Mastercard/RIM: Mobile Payments Dark Horse

Posted on by
Reply

17 Feb 2011

My blogs will be getting shorter.. quite a busy month. I’ve been very quiet on RIM and Mastercard and thought it was time to speak up for a group with a good plan and great leadership. Facts:

  • MA just hired Mung-Ki Woo from Orange to lead mobile
  • MA has abandoned Obopay (Obopay set to announce VMT integration in next few weeks)
  • RIM is the only handset manufacture with a card partnership. MA has announced RIM partnership in Sept 2010
  • Original MA proposal to RIM was from now defunct eComm Financial. (eComm’s assets are TBD, but my guess is that MA has acquired them)
  • RIM has announced NFC plans for handsets this year
  • RIM has 3 core assets not held by competitors: corporate server, “push/PIN” messaging and a hardened secure architecture with military grade encryption
  • RIM has failed in business leadership with its own “app world”
  • RIM’s user demographic is unbeatable..
  • Mastercard is 5 years ahead of Visa on contactless and in NFC.

My theory is that RIM may have a unique way to get to market and circumvent ISIS in the US. Keep your eyes peeled for anything surrounding the TSM for RIM. If RIM and MA are smart (and they are) they will work to design a TSM as an extension to RIM’s existing PIN messaging architecture (secure).

BlackBerry PIN-to-PIN (sometimes referred to as Peer-to-Peer) messaging is similar to e-mail in that it allows BlackBerry device users to send messages to each other, but with important differences:

A “PIN” is a hardware address, similar to a computer network adapter’s MAC address, and is unique to every BlackBerry device. A “PIN” is not an authentication password nor is it a user identifier. It is the method by which the BlackBerry device is identified to the RIM relay for the purpose of finding the device within the global wireless service providers’ networks.

In this relay service RIM has a global directory of BBs, IMEI/PIN, MNO provider, BES Server, eMail, … and hence the “ability” to directly message customers and for customers to message each other (independent of contracts and BES service PIN limitations).

What all this means is that if RIM puts the ISO 14443 radio on the phone, it doesn’t need the standard NFC/SWP architecture… it has the facilities for OTA provisioning and secure applications separate from a UICC. Carriers will not be in a place to dictate phone architecture to RIM as they are procured directly by governments, and corporatations.. For example, the US government should prefer this architecture, as it gives the handset owner and BES provider control over who is the “TSM” in a quasi NFC context. 

This keeps it all very simple for Mastercard, as they can roll out PayPass in Blackberry without MNO support… For banks.. this means that RIM/Mastercard may be the only way for you to put contactless IN a phone (Stickers are your only other option). The Google Android ecosystem is somewhat disadvantaged here:

  • They are heavily depending on ISIS MNOs for distribution
  • They are not in control of handset hardware architecture
  • No OTA provisioning alternative (like RIM’s PIN Relay)

Lets see if RIM and MA can pull off the business execution.

– Tom

Mobile Apps will Die

Posted on by
4

16 February 2011

LOL.. this blog is dead wrong. leaving it up here as a history lesson

—————————————–

Yeah.. thought the headline would make you read this one. This was the theme of yesterday’s  WSJ article covering a NYC Mobile Monday Confab. I agree with these young CEOs, as I’m sure would James Gosling, Grady Booch, Marc Andreesen, Alan Kay (and the Xerox PARC team). Most of the readership of this blog are business/payments folks, and probably don’t recognize the names or the technical dynamics at play. Objective of this blog is to give a business perspective on a “death of apps” dynamic as these business execs are the ones who actually fund (and take the risk) on these technical approaches.

Let me start off with 2 stories

Story 1 – 1994

A long, long time ago (1994)…  Netscape launched and gave ability to view basic HTML. The experience was rather dry, with even “drop down” boxes a major accomplishment. There was very little transacting, and the internet looked like one big marketing brochure. Early stage corporate use was limited to “employee directory” kind of functions, and interactive employee applications were built on … wait for it… POWERBUILDER, VisualBasic, or … for the more advanced companies… Smalltalk (an excellent language and my personal favorite). IBMs OS2 Warp was easily winning the enterprise war against Microsoft’s 3.1, a release which required a TCP/IP add on (Win95 came the next year in 1995). 

Enterprises had a desktop mess, applications had to be installed with all of their supporting libraries, on multiple machine types, with multiple operating system versions, hardware versions, most of which conflicted. Fortunately internet browsers began to develop more and more functionality, with scripting and embedded virtual machines of their own. “Light” applications began to migrate to the browser with a significant advantage in cost to deploy and a slight disadvantage in functionality. As browsers and standards further evolved, more applications changed their architecture, attracting more top tier developers. Fat client apps became an ugly legacy (for all but Microsoft’s Office applications).

Lessons learned: multiple proprietary architectures won in “functionality” but lost in cost to develop, cost to deploy and cost to service. Greater investment in a “sub standard” approach enabled faster growth, focus and subsequent adoption. Open architectures allowed multiple parties to create profitable businesses, and further invest.

Story 2 – Fat Mobile Applications

I had a tremendous global team at Citi, quite frankly some of the best and brightest people I have ever worked with at any company. As head of channels for Citi Global Consumer, mobile (outside of the US) was in my domain. Banks are highly driven to reduce cost to serve and acquire. Mobile was (and is) a channel with much experimentation. At Citi I took a look at 6 key mobile initiatives within the last 3 years to look for patterns of success/learnings that could be leveraged. We had developed “fat client” mobile applications in US, Germany, Japan, Mexico, AU as well as SMS based applications in PH, SG, IN, Indonesia, … In every case fat client mobile applications failed.  Why? Technology, user experience, cost to deploy, MNO “support”, …  The testing matrix of handset types, OS types, screen size, OS versions, …. was just not manageable.

Perhaps the biggest learning of all.. is how mobile is viewed by the customer. As my head of mobile in HK (Brian Hui) told me “what is so urgent that the customer can’t wait to get back to their PC”? Customers want speed and simplicity in their mobile interactions. For services like “what is my balance”? Fat clients are not needed. Even today, bank mobile applications are largely a competitive “me too”, as deployment costs to support 3 platforms (RIM, iPhone and Android) are much lower than prior “universal” support attempts. Although the statistics are not widely published, more than 3x customers access their bank through a mobile browser than through their bank’s mobile application (not everyone has an iPhone.. imagine that).

Proprietary Closed Systems must go first in NEW markets… then evolve or fail

As I mentioned in my previous blog, history has shown that closed networks form prior to open networks (in almost every circumstance). Closed networks are uniquely capable of managing end-end quality of service and pricing. This enables the single “network owner” to manage risk and investment. How can any company make investment in a network that does not exist, it cannot control, at a price consumers will not pay, with a group that can not make decisions or execute? Answer: Companies cannot, it is the domain of academics, governments, NGOs and Philanthropic organizations.

The principle challenge in evolving a closed business platform is financial. The margins associated with maintaining “control” of a platform are substantial… they are very hard for any company to give up (ie Microsoft, Apple, IBM). Just take a look at today’s WSJ regarding Apple’s subscription service plans. Apple wants to take a 30% cut of everything ever sold to its platform… for eternity. Can you imagine Microsoft asking to take a 30% cut of every fee on any item viewed or played on a Windows PC? How do you think Amazon or the music industry feel about this? Every iPhone App developer? It must feel like a Faustian bargain at best.

Apple’s big advantage today is app revenue, as it provides:

  • Terms and Control
  • In App Billing
  • In App Advertising
  • Consumer Payment Management

Yet I digress…. what about fat apps? This is why I like Google’s model, and why it will be so hard to compete against them. As Google evolves Android into an open mobile platform, the “app” revenue model will evolve as well. Just as with Apple’s Mac experience, it will be difficult for Apple to attract continued investment.  Given the tremendous talent at Nokia, MSFT, Google, RIM.. I’m sure they see the analogy to the 1994 example I have provided above. An “open” mobile browser with enhanced features would destroy the Apple ecosystem. App developers would choose “open” first (IF they could monetize their investments). Every handset manufacture and MNO has incentive to develop and invest in a “kill the app” mobile browser standard to compete with Apple and change the competitive dynamic.

One exception I see is in mobile “secure” applications. In this the GSMA and NFC Forum are absolutely brilliant… they have defined a common standard.. unfortunately the business model to monetize it has not yet developed. They had the right technical team design it.. can they get the right business leaders to make is successful? (see related blog)

Excellent TechCrunch Article on HTML 5  Feb 5, 2011

PayPal Revenue to Double by 2013

Posted on by
Reply

I highly recommend listening to the webcast from eBay’s Analyst Day yesterday

http://investor.ebay.com/events.cfm

Will write a more thoughtful post this weekend..  just some quick thoughts

I like the 2x growth plan… REALLY LIKE IT.. For the record I have a bias: I have a paypal account, merchant account, paypal debit card, iPhone app, and I know several of their current and former execs. PayPal has the product, plan, network, and market to execute on this growth plan… their only issue seems to be talent.

Just 2 weeks ago they lost their key platform executive Osama Bedier to Google, this is the exec that was in charge of PayPal X, Platform and Emerging technologies. Last year they lost Dickson Chu (head of product) to Citi and Jack Stephenson (head of strategy) to Chase. These are some of the best payment/platform execs on the planet. What is going on?

Don’t get me wrong, Scott’s directs are excellent executive leaders: Ed Eger (great guy and friend), John McCabe (was fantastic at Wachovia), Gary Marino (Bank One CCO/CMO)… But bankers operate differently than the talent that started eBay/PayPal. Not that different is a bad thing… but it certainly leads to friction. Bankers understand credit risk, regulatory risk, pricing, ANR, LLR, CNR, … but do they understand platform? alliances? convergence? Remember Paypal is not a bank.. at least not yet.  PayPal’s top level vision looks good, but my guess is that the bankers on the exec team are drowning out the message from talent with the skills to build and execute the plan. Scott seems to have a culture problem…. with a 2x rev growth target I doubt if they will spend much effort addressing it. Perhaps this is just the normal maturing of a business model…

How will PayPal generate revenue in the next 5 years? Does it follow the path of a Visa? If it believes in a “convergence” strategy who is it partnering with it? Can you build a platform without partners? Can PayPal build a network alone? is the current merchant/consumer value proposition strong enough to transition to POS? Digital Goods? What does PayPal know about the “cloud” when compared to Amazon and Google? Have you seen Amazon’s growth? Just incredible…

The good news for PayPal is that Visa/MA are failing in online and mobile plans.. PayPal has strong merchant loyalty, and 95M consumer accounts.  PayPal has tremendous runway available for network expansion in its current model.. adding perhaps credit. But I give them very low odds of executing in digital goods, or mobile without reorganizing the business, creating a separate business unit which will attract a team that can create and execute new business models that work.

2010 PayPal Analysis – Part 1

Posted on by
1

11 February 2011

I finally got around to reviewing eBay’s 2010 results given that today is analyst day. PayPal is a machine! 24% Rev Growth on 28% increase in TPV (ex FX), with off e-Bay growth of 38%.. just tremendous!

 

I’m a very big fan of what they have done internationally, and the prospects the have at the POS (related blog). I encourage readers of this blog to take a read through their 10-k (http://investor.ebay.com/sec.cfm ).

One aspect of their business I don’t understand well is BillMeLater, given its 50% YoY growth,  $1B ANR, and 14.4% risk adjusted margin I thought is was time to get a little more in the details.

From eBay’s 10-K : BillMeLater

…Currently, when a consumer makes a purchase using a Bill Me Later credit product issued by a chartered financial institution (WebBank), the chartered financial institution extends credit to the consumer, funds the extension of credit at the point of sale and advances funds to the merchant. We subsequently purchase the receivables related to the extensions of credit made by the chartered financial institution and, as a result of that purchase, bear the risk of loss in the event of loan defaults. Although the chartered financial institution continues to own each customer account, we own the related receivable, and Bill Me Later is responsible for all servicing functions related to the account.

WebBank is a Salt Lake City, Utah based ILC operating as a subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. 

From FDIC (http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/index.asp). WebBank: 2010 Income $4.3M, Assets $84M, Liabilities $65.4, Equity Capital $19.2, Employees ~40.

WebBank provides similar services to Prosper (P2P Lending), From US Senate:

Loans arranged on the Prosper web site are physically made by WebBank, a Utah-based industrial loan company regulated by the Utah Department of Financial Institutions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).  Once bidding on a loan closes, WebBank funds the loan, the loan funds (minus the origination fee) are electronically deposited into the borrower’s bank account, and WebBank sells and assigns the loan to Prosper, without recourse, in exchange for the principal amount of the borrower’s loan.

eBay has $1B in BillMeLater receivables running through a company with $19.2M in Capital… I’m somewhat impressed that WebBank can do this kind of origination volume with 40 employees… But the margins certainly don’t look very good. 

Many retailers are thinking about instant credit…. is this the ideal retailer/bank model? Origination Risk would likely not have been something I would want to have taken on at Citi… certainly not at these margins. Is there something else in the Steel LP that makes this attractive?

See my previous blog on ILCs and Credit

Nokia’s Opportunity: Building an NFC Ecosystem

Posted on by
3

8 Feb 2011

Most of you have read Stephen Elop’s scathing internal assessment of Nokia yesterday: “Burning Oil Platform”.  Although I will probably get laughed at for this… I’m actually quite high on Nokia. At least the CEO knows there is a fire.. which is the last phase in the Kubler-Ross Five Stages Of Grief ( 1. Denial and Isolation. 2. Anger. 3. Bargaining. 4. Depression. 5. Acceptance). Now what?

Nokia and Motorola are very similar in many respects. Both have heavy (VERY HEAVY) engineering driven cultures. This engineering excellence has led them to their current market position, and these teams are just tremendous. The downside of the engineering focus is that areas like Marketing, sales, and alliances have always taken a seat far in the back of the bus. When handset competition was driven by feature/function this was no issue.. but Apple and Google have changed the nature of handset competition and how consumers perceive value. Beyond the number of apps available to consumers, it is the number of BUSINESSES that are investing in the platform. Google and Apple have created platform ecosystems that enable many businesses to enhance the platform at a pace that a single company can’t match (sorry Apple), in new dimensions (Apps, in app advertising, NFC, …et), with new business models (see previous blog).

Elop has the right background to change this, and has a number of opportunities to put Nokia into a position to uniquely compete. My suggested focus: create a platform ecosystem around NFC, with Europe and a few Asian markets (SG, HK, AU) as the launch pad… Find a model where you make Google a partner. Why? It aligns with your core competencies, and your competitors are failing in the NFC platform. Apple is seeking too much control, and Android has poor focus beyond the broken US market. What if Nokia was Google’s key partner outside the US?

For those outside the MNO world, what I’m suggesting is heresy to many in the Nokia Symbian world. Its like telling the French that they should throw away their dead language and force adoption of English. Elop’s challenge is creating a platform business akin to what he ran at Microsoft. This takes ability to partner…. partnerships mean deciding on WHAT you must focus on. In Smart Phones… where is the competition battle? If it is App Stores can Nokia get a critical mass of developers writing to its platform as it looses the US market?  Where is the revenue opportunity? Is it the handset?

I’m certainly not suggesting that Nokia completely abandon Symbian… but what about providing an option? What if their phones were the only ones that could support multiple OS? Run any application? In the NFC model I’m suggesting, OS should not be the competing factor.. what Nokia needs is other companies investing in its platform. NFC seems to be a key prospect given the trajectories of other efforts.

As an example.. handset manufacturers control the “keys” to NFC’s secure element. Industry insiders guess Apple is planning to keep them from the MNOs.. could Nokia take a more “open route” by creating an global independent TSM… a “java” kind of approach. Today NFC software start ups are locked in by both handset manufactures and MNOs…. could Nokia leapfrog Apple by enabling companies to invest, and go to market, in NFC?

Nokia is not a dumb contract manufacturer. It is one of the best handset engineering companies in the business. WHAT it is engineering to is the operable question. An OS generic NFC ecosystem approach seems to be supported by over 130 NFC Patents as well (second only to Sony). This NFC Communications World article does a tremendous job outlining Nokia’s NFC Platform business model. Beyond the NFC ecosystem, Nokia is already assuming an equally broad leadership role in LTE, a world where all of your consumer electronics will will communicate with each other and your phone. Therefore, I disagree completely with Venture beat that Microsoft is the partner of choice.. Nokia’s plans should be one that makes OS the commodity.. let the customers and the market decide.

NFC Patent Portfolio

NFC Patent Portfolio

The first challenge for Elop is cultural. As a generalization, Motorola is rather hierarchical and autocratic, where Nokia takes on the Finnish consensus driven management culture. Given that Nokia’s primary asset is people, it is very difficult for Elop execute a “Steve Jobs” type of vision and command/control without destroying his organization. Is the burning oil platform analogy the first step in building the case for change? I would expect his next announcement to be a big vision… how will the stars in the Finnish company react?

Thoughts appreciated

“Real Time” Funds Transfer in the US

Posted on by
7

8 Feb 2011

I’ve had quite a few questions from start ups on this subject, so I thought I would address here. In the past few months we have seen press from Obopay on Star/NYCE integration that would allow for “instant” transfers, yesterday there was a press release from Cashedge/NYCE on the same subject. In my previous blog on Visa Money Transfers I discussed the top 2 fallacies: Instant and Mandatory. These same issues plague NYCE’s and Star’s PIN Debit “credit push”.

For the non-bankers, there are 5 basic payment networks that surround a typical US DDA account:

  1. PIN Debit/ATM (Interlink, Pulse, Star, NYCE)
  2. Signature Debit
  3. ACH (example The Clearing House, Jamie Dimon Chairman)
  4. FedWire (the US RTGS system run by the Fed)
  5. SVPCo (Check Images)
  6. Optional (ex. SWIFT, Western Union, …)

For further information see the FFIEC’s Examination Guide on Retail Payment Systems.

From a global perspective, we are quite a few years behind the UK and most of EMEA. While consumers in the UK can expect that 98% of domestic payments to clear in “real time”, most ACH “payments” in the US clear in the 3-5 day horizon. This blog is focused on “instant” payments. Important to note that the definition of “instant” is relative to both bank and consumer. For example, each bank has its own policy on funds availability and posting (vs clearing). A consumer could see funds posted to their account, but the funds may not be available for withdrawal. Other banks choose to show the consumers available funds to avoid confusion.

FedWire is a Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system run by the federal reserve. Each bank in the US maintains funds with the federal reserve, and FedWire performs real time exchange of funds between member banks. Consumers and Commercial Businesses know of this service as a “wire”, and it is the only real time payment network in the US with universal adoption. FedWire Fees (~ $.52) are paid by the sending bank.

PIN Debit

The other “real time” payments systems (surrounding a US consumer DDA) are PIN Debit and Signature Debit. PIN Debit Networks evolved from ATMs, connecting ATM nodes to bank run authorization systems. Bank Authorization processes for PIN Debit/ATM systems are rather straight forward: validate the PIN  and funds available (I emphasize this authorization process as it is key to understanding why a “credit” is difficult to process on this debit system). PIN Debit fees are typically paid by the merchant and average around 85bps + $0.10. For ATM use, banks control fees and can assess surcharge for use of bank or foreign ATMs.

ATM Networks grew as groups of banks banded together to monetize ATM infrastructure, and further expand network into the retail POS. This expansion led to further change in structure, from bank ownership to independence. The driver of any independent network is to add volume, nodes and services. ATM Networks evolved into PIN Debit Networks, with Visa’s 1987 contract to operate Interlink  serving as a key milestone. Today, Pulse is owned by Discover, Star by First Data, Interlink by Visa (these 3 make up over 83% of PIN Debit Volume).

PIN debit networks have been working to fill the real time “hole” in DDA payment services for many years. Star’s Expedited Transfer, NYCE’s A2A Money Transfer , Visa’s VMT all attempt to EXTEND their respective PIN Debit networks to handle credit transactions. In EVERY CASE, the networks must sell their members banks and get them to extend a PIN based network (which processed only debits in a simplified authorization process), into a funds transfer service. Who owns fraud? Compliance? Reg E burdens? Consumer Support? Returns? Reporting? Integration into online banking? Statements? .. yep the banks.. Oh and by the way.. the other “benefit” to a bank is that once you implement it you can forget about those expensive wire fees. The result of their efforts is what you would expect… VERY poor adoption.

Today, PIN debit networks are looking at a very bleak future. Signature and PIN debit rates will be moving to a flat fee of $0.21 as a result of the recent Dodd-Frank Act (pending completion of the comment period). As a result, my guess is that we will likely see consolidation and bank ownership of shared PIN network infrastructure as with any commodity payment service.

Signature Debit

Signature Debit varies from PIN Debit in that it evolved from Credit Card (as opposed to ATM). Visa was and has always been the leader in signature debit penetration, a look back at this 2003 article provides much insight into the history here. Most US consumers today don’t understand why their debit card has both a PIN and signature feature… many books could be written on this subject alone… but oddly enough consumers prefer PIN (see Pulse Federal Reshttp://3dmerchant.com/blog/how-can-i-reduce-american-express-transaction-fees/erve Presentation 10/10).

In the signature debit model, transaction authorization is much more complex, with most banks leveraging either network shared infrastructure (example Visa DPS), or their credit card systems. The complexity arises as the lack of PIN requires the banks to risk score transactions in a manner akin to credit card (absent the credit risk). There are limited facilities for a credit transaction within most Signature Debit systems, and most relate to a merchant credit relating to a previous transaction (ex. Overcharge, returned merchandise). DPS, Mastercard IPS, and most other platforms perform usually perform a daily net settlement with member banks (multiple settlement files are sent throughout the day.. but netted just once) .  Just as with PIN Debit, Signature Debit is also designed as a DEBIT ONLY system…

In VMT, Visa is attempting to enhance signature debit network into a quasi RTGS transfer service by leveraging its DPS hosting and authorization role. The QUASI is very important… as DPS, Interlink or any of the debit systems are “real time” ONLY in the instruction, NOT the Settlement.  To suggest that any of these services are an actual RTGS system is a significant stretch of the imagination and thoughtful invention. A payment system cannot be faster than its underlying settlement system.  The PIN and Signature Debit Networks DO NOT SETTLE, but rather depend on existing bank settlement processes (which are daily batch runs). The “message” to post or credit a transaction to the customer can be “instant” but the funds will not clear into the customers account until settlement occurs (dependent upon each bank’s policy).

What does this all mean for real time transfers in the US?

Only FedWire offers real time transfers between all financial institutions. All other solutions have sporadic coverage unless balances are held within the same institution (bank, paypal, … ).

How should you view NYCE, STAR, Visa “credit” Capabilities?

It works at some banks, with many provisions. I estimate that combined coverage of NYCE, Star and VMT “credit” covers less than 5% of all US deposit accounts. As you can see from WSJ graphic below, the top 5 banks account for 80%% of debit volume…. given that these banks have not adopted the credit services (in debit), there is little likelihood of success.

It is likely that independent PIN debit networks will go the way of Canada’s Interac… a bank owned service.

Messages for banks

Keep bank control of transfer facilities.. new services that give consumers real time transfers compete with wire, increase fraud exposure and enable rate hoppers… Why role this out today when you will likely get it from a bank owned network in 2-3 years.. ?

Disrupting Payments at the POS

Posted on by
Reply

7 February 2011

(Note: I apologize for the typos here in advance.. I really do need an editor)

At the end of the year, I try to do a little research… catch up on reading and relationships… all while updating my assumptions and predispositions. We are all creatures of our environment. Past experiences influence our views on current events and future expectations.

During this annual Holiday refresh process I try to develop some big picture “themes”. The questions I’m trying to answer: where are the opportunities? Where should I place my “bets”? What fundamental challenges that must be addressed? Are “fundamentals” changing (core innovation or at periphery)? Who has built a great team? Distruptive Innovations? The 3 areas I’m currently focusing on are: payments, mobile, and convergence (digital/real world).

Anyone that has read this blog knows I am a big fan of Clayton Christensen (author of Innovator’s Dilemma and coiner of term “Disruptive Innovation”).  From claytonchristensen.com:

An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill

 The litmus test for disruption involves delivering service in a substantially different cost structure. A key example is delivering simplified “good enough” product to a demographic that is “over served” by existing providers. From my (very limited) purview, there seems to be 2 core disruptive innovations that will influence payments at the Point of Sale (POS):

  1. NFC as a Payment Platform
  2. Mobile as an Incentive/Advertising Platform

There are numerous environmental forces that are shaping how these disruptive innovations will manifest themselves, for example:

  • Bank Ownership/Control of payment networks
  • Non Traditional Banks (Target, WalMart Mexico, Discover/Barclays)
  • Regulations
  • Specialization of Labor in Payment Services (Ops, Fraud, Risk, Platform, Support, Compliance, Banking, Acquiring, Processing, Authorization, … )
  • Handset Platforms (Android, iPhone, …etc)
  • Mobile Network Operator (MNO) platforms (NFC, ISIS, Advertising, Carrier Billing … )
  • Retailer Analytics (ie Price Optimization)
  • Advertising Analytics (ie. Adding location context)
  • Consumer Behavior
  • Price Transparency (Merchandise, Bank Fees, …)
  • Social Networks (Groupon, Facebook, … )
  • Consortiums and Partnerships

NFC as a Payment Platform

Mastercard’s PayPass was the first major contactless card program. Within the scope of the 2003 pilot program:

  • PayPass Technical Standards
  • PayPass Certification
  • Consumer PayPass Tokens
  • POS Terminals (which accept tokens)
  • Issuer Participation
  • Retailer/Transport Participation

Following MA, all of the other card networks have launched their own proprietary contactless products. They have numerous form factors, including: stickers, Key fobs, chips in cards, …etc.  Although most are based upon the same ISO 14443 technical specification… each payment process is proprietary and technology must be certified by each card network. Contactless cards ARE NOT a disruptive innovation, although pilots have been “successful” from a consumer use perspective, there were no new markets served nor was a more efficient cost structure developed. Many contactless issues remain unresolved today, these include: merchant POS costs, retailer/network/bank relationships, card reissuance, network effects/consumer demand, mobile application integration. (See previous blog for more detail).

NFC

Mobile Operators and the GSMA created an industry forum to define a broad set of standards surrounding Near Field Communications (see http://www.nfc-forum.org/aboutus/). This is a new “platform” where multiple applications can leverage an ISO 14443/18092 compliant radio/controller (Ex NXP’s PN544 which is in the Nexus S). In business speak, this means that the phone can run software applications which assume the roles of the any of the multiple card “tokens” above. In the NFC world, PayPass is just a software application which can be installed on an NFC enabled phone. The NFC architecture could also facilitate applications to act as a PayPass Reader (POS machine), Oyster Card, or on to take the place of your office badge to open secure doors (Previous Blog on NFC Ecosystem).

The 140 members of the NFC forum have done a superb job of creating a the specifications of a “platform”. Unfortunately, it takes strong business leadership to create a business model (and team) that can execute against it. Generically, key measures of platform success are “ecosystem revenue” and number of entities investing in it (see ISIS Blog). By these measures the ISIS consortium’s plans are severely challenged.  Today, Apple seems better positioned to execute in a “closed” NFC model (see Apple and NFC).

NFC as Payment Platform – Disruption

NFC thus enables a new “software” nature for both existing cards and payment at the point of sale.  Disruption occurs in: cost of customer acquisition, cost of delivering “new” payment services, cost of developing a payment network, cost of POS infrastructure, …etc.. As a side note, there is a separate case to be made that this same disruption exists in emerging markets separate from NFC (See MNOs rule in Emerging Markets).

Card Costs – Industry 101

Anyone in the credit card business knows that acquiring a new customer has 3 primary cost components: marketing, application, activation/use. Marketing is straightforward enough with card cost per acquisition (CPA) driven by marketing effectiveness (direct mail, online, referral, co-brand partner, …) to a specific demographic. CPAs in card can range from $10 to $200+.  Application encompasses collection of consumer data, credit scoring, pricing, acceptance of terms, approval and shipment of physical card. Activation and use is rather self explanatory.. with example costs relating to incentive programs driven on first use.. and continued use.

Future Scenario – PayPal/Bling

Let’s discuss a scenario involving a new payment instrument. Given that Paypal’s analyst day is Wed perhaps: PayPal and Bling at the POS. Today, Bling’s RFID based tags attach to your personal items and enable you to pay at a Bling enabled POS device (including Verifone’s new terminals). This model has a few problems, one is that tags must be mailed and activated. In a future scenario, PayPal has hired Zenius solutions to build a PayPal/Bling POS application within an NFC enabled phone. Now you just download the PayPal app to your iPhone 5 (complete with NFC). Merchant’s POS systems currently allow them to receive updates for each supported payment instrument. In this “future” case, PayPal has decided to eliminate the need for normal merchant agreements.. all that is needed for a merchant to accept a PayPal/Bling NFC payment is a paypal merchant account (with PaymenTech). What are PayPal’s costs in this model? Marketing (and paying the MNO for NFC access).

If PayPal could extend leverage their consumer footprint into the POS, with little cost, what does this mean for banks? It means that the banks could also build a new payment instrument that leverages their customer footprint. Why do you need a Visa or Mastercard brand at all if there is no cost to reissue? For consumers, what payment instrument do you choose? Is there a threat to the  entire concept of a credit card? Apple, Google and Amazon scenarios may also logically follow this example. Retailers like Target could also extend use of their payment instrument outside of their stores (see Target RedCard).

Bank Strategy in this model? See Banks Will Win in Payments

MNO Billing

Carriers in the US, EMEA and Asia are expanding into mobile billing services (provided by Bango, Boku, billtomobile, payforit, …etc). In this model, carriers are taking on some additional credit risk (for post paid accounts) and expanding use of pre-paid. Given that the carriers will be controlling the NFC platform (see related blog), they could also extend this payment capability to the POS with the appropriate processor relationships (ie. First Data, FIS, PaymenTech, …etc).

Disruptive Innovation – Mobile as Advertising Platform

This blog has gone on a little too long.. so will have to make this part 2. The basis for this section is my previous Blog: Mobile Advertising Battle. Disruption is cost to influence a customer prior to purchase. Influence includes targeting that is relevant to customer’s geography, preferences, demographic, transaction context, behavior, …etc

Summary

What does all this mean? What will 2014 look like? Unfortunately I don’t have a crystal ball.. what I would really like to do is charter some smart college team to create a “virtual option market” where we could all participate in pricing/evaluating various options (as laid out in the HBR article Strategy as a Portfolio of Options).

From an investor perspective, the prospect for these disruptive innovations altering the market is real, but with many dependencies and tremendous stakes. Clayton Christensen presented IBM/Intel/Windows as key example in dynamic of disruptive innovation. IBM chose to ignore the PC market.. as the margins were poor. Today, payment incumbents clearly see the threat and are reacting to it. Additionally, incumbents hold many of the “keys” necessary to execute and are well placed to construct new competitive barriers as well as ferment chaos and confusion. Small companies embarking on investments in this space must be versed in dancing with 800 lb gorillas… so ensure you have execs that can fill out the dance card and move swiftly while wearing iron shoes.

ISIS Platform: Ecosystem or Desert

Posted on by
10

3 February 2011

In yesterday’s post I discussed the business strategy behind NFC. I had a great note from head of mobile from one of the large banks this morning. Q: How did Visa and MA loose all of their momentum in contactless? How did we (banks) let this happen?

Banks have let small technology vendors define the market place, and have not demonstrated any leadership in driving the market forward; really makes you appreciate Dee Hock’s creation of Visa — how did he do it in such dysfunctional organizations? 

Visa/MA have made the same mistakes as banks plus they selected a technology which pushed the computing platform to a smart card via an NFC smart card, and then proceeded to do nothing to control the use of that technology, nor did they focus on key merchant categories like retail, grocery, and fuel to implement NFC infrastructure

Banks… here is the good news.. the ISIS team does not seem to be building a platform.. but a payment solution. MNO activities within ISIS:

  • Consortium
  • NFC Platform – “rocket scientist” engineers that developed it.. really
  • Retailer Relationships
  • Discover/Barclays relationships
  • …etc

All of this may be for naught if they can’t build a team capable of running a software platform business. They are appropriately focused on NFC payment, as it is the core of their value proposition and the reasons that the carriers created the consortium. But they have a mile wide hole in their business plan if they don’t start defining how other parties can invest to build out the ecosystem. It takes someone with solid experience to run a platform business (MSFT, Apple, Oracle, Google, ). Payment is just one element.

ISIS today looks like a Disney World with one exhibit.. Google and Apple understand the ecosystem dynamics of building a platform.  If Apple succeeds, all of the investment that MNOs and the GSMA made in building NFC will be lost, or at least permanently stunted.
ISIS Ecosystem Choice

The guiding lesson my teams have learned in helping create networked businesses is that scale is everything. As stated in the Oct 2006 issue of HBR,

[Network] leaders can leverage their higher margins to invest more in R&D or lower their prices, driving out weaker rivals. As a result, mature two-sided network industries are usually dominated by a handful of large platforms, as is the case in the credit card industry. In extreme situations, such as PC operating systems, a single company emerges as the winner, taking almost all of the market. Platforms serving two-sided networks are not a new phenomenon. … New platforms have been created (Google, for example, links advertisers and Web searchers) and traditional businesses have been reconceived as platforms. Yet for all the potential they’ve spotted, platform providers have struggled to establish and sustain their two-sided networks. Their failures are rooted in a common mistake. In creating strategies for two-sided networks, managers have typically relied on assumptions and paradigms that apply to products without network effects. As a result, they have made many decisions that are wholly inappropriate for the economics of their industries.

Problem I run into is that early stage companies cannot take advantage of common infrastructure until there is a critical mass of users (and specialization). Usage drives volume, volume drives profitability, profitability drives investment and specialization, specialization drives innovation, innovation drives more volume…etc. However, prior to this critical mass, where is value creation in a “new” Platform (great book Platform Leadership)? In a “new” payment network? Today, there are early stage companies failing because they bet on NFC too early.

Platform Leadership laid out a very nice framework, but was it for Software platforms only? What about Business Platforms? What is a Business Platform? Is Microsoft/Intel (WinTel) a Platform? Ecosystem?  Channel Masters? The great thing about the high tech space is that it is lightly regulated and operates under very well defined standards. A story is useful to draw context for the general audience of this blog.

Back around 2000/2001 one of my teams at Oracle ran the supply chain exchanges and also helped bring new Oracle products to market. Within HighTech, my solution architects worked with customers (ex. Cisco, Sony, TSMC, MOT, … etc.) as they progressed through standard like RosettaNet. Cisco was a huge proponent of RosettaNet, they viewed real time supply chain information as a key to their profitability (avoid the bull whip effects). The Rosetta PIP standards were crystal clear, but the business case for the manufactures was not. Although they certainly wanted updated demand plans from Cisco, they did not want to provide status of Work in Process WIP). If Cisco had the WIP information, they would then have the channel intelligence to reroute work if a foundry or CM was falling behind. Hence the commoditized suppliers resisted implementation of the WIP standards. Cisco eventually succeeded, as WIP became a competitive differentiator which Cisco was willing to pay for. Cisco is a very strong Channel Master; it owned the platform, the orchestration and the source of demand.

The reason I draw out this story is that network dynamics and incentives are a very complex.. but someone MUST HAVE A PLAN. Channel Masters have the best track record in creating business models where multiple companies invest and participate. Cisco is an example where it is channel master, owns the platform, dominates the ecosystem and is source of direct customer demand. Companies that follow this model (US Gov, Apple, Boeing, Airbus, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford,  …).  Some business platforms are completely dependent upon an open, broad participation for growth (Google, Apple AppStore, Java, Wikipedia), while others are closed and regulated (banking, communication, defense, …).

My Advice to start ups:

  • Do not assume ISIS will be successful
  • Do not invest in any ecosystem until there is profiability for the Channel Master and AT LEAST one other group
  • Look beyond US for opportunities. UK and Singapore have excellent consumer dynamics and may be an ideal location for early stage companies.

What will ISIS be? Closed or Open? Successful or … ?

NFC Game: MNOs 1, Banks 0

Posted on by
14

2 February 2011

The actual scoring is probably a little more complicated. This blog is focused on investors and business heads that are not deep in the trenches with mobile payments. There is much written on the technology, standards, pilots and who is doing what.. this is an attempt to understand the business incentives within the ecosystem(s) and WHY key actors are pursuing/supporting different strategies. Getting NFC in a mobile handset was no “obvious” decision for MNOs or Handset manufactures, in fact just 18 months ago Apple told a major bank “we have enough radios in the phone, can’t we just use one of the existing ones?”  The point shouldn’t be missed, there are many, many ways which a consumer can store information and transmit it to another device (like a POS).  As an example: the US State department (in its infinite wisdom) decided to put an unencrypted RFID tag that contains your name and passport #… Another wacky example is Google Zetawire Patent.

Why NFC? Technically it operates on the same ISO/IEC 14443 protocol as both RFID and MiFare so how is it different? I’m not going to get into the depth of the technology (see Wikipedia), but the biggest driver was  GSMA/NFC Forum’s technical definition (UICC/SWP) that ENABLED CARRIERS to control the smart card (NFC element). This in turn enabled carriers to create a business model through which they could justify investment (See NFC Forum White Paper). 

(Sorry for the pedantic nature of this, but since blog readership is going up.. I’m taking some license in assuming that the style is not irritating too many people.. and besides getting right use of terminology is important. )

Banks and card networks have been circling mobile/contactless payments for sometime. Mastercard’s PayPass (2003) led the way for many of the current bank contactless initiatives. Visa later followed (and still trails) with PayWave in 2007, and Discover with Zip in 2008.  All card initiatives operate on the same ISO/IEC 14443 protocol as NFC, most with numerous “successful” pilots.  The issues with contactless card platforms are not technology, but business model.

As with any new “platform” it must support a business model for some… preferably for many … participants. Card focused models focused on either cash replacement (ex. Transit, Vending, P2P, …etc.) or “premium” convenience play (see Best Buy NFC Pilot). For those of you not in the card or retail business… there is little love loss between the 2 groups. Retailers are not about to invest in anything that helps either banks or card networks unless it improves sales or margins (see Banks will win in Credit). The NFC model allowed carriers to control the radio, and integrate it into the SIM (UICC) for management of secure applications and data (see Apple and NFC).

Prior to NFC, the “control” for contactless payment was with each contactless network. Visa and Mastercard took 12-18 months to certify every new device. That meant every single new POS Reader, handset, … had to go through multiple certification processes. What  manufacturer would want to invest in this contactless model? Alternatively, NFC contains standards and specifications operating within ISO 14443 with an independent certification process. The NFC specification does provide for an independent entity, called the Trusted Service Manager (TSM), to assume the role of gatekeeper (See Dutch Example). But MNOs are not likely to give up the keys prematurely. In the US ISIS model, this TSM will be run by Gemalto (for the MNO consortium).

What does this mean? Q: Can Visa develop a PayWave application on an NFC certified phone? Yes.. can Mastercard develop a PayPass Application? Yes.. that have already. Can TFL develop an Oyster Application? Yes. Vendors like Zenius design secure applications that do just that. NFC enables the phone to host multiple applications that can use the “radio” in different ways (example open secure doors). These mobile applications are secure and can be provisioned and updated remotely. This is the “beauty” of the NFC ecosystem. Investors note: In all of these examples, it takes the MNO and/or TSM to approve your application. In the case of Visa and MA… they are not approved.  This means your start up can build the slickest app in the world.. but someone else owns the keys to consumer use.  For Visa and Mastercard: their PayPass and PayWave brands are mere NFC applications that can be denied within the NFC enabled phone.

Another important control point (for NFC payment) is POS infrastructure. A new NFC payment instrument must be supported by both the POS (certfication) and the processor(s). POS terminals typically support multiple standards, protocols and payment insturments (see VivoPay 5000M). For each payment method  (PayWave, PayPass, Zip, Bling, ..) the POS terminal must undergo a proprietary certification process. POS terminals connect to one or more processors (ex. FirstData, FIS, …) and in addition to processing the transaction, the terminals can receive and process updates (example ISIS/Zip protocol which is still in definition). A recent example of POS payment upgrade: Verifone’s efforts to include Bling/PayPal acceptance at POS, a very big story that has received little attention.

The “downside” of NFC for many stakeholders is that they are no longer in control. In the NFC model, the “keys” to the NFC platform sit with the MNO who controls the UICC.  This control is necessary, as it is the MNO who fulfills the KYC (Know your customer) requirement linking a real person to a SIM (and hence to a transaction). In the NFC model, Visa will still need to certify their own NFC software application to be PayWave compliant.. but will NOT necessarily need to certify the chipset/OS and device in which the application runs. Of course the details are a little sketchy here because Visa has not tested their own application for this environment, as handset manufactures are still in flight with their designs (focused on ISIS compatibility). I believe the ISIS dynamic is also the driver of why the latest Android Nexus S had write functions disabled..

Stakeholders

In analyzing the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for any investment I always look at who are the existing stakeholders and their realative markets. Within the NFC Ecosystem I see the following:

 

MNOs have had very little experience in running a software platform ecosystem, or a payment network.. or a TSM. Closed systems usually precede open systems, and I would expect this trend to follow within NFC. The vendor most able to coordinate a value proposition which spans payments, software, mobile platform, advertising, … ? Apple. Say what you want about Apple’s penchant for control.. they are one of the few companies with the skills and experience to address all of the issues surrounding a new mobile platform.

Banks and card networks are the only group not to score in NFC because of their inability to create a new value proposition with MNOs and retailers, as such they loose.  Banks hold out hope that existing card loyalty programs hold, and consumers refuse to use payment instruments that are not currently in their pocket. History demonstrates that telecom operators have ability to sell and market cards (see AT&T Universal) to create compelling incentives…. Banks will likely begin pushing the benefits of Credit cards (Reg Z consumer protections). Will carriers respond by expanding their consumer credit risk through carrier billing initiatives (Boku, Bango, billtomobile)?

Message to banks.. stop depending on Visa and Mastercard for this.. develop your own payment network, with a unique POS integration.

Thoughts appreciated

Part 2 – “Unprofitable” Payments

Posted on by
1

January 31, 2011

Yesterday’s post was “Banks will win in Payments”, a general rule of thumb that had one major caveat: Payments which are profitable. What about payments which are not profitable? Primary examples:

Historically Checks and Cash were a cost of doing “bank business”. Debit cards proved to be the most successful product in converting cash and checks into electronic payments (see Cash Replacement). Recent US financial legislation will move the debit business into a break even business for banks.. from 120bps of the transaction to a flat fee of $0.12. This has caused Banks to take a hard look at the “payment business” to determine if and how they make continued debit investment. Why support a Visa/MA branded debit card at all? Austrailia, Canada, Japan and Germany have similar dynamics here.. if you go to Canada and pay with “debit” it is your Interac card.. a bank owned debit network.. which retailers prefer as their payment mechanism of choice. In these geographies Visa and MA are known for Credit transactions only.

Clearly “payments” are a necessity for every transactional account (Demand Deposit Account – DDA). As US retail banks attempt to adjust DDA account fees, to rebalance overall product profitability, there are new alternatives developing that present a much more cost effective value propositions, particularly for segments below the mass market. Low value payments can support and even enhance existing value propositions of other non-bank networks, a dynamic I described in Why MNOs will Rule in Emerging Markets. As such, we are beginning to see “fragmentation” within “low value” payment solutions. In the US carriers are developing partnerships with mobile billing solution providers (Boku, billtomobile, …). In model, carriers are taking on some additional “credit risk” but are starting off small with digital goods. Low value payment further enhances the overall consumer value proposition for the mobile operator (retention, network use, network effects, on us, …).

Top Tier Banks must tread carefully on DDA fees, not only do they face competition from credit unions (not impacted by the interchange fee limits), and MNOs but also from pre-paid cards and brokerages which provide much of what mass consumers need in transactional accounts. The downside for mass market consumers is one of credit. Banks make credit decisions based upon relationship, credit history and DDA records. Keeping your balances out of a top tier bank (or the banking system) will make it harder to get a loan. As comments are coming due on the Dodd-Frank amendment.. a key bank argument is that the regulation will indeed create more unbanked.

Part 3 will cover new models where ad spend replace interchange in driving payment system revenue.

Message for start ups.. payments are a mine field.. the new debit interchange rates will drastically reduce merchants costs. Be cautious in building solutions around existing debit networks.. banks are planning changes.