The post IoT and the future of payments appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Expansion in the use of mobile payments over time has corresponded with an increase in smartphone ownership. In 2011, 44% of mobile phones were smartphones. By 2015, the share had increased to 76%.

This chartbook presents findings from a nationally representative telephone survey, undertaken by The Pew Charitable Trusts, that examined consumers’ opinions, experiences, and expectations of mobile payments. The survey followed focus groups that Pew previously convened as a first step in understanding consumers’ views on the potential benefits and risks of mobile payments. Specifically, this chartbook reports statistics on consumers’ awareness and perceptions of mobile payments technology, their usage and motives for use, and any barriers to usage. The key findings are:

• Mobile payments users – consumers who have made an online or POS purchase, paid a bill, or sent or received money using a Web browser, text message, or app on a smartphone – are more likely than nonusers to be millennials or Generation Xers, live in metropolitan areas, and have bank accounts and college or postgraduate degrees. Of these demographic categories, age is the most predictive of mobile payments use, particularly as it relates to smartphone ownership. (See the appendix for the demographics of mobile payments users and nonusers.)
• Making a purchase through a smartphone Web browser or downloaded app is the most common mobile payments activity.
• Consumers see a number of benefits to using mobile payments, particularly receiving alerts, electronic receipts, rewards, discounts, and help with budgeting.
• Consumers often don’t know how mobile payments compare with other payment methods in terms of convenience, cost, privacy, and security.
• Barriers to usage include concerns about the safety of mobile payments technology, which might result in identity theft or the loss of funds, and poor compatibility with cash-based transactions.
• Consumers want the data they generate by use of mobile payments to be secure and protected and access to it to be limited across entities, from phone carriers to app developers and advertisers.

The charts that follow delve into these findings and highlight the advantages that consumers associate with mobile payments usage and the barriers that may prevent people from adopting or safely using this technology.

Many consumers, including a large number who have never made a mobile payment, have heard of different mobile payment activities, such as using a smartphone to make online or point-of-sale purchases or pay bills.

Mobile payments users are consumers who have made an online or point-of-sale purchase, paid a bill, or sent or received money using a Web browser, text message, or app on a smartphone. Users are more likely than nonusers to be millennials or Generation Xers, live in metropolitan areas, and have bank accounts and college or postgraduate degrees. Of these demographic categories, age is the most predictive of mobile payments use, particularly as it relates to smartphone ownership.

Getting a smartphone is the most common catalyst cited for adoption of mobile payments technology, and millennials and Gen Xers are far more likely than those from older generations to own smartphones. The majority of basic phone owners (77%) say they are unlikely to buy a smartphone in the next year, meaning the age gap in smartphone ownership will probably persist. Smartphone ownership also varies dramatically by annual household income. Only 53% of consumers earning less than $25,000 annually own a smartphone compared with 81% of those earning $50,000 or more annually.

Mobile payments use varies by type of activity and with age, with more millennials having used their smartphones to make a purchase through a smartphone Web browser or downloaded app than to send or receive funds. Overall, few consumers make payments or donations by sending text messages. PayPal’s smartphone app is the most commonly used, ahead of Google Wallet, Apple Pay, and the Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts apps, and millennial and Gen X smartphone owners are more likely than those from the baby-boom or silent generations to have used these apps, except for Dunkin’ Donuts.

Millennials and Gen Xers in particular are motivated to use mobile payments in part because they like receiving rewards, discounts, alerts, and electronic receipts. Consumers are also interested in avoiding fees, such as overdraft or check cashing fees, and using their smartphones to help them budget. In fact, research shows that consumers are using smartphones to help with budgeting more than in previous years.

Consumers cite a variety of barriers to mobile payments use; the most common is concern about safety, specifically the risk of identity theft or loss of funds. Some obstacles vary by generation, with older consumers being less informed about the benefits of mobile payments and millennials being especially concerned about running out of data on their phone plans. The use of cash to make payments is cited across generations as a barrier, because cash cannot be easily loaded onto a smartphone. Cash is still a very common payment method, and consumers average about 8.5 retail cash purchases a month.

Nearly half of respondents say they don’t know whether mobile payments are faster, easier, or more private than other transaction types, and even more do not know if mobile payments are more common, cheaper, or safer. Reducing this uncertainty, especially about the safety of the technology, could increase use.

Mobile payments use is related to more favourable perceptions of the technology in terms of convenience, cost, privacy, and security. Users agree more often than nonusers that mobile payments are faster, easier, more common, cheaper, more private, and safer than other payment methods.

Consumers often assume that financial institutions, retailers, and others are collecting information about them, including tracking their locations when they execute financial transactions. In the focus groups, a number of consumers expressed moderate discomfort with the sharing of their personal information. About 8 in 10 survey respondents, with general consistency across political parties, say that steps should be taken to regulate how data are collected, stored, and used.

In focus groups, participants were generally unaware of which personal data are collected when they conduct mobile transactions or how those data are used. They also did not know whether or to what extent their privacy is compromised. When asked specifically who they think should have access to these data, only about half of respondents say that the payment sender should have access, and far fewer (5%) agree that advertisers should have access.

Conclusion

Age explains some but not all attitudes about mobile payments. About 90% of millennials and 83% of Gen Xers own smartphones, and individuals in these generations constitute the majority (72%) of mobile payments users. They are especially compelled by the option to receive rewards, discounts, alerts, electronic receipts, and help with budgeting and to avoid fees and are the most likely age groups to say mobile payments are faster and easier than other payment methods.

Across generations, concern about the safety of mobile payments technology is the biggest obstacle to use. Specifically, consumers are concerned about the potential for identity theft or loss of funds. Consumers of all ages cite the use of cash as a payment method as a barrier, because cash cannot be easily loaded onto a smartphone. And customers often don’t know how mobile payments compare with other payment methods in terms of convenience, cost, privacy, and security.

The growing mobile payments market has the potential to provide a convenient, affordable way for Americans to transact and manage their money. Yet concerns and uncertainty about the safety of mobile transactions and the lack of systems for depositing cash directly onto mobile websites and smartphone apps may be holding back this technology. Addressing these deficiencies could increase adoption, allowing consumers to take full advantage of the potential of mobile financial products to deliver safe and secure transactions.

The post Who uses mobile payments? appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Advancements in digital technology continued to shape the payments industry in 2015 as mobile,

 Digital Payments Report 2016

online and other digital forms of payments moved into the mainstream.

From mass transit to gas stations and supermarkets, businesses of all sizes, across all the regions surveyed, now accept various types of digital payment, making paying for goods and services quicker, but above all, easier for the consumer.

While this seems very encouraging, what does the landscape look like beyond 2016?

The Digital Payments Report set out to survey and evaluate all the Payment industry stakeholders from the three major payments markets in the world: Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. The industry survey respondents were largely senior executives from Card Issuers and Acquirers, Retail Banks, Financial Institutions, Payment Networks, Mobile Network Providers and FinTech suppliers.

The responses across the regions offer a unique insight into how the Payments industry is evolving in 2016 and beyond.

Download the REPORT HERE

The post Digital Payments Report 2016 appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Thinking ahead from the past is always fraught with hazards. When it comes to the future of digital payments, it may be a case of same-same but different. Various technologies, propositions and use cases will continue to co-exist in the digital payments future.

“We believe the pace of change taking place in the payments industry is going to increase as digital technology continues to advance,” says E-bai Koo, senior vice president, global network business, American Express. “While the number of digital payment options is growing, we believe it is too early to determine whether any one platform or form factor will win out. Customers adopt new technologies when they meet their current needs better than how they are being met today.”

For John Berns, managing partner, Accourt, co-author of the Digital Payments Report 2016, various factors are coming together to drive the perfect storm for digital payments.

“Historically innovation has generally been hardware-driven so you have had to wait and catch the innovation wave. For example, no-one upgrades to the latest model of digital television immediately. Consumers only adopt new technology as and when their old device or technology reaches the end of its natural life or breaks down,” says Berns.

“The payments industry has invested heavily in EMV so I think that this will be the consumer interface for some while to come in the physical world — and the survey results particularly around contactless reaching critical mass bear this out. In the digital world, however, it’s a complete revolution.”

“Consumer adoption of new digital payment methods will be far more rapid as you’ve got the perfect storm as technology, regulation and social desire to operate via a single device are coming together.”

NFC contactless: the de facto standard

Contactless payments are growing strongly and NFC technology will be one of the drivers of digital payments at point of sale (POS). The Smart Payments Association reports that around 40 percent of chip cards shipped in 2014 included contactless functionality. Meanwhile on the acceptance side, 9.5 million NFC-capable terminals were shipped globally in 2014. This represented a 33 percent increase on 2013, bringing the worldwide installed base to 21.4 million units, according to Swedish research firm Berg Insight. 

