Community

@AlexN:

I was not hinting at any agenda-led bias. My point is more related to frame of reference and a limitation in research methodology. To continue with my example regarding method of payment / choice of channel, the way to evoke the full and correct answer is to frame the question thus: "If you're in the office with good Internet connectivity, which channel will you select for making a payment? On the other hand, if you're in your branch's neighborhood, will your answer be different?"

But not many MR agencies have the skills to recast this somewhat tricky question into a simpler one that captures the essence of the topic but can still be administered via their surveys. As a result, many surveys end up with simplistic questions masquerading as simple ones and we end up with snappy answers to stupid questions that sound paradoxical!

I don't see any paradox here. Customers simply like (or dislike!) multiple channels and if they select one channel today, it doesn't mean they'll reject all the other channels forever. It's only finsurgents and neobanks who think in terms of channel cost, "Borders" moment and "if you're not with us, you're against us".

Customers see different strengths for different channels and simply choose the one they find most suitable in any given context. From personal experience, assessment of suitability could also be very fluid: If I need to make a payment, I might choose Online Banking if I'm in the office having good Internet connectivity but choose to drop a cheque in the drop box at the branch if I'm in the neighborhood of the branch. I don't see any contradiction in any of this.

Haven't read the report itself but wonder if the survey suffers from "selection bias" - one would think that the SMB / startup target audience for Hadoop wouldn't form a bulk of Gartner's enterprise client base that is more likely to be using Business Objects, Cognos, SAS and other proprietary Big Data solutions that compete with the open-source Hadoop.

To play a little loose with an old Al Capone aphorism, Moven realizes that it can achieve a lot more with a mobile app and a bank than with a mobile app alone!

In all the 24 components, I couldn't find one related to sales. Unless banks sell  these products / services, everything else is moot. And better ability to sell is the real reason why Bankerless or Branchless Banking will not happen in the forseeable future.

Secret Of Survival Of Bank Branches

Forget delays in the disappearance of cash, I actually see it entering hitherto cashless usage scenarios e.g. ecommerce and even airline eticketing.

The Death Of Cash Is At Least 190 Years Away

Even the cashless-native Uber just announced plans to accept cash a couple of days ago.

Uber tests cash payments in India

I'm not questioning change per se but I don't believe that it's always unidirectional. Role of cash, branch and banker could sometimes swing both ways like a pendulum. The direction of change will be largely driven by the status quo. Too much branch density, like in USA? Shut down branches. Too little branch density, like in India? Open new branches. And so on.

Security and Convenience? That Holy Grail has not yet been cracked although many have tried and failed. (Banks Have Nothing To Fear From TELCOs). In recent times, Apple Pay has come closest to cracking this Holy Grail. With latest research showing that only 6% of iPhone6 users have ever used Apple Pay, it's not clear whether customers have really given their business to a vendor that provides security and convenience. Until they offer not only security and convenience but also inspire trust and roll out their own (nonbanking) rails, all wannabe competitors are either picking on business that banks have rejected or operating as resellers for banks. Either way, banks have no great reason to worry.

UBER accepts both credit and debit cards. Virtually everyone in India with a bank account has a debit card. While I don't have the exact numbers, I can bet that an overwhelming majority of Uber's middle class target audience has one or more debit and credit cards. So, Uber’s decision has nothing to do with card penetration level in India.

Now that I’ve hopefully swept away the customary patronizing arguments about how India does not have enough card users, here's why I don't use Uber despite having a credit card since 1988 and despite using its competitors Ola, Meru et al for over 100 trips. And, extrapolating from there, my take on why Uber was driven (no pun intended!) to this decision.

India's central bank cum banking regulator RBI keeps tacking on more and more security measures in a move to assure consumers that cashless electronic payments are fraud proof. For example, India is the only country in the world that uses Chip + PIN + Signature! Fraud levels are admittedly low in India. But, so are transaction levels. As I've argued for many years, the greater security measures have increased friction sharply and driven people off electronic payments. So much so that a person like me who has been using credit cards offline since 1988 and online since 1998 - yes, I'm that old! - finds it very painful to use them of late and has moved to cash and COD for offline and online purchases respectively. So, muted card use is because of heavy friction and has nothing to do with card penetration level in India.

Late, but smart, move by UBER to accept cash. I might finally give it a try - this Uber + PayTM thing never worked for me.

Uday Kotak, the CMD of Kotak Mahindra Bank, the 4th largest private sector bank in India, put it very well in an interview on Economic Times today. Traditional banking is driven by short and medium term profits, so it chases 20% of customers who contribute 80% of profits. On the other hand, digital banking chases the other 80% who deliver massive losses. As long as they are well funded, digital neobanks can afford to ignore revenues and profits in the short and medium term. However, even the largest and most profitable traditional bank is answerable for its financial performance to Wall Street every quarter.

I didn't see any guidance from Mr. Kotak on whether traditional banks should ignore short and medium term financial performance and go after the 80%. Which is okay since there may be enough room for both traditional banks and digital banks to coexist.

Great development. Yet another banking rail eventually proves to be the most viable way of offering electronic payments. Yet another proof that you can do more with a bank on your side than against you. 

Not sure whether Apple makes insanely great products or only the insane find Apple products great:) On a more serious note, Apple was already at the top of the cash hoard and market cap charts even before launching iPhone6, let alone Apple Pay. If it still chose to launch Apple Pay, that signals an intent - at least on the part of Apple’s C-Suite if not the average man in the streets of Cupertino - to care about basis points, security, convenience and other elements of payments. Given that Apple Pay is easily the most frictionless mobile payment method around, I tend to believe that Apple does care about payments. Apple Pay may not have disrupted the 3-legged card payments ecosystem but it has definitely disrupted mobile payments methods. Even assuming that Apple’s interest in Apple Pay is soley to push more iPhone6 handsets, it still has to get the basic elements of mobile payments right: Without that, consumer adoption of Apple Pay will be muted; merchants won’t find any business case in upgrading their terminals to support Apple Pay; if consumers don’t find ubiquitous acceptance of Apple Pay, they won’t buy / upgrade iPhone6 with Apple Pay in mind.