Bradley Howard's Blog

Views of digital media, innovation, loyalty and business in the real world

Contactless and mobile payments

On Sunday I popped into my local butcher (they haven’t all been put out of business by hypermarkets) and tried paying using my contactless debit card. At first, the guy behind the till didn’t want me to use contactless because he didn’t think his till could handle it, but I tried and he was amazed how fast the transaction was finished.

We work very closely with one of the big European payments companies, and had been discussing contactless with them last week, and so I told the sales assistant in the butcher that his transaction fees cost less using contactless than chip and PIN. He said that he’d tell his boss.

The timing was interesting because this morning I went to a presentation at Intellect, “Contactless payments: A retailer's perspective” by Julian Niblett from Boots.

Here are some of the key points from the presentation, together with his view of the future, and I’ve added some of my comments as well.

  • Boots are the second biggest retailer in the UK with 2,600 stores
  • At the moment a third of transactions use a card
  • Only 30 stores have contactless - a joint investment with MasterCard
  • Less than 2% of card transactions are contactless 

In terms of the value proposition for the retailer, given a choice between rolling out more self-checkouts and contactless, the former will always win because contactless has far less value to the consumer.

That said, their analysis is that first time customers who try using contactless it will continue to reuse it.

Julian asked how many people in the room have used a contactless card. Around a third put up their hands, which is well above the national average. Julian pointed out that watching consumers use a self-checkout, many people still aren't sure how to insert their card into a card reader properly let alone ‘educate’ them to use another physical method of payment.

One of the issues in Boots’ case is that there’s no business case to offer contactless. Cash is still the cheapest cost at 0.5p per transaction (many of the costs of cash are both subsidised by the banks, and many of the ‘costs of cash’ are fixed). 

Also, contactless transactions cost less for a retailer, but the retailers are wary of the payment companies who have usually increased costs once a new technology rollout hits tipping point. This happened with chip and PIN, and retailers expect the same to happen from contactless.

The near term future

·         Tfl will use contactless cards as an alternative to Oyster this year. This will help the wider public use contactless more often, and consumers are expected to start using them more often in retailers.

·         Visa are going to be helping Boots with a wider rollout across London due to the Olympics.

The longer term

One of the key issues at the moment is that there is no customer demand for contactless. However, retailers can see that there is a demand for using a mobile phone for payments.

We all have more and more cards in our wallets for payment and loyalty schemes. Both of these will move into a smartphone apps, with numerous retailers already leading the way, and PayPal and Google Checkout leading the way with their payment apps.

Julian discussed a great consumer experience all based on a mobile, with coupons, a store loyalty card, payment and electronic receipts, and probably no need for a till at the end of the shopping trip. However there are very few customers who want to shop this way at the moment.

It was a really interesting presentation, and if you’re in the banking or retailer value chain, you should probably get in contact with Julian as he was very open with his analysis and data points (some of which I can’t publish here).

My take on contactless payments is that it will move to mobile, but it will become more complicated for consumers. My debit and credit cards have never run out of battery before – what happens when you want to buy something but have no battery in your phone. In fact, my cards are designed to be much more rugged than my phone – not only do they not require any power at all, they’re also waterproof and shock proof. And therefore they will stick around for a long time.


 

Amazon removing more cost centres

Capture
It’s quite rare in most industries for a market innovator to become the strongest company in the sector. Usually the market creator is overtaken by a more efficient competitor, who has more time to see what not to do. This has been the case with most industries, not just IT.

One of the first ecommerce web sites I remember using was Amazon. It reduced the cost of books by a huge factor and its recommendation engine is still seen as one of the best in any website. The fact that it launched in 1994 and is still one of the most profitable companies in the World is impressive.

In terms of financial scale, for UK readers, Tesco has a market capitalisation of £31bn and Amazon has a market capitalisation of $89bn. For US readers, Target has a market capitalisation of $35bn.

Turning costs into profits

One of the business initiatives that most people admire Amazon for is how they turn their costly IT organisation from a cost-centre to a profit centre - called AWS (Amazon Web Services). Essentially, running Amazon.com and all the international sites requires a massive amount of servers in data centres all around the world. When I visited one of our US data centres a few years ago we had an area (called a cage, because it is one) and our next door neighbour was a cage several times larger for Amazon.

Anyway, Amazon realised it had a huge IT infrastructure and converted the spare capacity into a facility enabling anyone else to use their infrastructure. Companies can rent this capacity on an hourly charge. And many companies do use it.

Amazon won’t release revenue figures directly, however some reports have estimated its more than $500m annually.

Marketplace

Another innovation that Amazon had to implement, this time by force was their Marketplace. eBay started taking some revenue away from Amazon, so Amazon started allowing third party sellers to sell products on Amazon.com. Fast forward to the present time, and it’s quite often that a consumer will buy something on Amazon, which is actually another merchant – whether it’s a sole proprietor or a multi-national organisation.

If a consumer currently buys something from Amazon, if it’s actually Amazon who sell the product, it will come from an Amazon warehouse and be delivered directly. If it’s a third party seller, Amazon have a clever interface (and contractual terms) which notify the seller to deliver the goods within a set time period.

Removing more cost centres

However the latest area that Amazon is moving into is fulfilment.

Amazon is encouraging merchants who use its platform to send their stock directly to Amazon’s warehouse and Amazon will take care of the rest. They’ll fulfil (pick and package) the order and deliver it to the customer. So if you sold glass vases, you would instruct your supplier to deliver a pallet of vases to an Amazon warehouse and spend all your time and energy making the Amazon pages look as good as possible.

This is ingenious for a number of reasons:

  1. It turns Amazon from a traditional retailer who needs to buy a certain commitment of goods for x and sell at x + y% markup – into a risk free business because it doesn’t need to buy the goods up front
  2. To compete against this model becomes ever more expensive, because the sheer capital infrastructure costs are now prohibitive
  3. Amazon will increase its economy of scale for delivery costs
  4. It encourages merchants to use Amazon as the primary channel, because Amazon performing merchant’s fulfilment requires less overheads and easier.

The fulfilment model is an interesting concept, because it turns retail and distribution into a service and it moves a lot of the risk (of buying the items up front) up the supply chain from the retailer (Amazon) to the distributor.

 


 

Early thoughts on Christmas and football

4161306388_1e4036f9f81
This Sunday, that’s the 9th October, don’t go to Oxford Street because the road will be shut. It will be shut because the Christmas lights are going to be hung up. It feels strange that last week in London the temperature was over 30 degrees and next weekend Christmas lights are being hung up.

Fifteen years ago, even five years ago, the Western world was buying discs and tapes of films, music and computer games.

At least the retailers on Oxford Street could sell something because yes you can still buy a physical DVD or BluRay, but it’s now easier to download an ‘on demand’ movie via Sky, cable or BT Vision.

Music CDs? In our house we use Spotify (Premium – so that we can use the iPhone app in the car) to listen to music. I haven’t bought a music CD for years.

The one physical format that has stood the test of time is computer console games. Although you can download demos for the Wii, PS3 and XBox, most consumers still need to buy a physical disk for the latest releases. 

Perhaps the main reason for still needing a physical disk is the price point. A music ‘album’ (how much longer before no one understands what that word means?) costs under £10 on Amazon. Watching a film on BT Vision and Sky is under £5. Compare those costs to the latest football game, FIFA 12, which is £43 on the PS3 and Xbox. Perhaps buying a product for over forty quid is too much for a virtual object.

There’s also a school of thought that because most games are bought as presents, you need to be able to wrap and hand it over. I don’t necessarily agree with this because a console such as an Xbox has a much higher age group and the gift element doesn’t apply so much. And personally I’d welcome downloadable full games because my kids wouldn’t be able to scratch the disks without any possibility of exchanging the useless £45 circular plastic.

Back to FIFA 12 for a moment… at the time of writing this post:

·         Xbox and PS3 versions both cost £42.89

·         Wii version costs £32.99

·         PC version costs £27.51.

(All those prices are from Amazon).

Now hop over to the iTunes store to buy FIFA 12 on an iPad. It’s £5.99. Why such a huge price difference? I wonder if the iPad version cannibalises the other formats, or whether it helps market the other formats (i.e. iPad users try the iPad version and think it’s so good that they want it on their Xbox).

At least if you do visit Oxford Street this weekend, you can download FIFA 12 to play on your iOS device while the lights are being put up.

Photo courtesy of dark delicious on Flickr

 


 

Digital Media pace accelerating

The pace of Digital Media is still accelerating in what has always been a fast moving industry.

This week’s highlights (and it's only Wednesday!):

  1. New Google styling across their apps (basically it’s all gone darker and neater - it now looks like it’s been designed as a suite of tools, rather than cobbled together by a developer who has a passing interest in web design). I suspect the new styling is all part of the preparation of the Google Chromebooks
  2. And while talking of Google, Google+ has been launched. And they've also launched What Do You Love – a mashup of different Google Searches. WDYL is nice, but it's not immediately obvious how I'll use it usefully
  3. Zynga has announced it will IPO for around $2 billion, valuing the company at $15 billion. Zynga produce a number of online games including the hugely popular Farmville. $15b is a huge amount of money, however Zynga’s revenue is already $850m and as a parent of young children, I can see the industry has got lots more potential
  4. GoDaddy.com, of Domain Name fame is just about to be sold for $2 billion. GoDaddy were also going to go the IPO route a couple of years ago on revenues of $800m but have preferred the route of private investment companies

In other news:

  1. The clocks are ticking for a number of high street retailers with Thornton’s, Carpetright, Jane Norman and TJ Hughes all either making some massive cutbacks or shutting down altogether. Carpetright are blaming the recession – that people don’t want to buy big ticket items at the moment, but that wouldn’t apply to Thornton’s or TJ Hughes and Jane Norman who are clothing retailers. I think it’s more to do with customer’s shopping habits because clothing website ASOS is growing at the same time that the others are shutting down tens of shops. 
  2. National Insurance cards are going to be phased out. From now on we’ll get a letter instead. What were the cards ever used for anyway? And why not replace the cards with emails or a mobile app? It’s about time the government hired a CIO from industry and let loose with a clear remit on improving ROI.
I’ve been asked by some other sites to write some blog posts – check out Technorati and Endava's new posts, and I’ll let you know when Sitecore and CMSWatch both publish my articles too.

 


 

What businesses don't compete with the Internet?

3224374151_feed4114191

Looking at my high street, a third of all shops are now empty. Whilst we've had a very severe recession, the Internet has destroyed my local electrical, book and music shops as well as countless others.

What businesses based in shops (so builders, electricians, etc.) do not compete with the Internet?

  • Hairdressers & barbers*
  • Food - restaurants, sandwich shops and coffee shops
  • Beauty - nails, tanning, etc.
  • Hotels
  • Gyms
  • Bakers
  • Car cleaners
  • Pubs
  • Nightclubs

*It was my barber who started this discussion!

Whilst these shops don't have natural competitors on the Internet, they still rely on the Internet for mapping (i.e. a search for 'pub' on Google maps) and reviews (I urge all the owners of the shops above to keep checking review sites).

Any other suggestions?

Photo courtesy of Dave Patten on Flickr.


 

Bradley Howard

Head of Digital Media at Endava, although all the views in this blog are purely mine and not necessarily those of Endava.

 

Subscribe to my RSS feed

 

 

Other ways to find me:
TwitterBuzzLinkedInDelicious