Blog article
See all stories »

5 Considerations for Choosing a Payment Services Provider

My colleague recently published a piece on selecting a payment gateway and it got me thinking. How do you choose a service - any kind of service - when you're inundated with options? I've decided to use his same basic argument, but changed the focus from choosing a payment gateway to choosing a payment service provider.

Brand recognition, goes the argument, is important - but it isn't everything. As with all things, it's important to conduct a thorough, independent analysis to ensure that your prospective partner is able to meet your needs. Here's a few points to consider when carrying out said analysis:

1. International is better (except when it isn't)

Let's start with the basics. I may be stating the obvious, but the most important point to consider when selecting a payment service provider is their regional capabilities: do they speak the language of your target market(s)? Do they handle the currencies you require? For most businesses, global expansion is on the roadmap. As such, their partners must be truly international.

2. Keep commissions out in the open

It's no secret that processing payments costs money, but problems arise when payment service providers try hiding those commission fees in the fine print. Transparency in pricing ensures you know what you're being charged for, why you're being charged for it, how you'll be expected to pay for that charge, and when you're expected to pay it.

3. The full package

Following up on the previous point, make sure you know the nuances of your contract: what services you can expect your payments partner to cover and which ones you'll need to find elsewhere. Does your payment service provider offer in-house risk management? Can they assist with certification? How about regulatory advice? Before signing on the dotted line, make sure you know exactly what you're signing up for.

4. What does reputation count for?

Reputation is a strange thing: hard-won, easily lost. It shouldn't be the only thing you rely on when selecting a payment partner, though. After all, people are much more vocal about their negative experiences than their positive ones, which means you're likely to read critical, one-sided reviews from disgruntled former clients or possibly even saboteurs. That's not to say negative reviews shouldn't be factored into the equation, just that they ought to be considered in a balanced manner.

5. How to choose a payment service provider

And so we've come full circle, covering everything from global reach to the fine print to financial transparency. But the question remains: how should you actually go about selecting a payment service provider best suited to your needs? It's primarily about research and, crucially, about understanding the demands of your target audience. Actually, it's even more important that your chosen payments partner understands that target audience too.

 

8958

Comments: (5)

Ketharaman Swaminathan
Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune 13 August, 2019, 15:381 like 1 like

AFAIK, PayPal and STRIPE are the only two PSPs that provide Merchant Aggregation services for online payments - SQUARE does the same for instore payments - whereby the Merchant does not need a Merchant Account from an Acquirer Bank. If my understanding is right, any thoughts on why many more PSPs don't offer Merchant Aggregation as a differentiator? 

Paul Marcantonio
Paul Marcantonio - Ecommpay - London 14 August, 2019, 12:59Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

This is a tricky one. It's heavily dependent on the business model of the companies you've named. Merchant Aggregation is fraught with risk, because no KYC means that merchants are effectively anonymous. Unfortunately, that translates to a lot of illegal activity and miscoding. Acquirers aren't particularly keen on taking on that risk, because they're the ones to get penalised by Visa and Mastercard if it turns out their retailers are selling unlicensed pharmaceuticals instead of candles, for instance.

Ketharaman Swaminathan
Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune 14 August, 2019, 13:47Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

I agree it's heavily dependent on the business model.

That said, I think Merchant Aggregators do carry out some amount of KYC before onboarding Sub Merchants - or whatever the end Merchants are called.

I don't get your line "Acquirers aren't particularly keen on taking on that risk": Isn't it the the raison d'être of Acquirer to sign up Merchants? Whatever risk that entails must go with the territory! In any case, in the Merchant Aggregator model, the end Merchant's sales proceeds come into the Merchant Aggregator's account from where the Merchant Aggregator must approve movement of the funds to the end Merchant's bank account. In case of fraud or whatever, the Merchant Aggregator can always freeze the funds, as PayPal keeps doing ostensibly to mitigate its risk. Maybe Square and Stripe do the same for the same reason. My implicit point was that the PSP business has been commoditized for a long time. With due respect to your five areas of value add, it's still quite difficult to differentiate oneself on plain vanilla payment processing features alone. OTOH, many merchants still have a lot of pain in getting a Merchant Account directly from a Bank, so if PSP offers sub Merchant Account, that'd be a winner.

Put differently, why should a business go to a PSP and be left to its own devices to get a Merchant Account from a Bank, when it can totally bypass PSPs by going to a Merchant Aggregator like Stripe and avoid that challenge, and get payment processing anyway included with that?

Paul Marcantonio
Paul Marcantonio - Ecommpay - London 14 August, 2019, 15:56Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Based on your examples, it would appear that you’re mostly referring to the US model. Would that be the correct assumption to make? I must admit that for the basis of this article, I used my (EU-based) company. Consequently, we’re talking about a context in which both PSPs and Acquirers would be responsible for opening Merchant Accounts on behalf of their clients. If I’m not mistaken, Stripe also follows this model. 

Another thing that I should’ve specified in my article is that it really comes down to what the merchant is trying to achieve. As per my points, there are services beyond simply processing payments that could make working with a PSP or an Acquirer (as opposed to, say, a payments facilitator) worthwhile.

Please feel free to contact me on email at paul@ecommpay.com to discuss further!

Ketharaman Swaminathan
Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune 16 August, 2019, 09:18Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

TY for your detailed response. 

No, I'm not referring just to the US model. AFAIK, PayPal has been offering Merchant Aggregation model in EU / UK for +15 years; STRIPE began doing so in circa 2013.

Eventually only an Acquirer can provide a Merchant Account. But the difference between plain vanilla PSP and STRIPE-like Merchant Aggregator model is who frontends / underwrites the Merchant Account. In the PSP model, Merchant must get Merchant Account directly from Acquirer, which is quite a PITA. In the Merchant Aggregator model, Merchant Aggregator gets a Master Merchant Account from the Acquirer in its own name, which it then "rents" out to individual Merchants, who need not approach the Acquirer at all. So, there's a big difference in the scope of work - and value proposition thereof - between PSP and Merchant Aggregator, at least for Merchants who don't get a Merchant Account directly from an Acquirer.  

Now hiring