Get all the best news and insights in payments everyday in your inbox.
Next to the content of bin Laden’s hard drive, what I’d most like to see today are the PowerPoint decks that led AT&T and Verizon to actually think they could start a mobile payments network. My guess is that between the two companies and their management consultants the following questions weren’t addressed or were glossed over as not being that important to pay attention to:
I was quite dubious about the chances for ISIS when it was first announced (Read: Will the Mobile Payments JV Trounce MasterCard and Visa?). But I figured that maybe they had thought this venture through more deeply than their announcements and press reports were suggesting and I had given them credit for. The Wall Street Journal article today by Robin Sidel and Shayndi Raice confirms my initial concern that this was yet another badly thought through adventure into mobile payments in America. Lots of hype, lots of money spent, not much to show for it, a sideshow on the long-haul to ignite mobile payments in this country.
What should the mobile carriers do now? There’s certainly nothing wrong in their trying to create disruptive innovation including mobile payments. They might succeed, make a lot of money for their shareholders and create valuable services for consumers and merchants. But maybe they don’t have it in their genes to do that anymore than I could, if I were younger, go from being an economist to being a singer. Instead of working on trying to be the mobile payments network or trying to control the mobile wallet, it might be best if the mobile carriers just concentrated on providing the best possible pipes for mobile payments and commerce and stopped trying to control other pieces of what will become the mobile payments workstream. That would probably speed up the development of mobile payments, and the carriers would probably make more money sooner.
David S. Evans is an economist and a business advisor to payment companies around the world. His recent work has focused on helping companies create, ignite and profit from payments innovation. He is the originator of the Innovation Ignition Framework®, a tool provides a systematic way for companies to evaluate and implement innovative ideas and achieve critical mass. David is the Founder of Market Platform Dynamics. Read More
Post your comment
Comments
Everyone doubted that Discover could enter the market for general purpose credit cards and survive. I was at Verifone when they launched and we were a key launch partner. Clearly they are still a niche player but a successful one. (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DFS+Key+Statistics) Matter of fact, when I joined Verifone in late 1984, Verifone had been around for about three years and was the laughing stock of the terminal industry and hanging on by a thread. We went on to pretty much own the POS industry in the US and had a successful IPO. What did it take? An amazing combination of focus, energy, luck, Interchange Incentives, a profound idea that led to a significant manufacturing cost reduction, rapid software development and an amazing combination of domain knowledge and industry contacts all brought together at the right moment.
I agree with your assessment of the challengs facing ISIS and NFC in general around the value proposition and the enormous complexity of overhauling the POS. Unlike in a place like Canada where you get 5 big banks controlling the paradigm and in less than 5 years they got together, created a Network (Interac) and got PIN Debit deployed to every POS in the country, the US market is much more fragmented. To get Mobile Payments widely deployed in less than 5 years, is going to take the incumbents to believe it is worth the hit to short term earnings to provide the incentives to the merchants to overhaul the POS like happenned back in 1985 when Visa and MC incented the transistion from paper warning bulletins to electronic authorization.
Posted by Steve Klebe, 05/05/2011 8:46pm (1 year ago)
While the hint of payments industry provincialism seeps into some posts, the notion that "big boys" feel they can just show up and enjoy massive success is a tad hubristic. (Shaq the rapper??) Innovation is key AND should be applauded and encouraged by all. As Simone suggests, we can all benefit. But maybe we can also benefit from a little more substance and a little less shout.
Posted by chris , 05/05/2011 2:13pm (1 year ago)
Nicely said Jim. I work for one of top 3 alternative payment providers and we would've been no where if the execs focused on posts like this. While the success, or lack thereof, of isis will impact our business if we don't get in the mobile game with our best foot we should be open to the possibilities and cheer on the new dawn that can take on these 'costly dinosaurs'
Posted by Simone Anonymous, 04/05/2011 7:50pm (1 year ago)
There's an old saying, "Failure is an orphan while success has many fathers." The same holds true with innovation. Too many folks are willing to condemn competition with the existing payment networks to premature failure -- until it works. Then the same people will undoubtedly wonder aloud why it took so long to displace these costly dinosaurs. Where's the optimism and encouragement for an innovation that might usher in a truly cost-effective, next-gen payment system?
Posted by Jim Wells, 04/05/2011 6:05pm (1 year ago)
Yawn. This is essentially an article about your "hunch", and the validation you claim from WSJ is just as baseless. I'm actually a little disappointed that someone of you caliber, David, will agree an idea that was just birth in less than a year won't work because it is "very difficult" to quote your WSJ reference. I have seen these criticisms one too many times at NTT Docomo, Jibun Bank, even same was said of Visa and MasterCard back in the day. Innovation is difficult, and expensive, but often times worth it--so rather than play to the party lines of the payments companies you advise, demonstrate your expertise by telling Telcos [and/or banks] what they need to do to ignite mPayments.
Posted by Sam Medulla Smith, 04/05/2011 5:20pm (1 year ago)
David,
The answer is simple - they didn't know anything about the payments industry, and assumed, as so many technologists do, that this is an old, inefficient industry ripe for dot-com-style disruption. I'll bet AT&T and Verizon heard that Visa and MasterCard operate "networks," and said, "networks? We do networks!" In my experience, most people who have not studied the payments industry seriously simply do not understand how difficult and complex it is, especially on the risk management side. Part of the challenge for the banks and payment card networks is educating the public on everything that they do, so they are not inappropriately compared with data exchange networks.
Posted by Aaron McPherson, 04/05/2011 2:17pm (1 year ago)
RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments