with support from additional survey data, that bank account ownership is predominantly a function of years being in the United States; those migrants here for 10 years or longer are much likelier to own a bank account.

While millennials may not need traditional FI products today as they wait longer to purchase homes and start families than did previous generations, I believe the day will come when they find they need FIs. Only then will we know whether that wait is shorter or longer than the 10 years it takes for most Mexican migrants to establish banking relationships. Millennials have a host of alternative financial products to choose from—and to ignore—but so do migrant workers. Yet we know that, eventually, most migrant workers recognize they need banks.

I am not suggesting that financial institutions simply wait for millennials to realize their need for a banking relationship. FIs should be actively pursuing new products or developing strategies to attract millennials to traditional products. As millennials establish themselves and grow more prosperous, I believe they will realize banking relationships are extremely important to that process. The notion that millennials never need banks is one that I am not buying (not even with my bitcoins). Are you?

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 10, 2017 in banks and banking, innovation | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 5, 2017


Responsible Innovation Part 1: Can Community Banks Remain Competitive?

The Atlanta Fed's Retail Payments Risk Forum recently co-hosted a summit with the United Kingdom's Department for International Trade to discuss faster payments and their effects on community financial institutions (FIs). In a series of three posts, I will share summaries of the lessons and implications that payments industry stakeholders discussed at the summit. A major theme of these discussions was whether community FIs can remain competitive independent of how they access a faster payments network. This post tackles this theme.

What networks were discussed at the summit?
United States United Kingdom
ACH (NACHA) ACH (Bacs)
Real-Time Payments (The Clearing House) Faster Payments (Faster Payments Scheme Ltd.)

The Faster Payments Scheme, or FPS, opened in the United Kingdom in 2008. The summit was a good opportunity to hear first-hand from one community banker's experience with the still-new system. A panelist from the first retail community bank to join the FPS discussed how access options played a role in the bank's ability to compete with large FIs.

  • In the beginning, the only way a community bank could access the FPS was through a sponsoring bank.
  • This option was expensive, hindering, and much like a newborn baby who needed attention all day and night (even on weekends), according to the panelist.
  • The FPS sends messages 24/7, in near-real time, but her bank's access model often caused a delay of 15 to 30 minutes, making the bank less than competitive.
  • Last year, the bank was able to join as a "Direct Participant" under the New Access Model,, an experience that the panelist compared to parenting a toddler who allows her to sleep through the night, even as it runs 24/7/365. The new model was also much more affordable and provided her community bank the near-real time model larger banks received. (The New Access Model that gives payment service providers and community FIs direct connection began in 2014, six years after the FPS began.)
  • The panelist did note a serious obstacle to this access model for the smaller banks: the onerous 12-month certification process to become a Direct Participant is tailored to large banks. The process required significant resources and strained other areas of her bank. She suggested that the certification take a risk-based approach.

Two developments on the way may affect future access options: (1) plans are set to consolidate Bacs, FPS, and Cheque; and (2) the Bank of England plans to grant settlement services to nonbank payment service providers.

The United States is facing a similar challenge: community FIs will have to choose how to access faster payment systems. Some community FIs have begun to offer same-day ACH and will likely consider real-time payments later this year.

Representatives from the Clearing House's Real-Time Payments initiative shared some details on their access model:

  • FIs of all sizes will be able to connect directly or through third-party service providers.
  • Regional payments associations will play an important role as they collectively represent all U.S. financial institutions plus third-party processors.
  • The speed will be the same for all participants.
  • Indirect participation will not be available.
  • Payments can be made 24/7/365.

While direct access is available for both same-day ACH and Real-Time Payments, some FIs may choose to use a sponsor or correspondent access model. To remain competitive, community FIs will have to understand the advantages and limitations that each access model provides.

The next installment in this series will discuss the U.S. market appetite for faster payments; the one after that will look at the impacts of adoption.

Photo of Jessica Washington  By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 5, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, innovation | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

March 28, 2016


Continuing Education in Mobile Payments Security

Just over a year ago, I wrote a post raising the question of which stakeholder or stakeholders in the payments ecosystem had the responsibility for educating consumers regarding payments security. As new payment technologies such as mobile devices, wearables, and the Internet of things gain acceptance and increased usage, who is stepping up not only to teach consumers how to use the devices but also how to do so in a safe and secure manner?

Since it is generally financial institutions that have the greatest financial risk for payment transactions because of the protective liability legislation that exists in the United States, this responsibility has fallen largely to them. However, this educational effort has become increasingly difficult since consumers generally acquire these new products at retail outlets or mobile carrier stores, where the financial institution has no direct contact with the consumer.

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) recently continued its ongoing efforts to provide educational information to consumers with the release of a guide to mobile payments. The guide is comprehensive, covering issues such as privacy, security of the mobile device, the dangers of malware, error resolution, and dispute procedures for mobile payments, and concludes with a humorous animated video that recaps some of the risks with mobile phones if they are not secured and used properly.

As an example, in its section on privacy, the guide offers the following tips:

  • Read the privacy policies of the companies whose services you are using to make mobile payments and the companies that you are paying.
  • If you don't like a company's privacy policy, take your business elsewhere.
  • Don't voluntarily provide information that is not necessary to use a product or service or make a payment.
  • Take advantage of the controls that you may be given over the collection and use of your personal information.
  • Since mobile payments, like all electronic payments, leave a trail, if there are transactions that you would prefer to make anonymously, pay with cash.

Kudos to the CFA for its work on this effort. I hope you will read the guide and spread the word about the availability of this valuable resource. It is through the combined efforts of the payments stakeholders that we can work to improve the knowledge level of all parties involved and promote secure usage.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

March 28, 2016 in consumer protection, innovation, mobile banking, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

February 8, 2016


Will Biometrics Breed Virtual Clones?

In the middle of last November, our group, the Retail Payments Risk Forum, hosted a conference on the application of biometrics for banking applications. For me, one of the important "ah-ha" moments from the conference was hearing about the potential downside to the technology. While the various speakers and panelists certainly pointed out the powerful security improvements that could result from an increased use of biometrics, there were also thoughtful contributions about what could go wrong. To illustrate one of these downsides, let me take you back to the breach that occurred at the United States' Office of Personnel Management (OPM) earlier this year. For those who may have applied for a position with a government agency over the last 20 years or so, the form letter notifying you of the potential breach of your personal data read like this:

Since you applied for a position or submitted a background investigation form, the information in our records may include your name, Social Security number, address, date and place of birth, residency, educational and employment history, personal foreign travel history, information about immediate family as well as business and personal acquaintances, and other information used to conduct and adjudicate your background investigation.
Our records also indicate your fingerprints were likely compromised during the cyber intrusion. Federal experts believe the ability to misuse fingerprint data is currently (emphasis mine) limited.… If new means are identified to misuse fingerprint data, additional information and guidance will be made available.

The conference made clear, to me anyway, that fingerprint data certainly has the potential to be misused—now. Experience leads me to conclude that it is bound to happen, especially if the biometric measurements captured at enrollment are not converted to templates that mask the data.

Biometrics are sure to proliferate in the next few years. I think everyone ought to pause and consider whether or not the security advantages—that have the potential to be turned against us in a moment—are worth it. Consider a future breach and the subsequent form letter from some entity that has built biometrics into its payment process. It could include all of those things noted in the OPM excerpt above. Additionally, victims could also have to be told that their iris, facial, and voice prints along with their DNA were taken. A virtual clone masquerading as me makes me shudder. Imagine standing up when they ask for the real you to do so—and then the dismay at not being believed.

The work to advance biometric security needs not just to be focused on advancing the accuracy and efficacy of the usage, but also to have a heavy emphasis on protecting the data collected—while it's collected and used and when it's at rest, in storage. And no matter how good all of that work is, I hope that choices for transacting business remain. Cash, which requires no authentication, and paper checks, which authenticate with a signature, figure to provide useful alternatives for quite some time.

Photo of Julius Weyman By Julius Weyman, vice president, Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

February 8, 2016 in authentication, biometrics, data security, identity theft, innovation | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

February 1, 2016


Putting All Our Payment Eggs in a Single Basket

More than 60 percent of risk managers at financial services firms believe the probability of a global, "high-impact event" has increased of late, according to a new survey from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Worry over actual or potential cyberattacks underpins this belief. In a discussion about the survey, a colleague lamented the invention of computers and wished that our financial transactions hadn't become so dependent on technology. At first I thought to agree until it dawned on me that this thinking is tantamount to tossing the baby with the bathwater.

The problem revolves around thieves, not their tools. We have never been free from worry over theft, and this was true when our best computer was an abacus. When the Aztecs used chocolate for money, counterfeiters of the day took the cacao bean, separated the original contents from the husk, and repacked it with mud. And still, in any place where commerce is overly cash-based, thieves tend to concentrate their efforts, targeting the most vulnerable with everything from counterfeit notes to outright theft. The digital age did not usher in larceny; thieves have always stolen, and hiding from computers won't insulate us from bad guys.

But hold up, you say. A block chain—the part of bitcoin technology that ensures anonymity—just might insulate you. Not to take away hope, but what have we ever invented that hasn't been hacked, cracked, or abused? I can think of nothing, no matter how cleverly conceived or well defended, that isn't eventually defeated.

I don't despair over it all and will say why in a moment, but first I need to note that even with a long list of advances, both in how and what we exchange, the new has not eradicated the old. Coins survived the advent of paper. And despite decades-old, recurring predictions of their looming demise, both coins and paper have survived the magic of computing. As a result, despair gives way to cheer. There are options, and plenty of them.

Options—different forms of payments based on diverse platforms and premises—make for textbook risk mitigation. First of all, what survives gets better. It must so that it can survive. Consider what bills look like today, with their numerous anticounterfeiting elements, compared to what they looked like 20 years ago. Or consider when checks dominated fraud conversations and contrast that to their relative (un)importance in fraud conversations today. Moreover, multiple payment channels and options mean less concentration of risk. To the extent that cash, checks, and more remain—"cyberstuff" too, but with the cyber-world diversified, not overly consolidated—risk can be spread and hence reduced.

An advanced society that wants to endure, stay resilient and strong cannot rely on only one means of exchange based on only one platform. For those wishing for one or just fewer, more modern payment solutions (with apologies to all paper haters), my advice is be careful what you wish for. For the average consumer, my advice is pay attention to the "payments intelligentsia" and be wary of pushes for an advanced, universal, singular way to do payments. Be particularly wary of changes that aren't being called for by the market itself. We can never eliminate risk but we can mitigate it and minimize the extent that bad people can create widespread trouble.

Photo of Julius Weyman By Julius Weyman, vice president, Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

February 1, 2016 in cybercrime, fraud, identity theft, innovation, payments risk | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 9, 2015


Is the Payment Franchise Up for Grabs?

I have lost count on the number of discussions at payment conferences over the last few years on this topic of financial institutions (FI) losing the payment franchise to various new payment start-ups and business models. This very topic was the focus of a session at the Code/Mobile conference in October that featured executives from Chase and PayPal debating "Will Banks Eat Payments, or Will Payments Eat The Banks?" This idea was stuck on my mind while I was recently reading Fidelity National Information Service's 2015 Consumer Banking Index Report. This report reveals the findings from a survey of a thousand household decision makers who ranked 18 attributes according to their importance and according to the respondents' perception of how well banks perform. I readily admit that one shouldn't read too much into the results of a single survey, but the results in the payments and product-related category really grabbed my attention.

blog-visual

Consumer expectations for their financial institution to provide digital payment options through more innovative products than other financial institutions scored extremely low in the importance category. Digital payments ranked as the 14th out of 18 attributes in importance, and delivering leading-edge products was the least important attribute surveyed. Though the importance of these two attributes was significantly lower than security and reliability attributes, consumers rated the performance of their financial institution on these two attributes favorably.

My interpretation of the survey is that consumers aren't expecting much from their FI when it comes to delivering digital payments and innovative products yet the FIs are exceeding these light expectations. The survey does not cover whether consumers place importance on others—say, non-bank payment providers—offering innovative products and payment options and how they are delivering on consumers' expectations.