Although consumers can already make higher value contactless payments, typically for payments more than €50, by authenticating themselves with their fingerprint or PIN on their mobile devices, this is currently only available at selected merchants. However, the acceptance infrastructure for mobile contactless is to be extended. By 2017, all contactless terminals already deployed across Europe will be upgraded to allow high-value contactless functionality. And by 2020, all European POS terminals will allow this.

Survey respondents were confident about contactless acceptance reaching critical mass. The majority of respondents believed that this would happen by 2018. 52 percent thought that North America would achieve critical mass by 2018, whereas for Asia and Europe the figures were higher at 59 percent and 75 percent respectively.

On the issuing side, 53 percent of survey respondents thought that critical mass would be achieved in North America by 2018. 62 percent thought that Asia would be ready, whereas 72 percent felt that Europe would be at this level by 2018.

Wearables and connected commerce 

Where are wearables? They are already here, for example American Express and fitness tracker Jawbone announced a partnership in April 2015. This marked the first time consumers could use a wearable fitness tracker with an embedded NFC chip for Amex payments.

As second- and third-generation devices are deployed, the market for wearables and connected commerce generally will continue to grow. According to the International Data Corporation Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, the wearable market worldwide will reach 111 million units in 2016, an increase of 44 percent on 2015 figures. By 2019, total shipments are forecast to reach 214 million units, a five-year compound annual growth rate of 28 percent.

The debate around when wearables will reach critical mass, how much they will displace cash and cannibalise existing card spend almost misses the point. Wearables are not for every consumer or every payment situation. However they broaden the scope of digital payments beyond the plastic card. They are also part of the greater trend of integrating and embedding payment into a broader experience — making them invisible — for greater speed, convenience and ease-of-use.

Digital wallets 
With Apple Pay and Samsung Pay live in many markets, digital wallets are firmly back on the payments agenda. That said, there have been various high-profile causalities in the wallet wars, with more expected. Google Wallet has seen poor take-up and numerous iterations since it was first launched in 2011. Visa Europe’s digital wallet V.me by Visa has been withdrawn two years after launch and the investment of around €300 million.

“There are a lot of digital wallets out there — some of the local schemes are looking at this — but we are starting to see some consolidation,” said Berns. “The revised EU Directive on payment services (PSD2) may well lower the entry barriers even further to new entrants in the space, which could interest the internet giants. After all, iTunes is a stored value mechanism, so it’ll be interesting to see how Apple, Google and Amazon compete in the wallet wars.” 

Handset manufacturers and alternative payment providers were judged the most likely innovators in the wallet space across all regions, according to the survey respondents. Mobile operators faired the worst. Yet when it came to trust, payment networks and banks were most trusted to deliver wallets, and merchants and mobile operators the least trusted across all regions.

Unsurprisingly, acceptance and convenience were the factors most likely to drive wallet usage, according to survey respondents. Ubiquitous coverage, or allowing the consumer to use the wallet wherever they want to use it at the very least, preferably via a simple, one-click checkout are the fundaments of a winning proposition.

Technology should be regarded as an enabler to the success of digital wallets, rather than the starting point for a solution. Due to the investment in EMV, the payments industry has favoured NFC for point-of-sale mobile payments, and has perhaps been somewhat standoffish about QR codes. Consumers, however, appreciate the speed and convenience of scanning such codes to make retail or bill payments in-store. Tencent’s WeChat wallet and Alibaba’s Alipay have capitalised on this insight in incorporating choice as well as speed and convenience into their propositions. Their respective wallets have been available to users in China for some time and both companies are looking to expand into other markets and regions.

There is no single use case or one-size-fits-all for digital wallets. As with so much in the payments industry, winning propositions must address both acceptance and usage in a compelling way. They build scale quickly by piggy-backing existing acceptance infrastructure, rather than trying to re-invent it. As few consumers go out of their way to pay in a different way, winning propositions offer incremental value to consumers in addressing an un-met or unacknowledged need or pain point compared with existing alternatives.

Security and trust

When it comes to security and trust in digital payment methods, the present is the baseline for the future. “Security is first and foremost for American Express. When we make new technology available to our customers, we do so in a way that provides the same level of security they are used to receiving from us when using traditional charge and credit cards,” says Koo. 

Opportunities and risks exist in the same future. They are inherent to one another. As Koo explains: “While advancements in online and mobile payment options have widened the scope of fraud, they have also created new opportunities to fight fraud.”

Koo cites the American Express Token Service launched in November 2014. With tokenisation, real card account numbers are replaced with tokens, eliminating the need for merchants to store account numbers in the clear, and limiting the potential damage if their systems are compromised. Tokenisation also enables issuers to deploy new digital payment services, such as Apple Pay and Android Pay, in more secure ways.

“Digital technology has also enabled American Express to communicate with and service our card members in more ways. They can sign up to receive alerts about suspicious activity on their accounts through e-mail, SMS and mobile app push notifications,” adds Koo.

The future of digital payments

What does the future of digital payments look like? The future will be more omni-channel, namely using all sales channels interchangeably to serve the customer. More ‘click-and-collect’ and ‘endless aisles’ propositions are expected as merchants consolidate their back-end systems. However, just as service will become more channel agnostic, it will also become more device agnostic as customers expect to transact from any device, any time, anywhere. The future is increasingly digital, which means a greater take-up of digital payment methods.

These methods include automated clearing house (ACH) payments, which are expected to rise in prominence, particularly with the global movement towards immediate or real-time payments. Real-time settlement on the back-end is key to this because it minimises risk for everyone. The merchant receives faster settlement. The consumer sees the transaction immediately and is able to support, approve and challenge it as appropriate.

“Immediate payments is great fit with what is happening in the digital space and the perfect storm I mentioned earlier. So the short answer about the future of digital payments is: there is going to be more of it,” according to Berns.

Succeeding in the digital future

The digital future is about scale, partnerships and speed-to-market. According to Koo at American Express, advancements in digital technology have opened up opportunities for companies of all sizes to get into the payment business, and to grow scale almost overnight.

“We believe that scale wins and partnership is key to achieving success. Given the complexities of the payments industry, companies that can find ways to partner and break into the ecosystem have a much better chance of succeeding.”

“If you look at the amount of funding going into FinTech at the moment and the rate at which technology and innovation are moving, I think that the salvation of traditional players is partnerships and abandoning the build-it-yourself mentality,” says Berns.

“Payment industry incumbents and traditional players definitely have a role to play in making good lending decisions and managing deposits. Beyond these core functions, the technology innovators also have a role to play. Fortunately the industry is big enough for everyone to have a role.”

The Digital Payments Report 2016 provides views and projections on the state of payments based on research and a survey of industry executives, observers and analysts.

The post The future of digital payments appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

They are projected to grow at a rate of 8.9% to reach a record high of 389.7 billion transactions,² up from 2013’s 7.6% growth rate. Driven by a combination of factors including robust growth of non-cash transactions volumes in Emerging Asia ³ and widespread adoption of mobile technology for payments in mature markets,⁴ the volume of non-cash payment transactions grew faster than GDP across all geographies in 2013.  For 2014, growth is expected to have been propelled by the continued economic recovery in mature markets, rapid expansion in China, adoption of mobile and contactless technology, and the global move towards Immediate Payment ⁵ schemes.

Number of non cash transaction by region

Emerging Asia continues to push growth upwards

Non-cash transactions in Emerging Asia are expected to have grown by 27% in 2014 from 22% in 2013 driven by increasing internet use and the adoption of mobile payments. In particular, non-cash payment volumes in China are expected to surpass those in Germany, the UK, France, and South Korea, moving it into fourth position globally, behind the US, Eurozone, and Brazil in first, second and third place respectively. China posted record non-cash payment growth of 37.7% in 2013 as regulators accelerated the opening of the domestic payments card market to overseas competition and point of sale terminals were rolled out across the country. Mobile payments also grew significantly in volume – by 170% – to reach 4.5 billion transactions, making it a core element of China’s payments ecosystem.

Top 10 non cash transaction markets

Hidden payments volumes are also increasing

Hidden payments, or payments processed through non-bank systems, are now estimated to be as big as around 10% (40.9 billion) of non-cash transactions in 2014 and are expected to grow in the coming years. The lack of coherent data on hidden payments, which include payments made through closed loop cards and mobile apps, digital wallets mobile money, and virtual currencies makes it challenging for banks and non-bank payment services providers in determining optimal operating and processing models in such markets.  As hidden payments are not subject to regulation, there are also concerns about the lack of consumer protection on data privacy, information security, dispute resolution as well as fighting fraud and money laundering and regulation is needed to minimize these risks.

Banks still in a strong position to offer customer-centric innovation

Despite the rise of other competitive payment providers along with new and alternative payment methods including digital wallets and mobile apps, banks are still in a strong position to develop innovations that improve the customer experience. Banks are better positioned than their alternative provider rivals to provide holistic solutions across all instruments and channels which make them more efficient as a single provider of payment services as opposed to having multiple providers for each payments scenario.  As banks continue to enhance their holistic solution offerings, Immediate Payment systems can act as an enabler for banks to develop new value-add propositions and drive business growth.  Immediate Payment systems allow money to be moved from one account to another within seconds, 24 hours a day, ensuring customers can use incoming funds just as quickly.

Regulation also has a role in driving innovation through the harmonization required for the cohesive global expansion of Immediate Payment schemes.  According to the WPR 2015, 86% of payment executives surveyed believe that regulators will need to evaluate and make changes to the existing regulation to make Immediate Payments a reality globally. In particular, the adoption of Immediate Payments is challenged by a lack of interoperability of systems built using different standards in Europe and around the globe.  Regulators can help resolve this by working to develop and guide standards and rules to support industry interoperability.

“Each year banks face new and greater challenges in innovating to meet consumer demands for more convenient, faster, more secure and more mobile payment methods,” comments Andrew Lees, Global Sales Officer, Capgemini Financial Services. “Facing this pressure and the need for new regulatory initiatives to support innovations like Immediate Payments, payment services providers must take a long-term approach for payments processing by building a holistic set of offerings that can deliver value on a global scale.”

Another development re-shaping the payments market is Blockchain technology.⁶  Three key features of Blockchain are transparency, decentralization and key signing permission ⁷. This mix has the potential to improve the efficiency of financial transactions and transform the global financial network.  This technology could accelerate the velocity of money and provide an alternative for legacy banking systems in the future.

“New technology is accelerating change in the payments industry, offering holistic solutions as customers move from physical to digital payments as evidenced by the adoption of contactless in the UK with 53m transactions in March 2015. As a trusted partner, we’re at the heart of client transactions, facilitating the transition to digital payments,” comments Marion King, Director of Payments, RBS.

“As the digital economy transforms innovation in technology, it in turn gives customers greater choice and convenience in how they pay and conduct business.”

[2] The World Payments Report 2015 is an annual report which examines the latest developments in the global payments landscape, including payments volume trends, payment instruments (such as cards and checks), key regulatory initiatives and their impact on strategic considerations and options for banks. The transactional data in the report is from 2013. It makes a projection for 2014. Data is not yet available for 2015.

[3] Emerging Asia includes India, China, and other Asian countries.

[4] Mature Markets are: Mature Asia-Pacific including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea; Europe, including the Eurozone; and North America (the U.S. and Canada).

[5] Immediate Payment schemes, also known as real-time payments, allow money to be moved from one account to another within seconds, 24 hours a day, ensuring customers can use the funds just as quickly.

[6] Blockchain is a new technology initially used to support Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies which is based on federating independent computing power to capture and record transactions.

[7] In key signing permissions, the security of transactions is based on multiple synchronous validations from network participants.

The post World Payments Report 2015 appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

To accompany the report, 2000 consumers were also polled on their attitudes to current payment methods as well as what they would like to see in the future. The results have clearly demonstrated that, whilst we are a nation that is still getting to grips with a whole host of new ways to pay, the appetite for innovation is accelerating.

Empowering payers to make informed purchases in a way that suits them 

83% of consumers surveyed by VocaLink admitted they check their bank balance before making a significant purchase – highlighting that banks have a pivotal role to play in innovating ways for customers to maintain visibility and control of their money. It is likely that in ten years’ time, making informed decisions on expenditure will become even easier since portable communication devices (from smartphones, to watches, glasses, etc.) will help us budget more effectively, providing more options for ring-fencing funds within our bank accounts in seconds and even automatically helping consumers access better ‘deals.’ Over 50% of consumers would be interested in these sorts of apps.

However, flexibility in how we pay is already an acute need for many today. The employment market is changing with a growing number of workers reliant on multiple income flows, rather than having one steady and periodic source of income. One prediction regarding this issue is that by 2025 incomes could become even more erratic so should be met with technology that offers the necessary agility to accommodate these customers.

Similarly, another contributor to the Moving Money whitepaper believes that one of the most successful future innovations will be to make it easier to quickly ‘undo’ payments made in error to the wrong person or organisation.  This is a problem nearly 1 in 4 people in the UK, (rising to 1 in 3 for those under 45), have already experienced according to VocaLink’s consumer research. Of these, approximately three quarters eventually got their cash back whilst the rest simply did not see their money again, highlighting the need for a universal process to be devised and adopted in the event of erroneous payments.

Greater security demanded – but flexibility over identity authentication is expected

However we end up paying for things in 2025, security is the number one concern for consumers – 65% identified this as their number one priority when it comes to financial transactions. Contributing experts to the paper agreed, predicting that by 2025 there will be multiple ways of authenticating identity before payment can be made. In fact, as smartphone security increases, physical payment cards are expected to become obsolete since account details will be stored on the device itself. We’ve already seen a glimpse of the impact that biometrics-initiated mobile payments could have in the future and VocaLink’s research has found 1 in 4 UK consumers would consider using biometric technology to access banking or payment services². However, by 2025, some experts believe biometrics will be the principle method to authenticate our identities, with the usage of facial recognition in particular significantly reducing fraud and time/hassle constraints in making payments.

Real-time payments will offer certainty

Over the next ten years we will likely see an increase in adoption of immediate payments, via the Faster Payments system, as well as new innovations which build on this existing infrastructure. Larger transactions will become available on an immediate basis, particularly as the value limit on transactions rises past the current level of £100,000. This has obvious benefits for SMEs who will make and receive payment quicker, providing greater cashflow certainty and enhancing growth potential. Paying staff salaries will also be increasingly easy, as a payment can be made at the end of a week to reflect the exact hours worked with the employee receiving their salary immediately.

“The UK is in a fantastic position to make real time payments and all these other predictions a reality over the next decade. We have a world class digital payments infrastructure and this puts us at a distinct advantage – however if we are to stay ahead of the crowd, it is vital we start laying groundwork for the future now,” explains Chris Dunne, Director at VocaLink.

“The collective insight of this whitepaper has shown us what we could and should be able to achieve in the payments sphere. Disparate corners of the UK’s society and economy will benefit hugely if we can map their needs against the evolution of the UK’s payment system and the burgeoning technology that supports it. This collaborative effort is only the beginning; we are keen to catalyse discussion across all relevant parties about what comes next and set the wheels in motion to make future payment technology a reality.”

The post The next decade in payment innovation appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Retailers are under increasing pressure to adopt new payment technologies, as shoppers demand simpler and more innovative ways to pay, MasterCard’s first Retail Social Listening Study has uncovered.

In a world first, the MasterCard study in partnership with PRIME Research, analysed 1.6 million unprompted online conversations around shopping and retail, across 61 markets in order to understand consumer experience over the last 12 months.

The global social listening study identified some of the key trends within the shopping and retail space, in order to provide retailers with stronger insights and understanding of their audience. Key findings from the study indicated retailers are experiencing a shift in consumer expectations, requiring new and richer experiences, which will enable consumers around the world to shop at the ‘speed of life.’

Key findings identified from the MasterCard Retail Social Listening Study include:

• Convenience through technology innovations: Convenience was the most positively discussed aspect of new digital payment methods in shopping and retail related conversations (77%), with the travel sector leading the way in terms of the highest share of coverage. Consumers specifically highlighted their preference for not necessarily needing to take their wallet on every trip and being able to use mobile payments when they travel.
• Being rewarded: Rewards and benefits for the consumer was the most vociferously and positively discussed topic across social media when it came to shopping and retail (38% share of coverage of the six aspects measured). Entertainment was the sector leading the way, where rewards and benefits was most discussed. Consumers expressed eagerness for further acceptance of NFC payments allowing them to receive rewards for using them regularly, such as with MasterCard’s Fare Free Friday’s in London.
• Demand for increased acceptance: After rewards and benefits, consumer discussion of which retailers do and do not accept newer forms of payment was the second most discussed topic according to the study (21% share of coverage of the six aspects measured). Consumers discussed extensively their desire for retailers to integrate new payment systems, with conversations about fashion being most prominent in terms of sector. Fashion focussed shoppers were the most keen to shout about retailers who accept new methods of payment, such as contactless acceptance and mobile payment capabilities.

In addition, Twitter was highlighted as the most frequently used social media platform globally when it came to online conversations about retail and shopping.

Carlos Menendez, Executive Director for International Markets at MasterCard said;

“The wave of social engagement we see every time new payment innovations are rolled out truly reflects the demand and desire for new and more convenient ways to pay. It also shows that payments have really moved into the heart of the shopping experience – causing frustration when not accepted and engagement when fast, easy and personal.”

Global Conversations; regional talking points on shopping and retail

The post Global retail study reveals consumer demand for new ways to pay appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Chip and signature is a joke!

Author:  Vaughan Collie, Partner, Accourt – Payment Specialists.

“The fact that we didn’t go to PIN is such a joke,” says Mike Cook, Walmart’s assistant treasurer and a senior vice president, in reference to the USA’s current migration to EMV where chip and PIN or chip and signature are equally acceptable. “Signature is worthless as a form of authentication,” continues Cook, with Walmart preferring a Chip and PIN mandated approach similar to the UK and most of Europe. Not so says Visa Inc. vice president of risk products Stephanie Ericksen, “we don’t see a need for it; [chip and PIN] will have a shorter shelf life. We’re moving to new technologies and innovation.”

So who is correct, Visa or Walmart?

To answer this question it is most instructive to very briefly revisit the origins of EMV.

EMV in its ‘chip and PIN’ incarnation was ultimately designed for effective use in a predominantly offline card authorisation ecosystem (e.g. the UK at that time), thereby enabling issuers to delegate significant ‘authorisation authority’ to the chip without requiring an online authorisation from the issuer’s host system. Interestingly, the UK and most other European geographies are currently in the final stages of moving to a fully online ecosystem.

Back in 2002, following a number of years of unacceptable growth rates in various fraud types, the UK card industry formally began its migration to EMV chip and PIN. Significantly elevated levels of counterfeit fraud was one of the primary drivers of this decision and EMV chip, coupled with PIN as the cardholder verification method (CVM), was seen as the most effective approach given the predominantly offline nature of the UK authorisation ecosystem and the technology and commercial landscape at the time.

A centrally managed, UK-wide migration programme not only addressed the technical considerations and decisions, but arguably more importantly, the challenges that were likely to be faced by the various sets of stakeholders (e.g. industry, merchants, consumers, etc.). These challenges included the significant societal and cultural move away from signatures as the prevalent form of cardholder verification at the point of sale to the ‘high-tech’ PIN alternative already found in ATM transactions (although not chip-based PIN at that time).

The UK chip and PIN programme was ultimately regarded as an industry success and it certainly achieved one of its objectives: reduce counterfeit and lost and stolen fraud numbers significantly. However, this was not without some fairly harsh lessons being learned at the time and since then, for example:

• A credible industry business case was extremely difficult to develop due to varying approaches to risk appetite and management across the industry. Ultimately the view was that there was enough of a case to continue and that it was the right thing for the industry to do at the time (coupled with the ‘do nothing’ option being utterly unpalatable for all).
• Carefully consider the consequences – by effectively mitigating against certain fraud types (e.g. skimming/counterfeit), are you incentivising criminals to supercharge their efforts and focus on other fraud types (e.g. cardholder not present – CNP)? And will these subsequent fraudulent activities lead to a greater problem (e.g. increased CNP fraud) than the one you are solving with chip and PIN?
• A card scheme liability shift mechanism (effective from October 2015 for POS transactions in the US) is critical to drive appropriate and timely actions across the card payments value chain and industry as a whole. The general EMV liability shift rule-of-thumb is that those stakeholders that implement and enable the highest level of EMV capability/technology within their environments will enjoy the lowest risk of fraud loss (e.g. if a merchant implements a fully EMV capable terminal, that merchant will benefit from the liability shift if a magstripe card is presented).
• ATMs should have been one of the first channels to convert. ATMs were a primary card skimming enabler (and still suffer today notwithstanding various mitigating measures and technologies that have been developed over the years).
• Upfront agreement to the phasing out/cessation of CAM (chip) fall-back to magstripe and CVM fall-back is critical to drive desired behaviours and ensure that, for example, cardholders don’t continually ‘forget’ their PINs and therefore continue to rely on signatures. This is of course an extremely difficult and fraught journey for stakeholders to embark upon, especially merchants and consumers, but it has proven time and time again to be the appropriate course of action to support achievement of desired outcomes for EMV migrations.

Surely then, being mindful of these and other learnings, EMV chip and PIN is a must in the US? As ever, it’s not as straightforward as that. There are many factors to consider, not least of which is the cost – financial, operational, customer, social and cultural – of this decision. And apart from cost, are the reasons for deciding for chip and PIN historically still the same today?

Let’s deal with cost first. It is widely established (e.g. UK, Australia, Europe) that implementing EMV chip (typically CDA) is one of the most effective mitigants to skimming/counterfeit fraud. The addition of the PIN element generally mitigates against fraud types such as lost/stolen fraud.

The diagram below provides a perspective on the 2014 card fraud loss landscape in the US. Clearly the predominant fraud types are counterfeit ($3.0bn pa) and cardholder not present ($2.9bn pa), with lost and stolen fraud a not insignificant $0.8bn pa.

Bearing in mind that the US is almost entirely an online authorisation ecosystem and EMV chip and PIN was designed for a predominantly offline ecosystem – does it make sense to invest significantly in infrastructure to support offline PIN?

From purely a financial cost perspective, given significant current economic pressure from all quarters to reduce and manage costs, surely it makes sense to prioritise and focus limited resources on the areas of greatest exposure and impact? In the case of the US, this appears to be counterfeit and CNP fraud losses with lost/stolen appearing as the third priority. Therefore, based on current experience and relatively predictable outcomes, it appears most likely that chip and signature would be the most balanced, cost-effective immediate solution to the skimming/counterfeit fraud issue.

Furthermore, in a world where high-profile data breaches are too common for comfort, this would be a significant step towards rendering card data obtained from these breaches useless in geographies where EMV chip is the only acceptable form of face-to-face card payment type. The caveat however, is that as long as a magstripe exists on today’s payment cards, there is still a risk that, without the application of additional mitigating measures by value chain stakeholders, this data can still potentially be used to commit fraud in online environments (as can EMV cards without additional risk management controls in the online environment – EMV in and of itself does not reduce/remove CNP fraud risk).

One of the next questions is whether the payments ecosystem has changed to the extent that chip and PIN is no longer valid. Clearly the ecosystem has changed dramatically in many respects since the early days of EMV, not least of which is the phenomenal pace of technology advancement in the fraud and risk management space. Much has been written about a multi-layered approach to fraud management (this article will not seek to replicate that discussion) – at this time, EMV should be one component of that multi-layered approach. There are numerous other components such as advanced KYC, real-time behavioural analytics and transaction scoring (with the new breed of self-learning Bayesian modelling beginning to threaten the incumbent neural network based solutions), geographically aware location-based solutions, etc. Many of these solutions did not exist at the time that EMV PIN versus signature decisions were being made in the non-US EMV migrations – needless to say, their existence today significantly influences the considerations that underpin such decisions.

A further, oft-cited justification for ‘ignoring’ PIN is the argument that a large proportion of the general American population is likely to be unable to remember and use their PINs as required. This article cannot support that argument – Americans have been successfully using PIN-based debit card products for many years. For consumers, the EMV PIN experience is identical.

Perhaps a less obvious, but potentially important consideration is how chip and signature cards will be treated outside of the US. Most non-US implementations of EMV have been chip and PIN. US chip and signature cards being presented for payment in geographies that expect chip and PIN are likely to cause significant confusion and friction at the POS.

It is therefore valid to argue that, given the nature of the face-to-face payments ecosystem today and, in the absence of anything else (e.g. removing payment card data from the ecosystem entirely), perhaps chip and PIN is relatively the most appropriate solution. However, when implemented in a predominantly online authorisation ecosystem and in conjunction with a multi-layered fraud and risk management approach, compromising with chip and signature is unlikely to pose the same level of risk it may have done in the past. To Visa’s point, there are other innovations being driven into the market in this space and, while it will take some considerable time for some of these to gain the global ubiquity that is essential to their success, it probably makes sense to balance limited resources, i.e. industry investment, across these innovations in parallel with investment in today’s toolbox for fraud and risk management – of which EMV is definitely a part.

The Walmart position is both valid and unsurprising for a number of reasons – for example, having your till-based check-out staff carrying the burden of authentication, i.e. deciding whether a signature matches the version on the back of the payment card, is entirely unrealistic and has been proven to fail as an effective risk management measure time and again (e.g. there are many examples of ‘Mickey Mouse’ signatures being successfully used in face-to-face transactions…). PIN helps to address this issue, although effective online authorisation screening (e.g. context-aware, dynamic authentication) can be an even more powerful tool in both the face-to-face and online transaction ecosystems. Walmart is also in the position of having already made the investment in a PIN-based strategy – something a number of their competitors are not keen to do.

So, back to our original question, is Visa or Walmart correct. Both actually. There can be no doubt that signature has long been a very poor form of authentication, however, given the US context, implementing PIN where there are more advanced and effective methods of authentication available probably makes less sense today than historically. Value chain stakeholders with potentially significant exposure to fraud risk must consider investing in a sophisticated, multi-layered approach to fraud and risk management. With or without PIN, EMV is not and was never designed to be a standalone silver bullet solution to all payment fraud.

The post Chip and signature is a joke! appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

The post UK shuns cash as cards dominate payment market appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.