Community

It is funny how this now well established technology has been seen as problematic by the payments industry establishment in the USA for so long.  Now the bigger players have seen the light (e.g. MasterCard and Visa) you would have thought there would be a willingness to adopt the technology at all levels. 

The original point of the chip-and-signature option was to enable specific cardholders to use chip technology without the need to remember or key in a PIN where they had a problem.   It was aimed at providing a service to individuals, not as a general cop-out solution for issuers.

But is there no carrot and stick to help its adoption along?  In many places (UK included) the wake up call to the retail community came with differential pricing. 

The carrot was the acquirer and interchanges charging a very high per transaction charge to the retailer for mag stripe, much the same for chip-and-signature (making the issuers ask why bother?) and considerably less for chip and PIN.  So does this not apply in the USA too?  If so, then why would the retailers not then demand chip and PIN from every issuer? 

And where is the use of big stick to push things along? 

Anecdote time.  I recall being told by one senior manager from an American issuer at a technology show, many years ago when the UK was first embarking on EMV implementation, that he did not like chip technology because it was seen as unnecessary and 'foreign'. I wonder if that attitude still exists in some quarters? 

No, probably not...........

I thought Yorkshire Bank got on top of the problem pretty well.  Information flows to their customers was clear and concise, problems resolved swiftly and apologies profuse.

I'd give them 10/10 for handling the problem, especially in comparison with some other better known high street brands.

And no, I'm not an employee, but a customer......

Andy, as I see it there are a couple of significant issues the industry needs to face.  First and one of the biggest potholes that I can think of for mobile payments is the lack of a mobile signal.  Based in the SE of England it's only too easy to think that everywhere has a mobile signal.  Some of us don't have that luxury.  And if a payment system is not ubiquitous then you will have a problem getting it adopted and accepted by the customers.  That's a showstopper. 

On the issue of mobile coverage, are the payments providers in a position to bully the mobile telecoms providers in to truly getting 'universal' coverage?  I think not.  But rural markets are marginalised all the time anyway, so why should this be any different?

And the big question you ask is why should we adopt mobile anyway?  What is in it for me as a cardholder or the merchant?  Is it cheaper?  Is it more secure?  The technology is interesting - to the technology suppliers - but why would I want, or need, to change my current behaviour if I get no benefits?  Today I see no benefit, so why should I adopt a change in behaviour?

Lots of questions and no answers.  To me this will cause a continuing reluctance in the widespread adoption of the technology.  So you are right.  Someone somewhere needs to tell me that I'll save time, money and effort in adopting the technology, if it's available that is.

Just a couple of thoughts.  What about those of us who care not a jot about Facebook or Paypal and can live happily without them?  Will we be forced to join these schemes?  Not likely.  I'd sooner revert to branch banking.   Now there's a thought, face to face banking with someone you know and trust.  Or isn't that the 21st century way of doing things?

If SEPA DD is causing this much trouble one wonders about other aspects of SEPA, notably that for cards.  Has anyone got a clue about the level of acceptance - or not - of the retail community and the largest group, the bank cardholders.  Can someone point me to where has there been any widespread consultation or communication with the potential users?  Where have the results of any such consultation been published?  Where is the "marketing" of the changes to the cardholders? 

I, too, believe that governance of SEPA is a major concern (even though it has been tinkered with recently) and have been warning about it since the first drafts and outline plans emerged.  One accepts that payments are the resposibility of the retail banks; that is a fact. However, it seems that to date the SEPA organisation has been inward looking and sorely lacking in its approach to, and engagement with, the real world outside a closed coterie of the few who have set themselves up as the standards producers. 

SEPA for Cards was due (make careful note on the use of due) to come into force in 2010 and one wonders if any of the card, terminal and authorisation systems manufacturers have a real handle on what is required, when, how and the cost.  So how retailers and cardholders will react when they see yet more payment systems changes being foisted on them after chip and PIN and national security standards such as that imposed by APACS in the UK, one can only guess. My guess is that it will not be positive!

It is past the time when SEPA needs to engage far more closely and openly with the user and supplier communities.