If consumers expect non-FIs to provide digital payment options, then perhaps FIs are in danger of losing the payments franchise. Maybe consumers don't place a lot of importance on digital payment options because they are satisfied with the options their FIs provide and so the risk to FIs losing the payment franchise to non-FIs is low.

It's possible that the consumer falls somewhere in the middle of the two scenarios above. They may be pleased with the offerings of their FIs, which offer ubiquity and are not highly differentiated, so their expectations for options are low. The non-FI payments space is fragmented with new payment options being developed and deployed at a rapid pace that will take time for consumers to digest. Should consumers realize that any of these offerings present a significant improvement in the payments experience, they may raise their expectations for their FIs. This would suggest that the non-FI providers haven't fully delivered on a compelling, ubiquitous, and widely adopted offering yet.

I believe FIs remain firmly entrenched in the payment space today. However, the level of investment and innovation taking place in the industry should capture the FIs' attention. Consumers, me included, are a finicky bunch when it comes to expectations, and these expectations can change almost instantly with the amount of innovation occurring today. I see no reason why the digital payments arena would be any different, and FIs that fail to realize this as they consider future payment options risk a declining share of the payment franchise.

By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

November 9, 2015 in banks and banking, innovation, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 31, 2015


A Swing and a Miss

"Keep your eyes on the ball." I'm guessing my son heard those words at least 20 times a game this past baseball season. If you can't follow the ball, then your chances of a successful plate appearance are pretty slim.

Departing from the usual risk-related prose and taking a signal from the blog's name Take On Payments, I want to offer my thoughts on mobile payments. This topic floods my payments news feeds and is the subject du jour at nearly every payments-related event. Mobile payments can mean many things to many people, but one of the hottest areas is mobile at the point of sale (POS), also known as proximity payments—that is, what Apple Pay, Starbucks, and Samsung Pay among others all offer.

And this is where I think the payments industry is taking its eyes off the ball. Why do consumers want to use mobile phones to replace cash or cards at the POS? A key barrier cited by consumers who have not adopted mobile proximity payments is their satisfaction with current payment methods. So what is the best way to get consumers to use their mobile devices to replace cash or cards at the POS?

The mobile phone has significantly changed the way people interact. It's almost comical to me that the device has retained the word phone. While there will always be people who want to hear a voice or interact directly with another person, the mobile device is turning us into a society that prefers messaging over speaking and interacting through the device rather than face to face. (My nieces text each other while sitting in the same room!) Furthermore, we have come to expect information to be readily available to us whenever and wherever we desire it. People don't like waiting, and the mobile device has intensified this impatience. To understand consumer behavior in light of this mobile revolution, we don't have to look any further than the reduction of bank branches and staffing coupled with the rise of mobile banking solutions.

Yet the proximity payment solutions don't address consumer behavior with their mobile devices. I understand merchants valuing the ability of proximity payments to provide loyalty programs and targeted offers, but do these extra services really address consumers' core needs and wants? It seems to have worked for Starbucks in a closed-loop environment but has yet to be replicated in an open-loop environment. (Closed loop means that the payment is usable only at a provider's place of business, as for the Starbucks app. Open loop means the payment, like Apple Pay, is usable anywhere that has the infrastructure to read the app.)

By keeping the focus on the consumer, it seems to me that the mobile payments industry can work on reducing the physical interaction of payments and current wait times associated with the payment process. Uber, Chipotle, and the Starbucks mobile app are evolving to address these consumer needs. These apps essentially remove the payment from the POS (some would say that they make the payment invisible) and allow for minimal personal interaction and waiting times.

Hence, I predict the growth of mobile payments will come not from the POS but rather through mobile in-app payments. That's where I'd be setting my sights on the mobile payments diamond. Perhaps this will create a healthy discussion (hopefully not a bench-clearing brawl), but I think mobile at the POS is a swing and a miss. What do you think?

Photo of Douglas A. King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed


August 31, 2015 in innovation, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


October 2017


Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad