As Internet technology now allows bills or invoices to be presented electronically and then paid at the presenting web site (whether this is a bank’s site, merchant site or third-party site) in this brief article we investigate whether this carries any significant risk from a payee/consumer or merchant perspective.
Perhaps the very first test of potential “riskiness” when using any electronic presentment and payment (or EBPP for short) web site is whether it is secure. The vast majority of web page addresses, also known as URLs, typically begin with "http." However, to pay bills online, the web page should always start with "https," which signifies a secure socket layer or SSL connection (or one in which data is fully encrypted). This typically means that you can see a padlock icon, usually in the top or bottom corner of the browser window (or in some cases it may even turn the URL address background green or light blue). Clicking the padlock icon will often reveal the site's security certificate (and allow you to read about the particular protection that this affords).
Now that a consumer knows that he or she is on a secure site, the next step is to ensure that the login process is secure. A good site will usually give a consumer two options-to pay instantly or as a guest, and to register on the site to use it again and save time on the next occasion the consumer uses it. As a guest, a web site will typically only ask for an email address and then ask a consumer how he or she would like to pay from the options they make available. This may mean entering debit or credit card details for example, which should then give a consumer the option to confirm the transaction (and then as a further security step run the transaction through 3D secure-a process used by major credit card companies as an added XML layer for online credit and debit card transactions. Visa call this process “Verified by Visa”, MasterCard call it “MasterCard SecureCode”, JCB International call it “J/Secure” and American Express call this “SafeKey”. Overall then, a well-constructed site will offer a safe payment system for consumers (and there are card and bank protections on fraud and low limitations on consumer liability in any case). Even so, consumers should also look for extra safety in specific statements on any given EBPP site about PCI compliance (or payment card industry standard adherence) and/or that credit/debit card data or numbers will not be stored or saved in any way (and if they are, that they will be fully encrypted and tokenised as a further protection against theft or fraud).
When registering (either before or after a bill had been viewed and paid) a well-designed and safe web sites will ask a consumer to set up a user name and password that he or she can remember and that identifies the consumer every time he or she uses the site in the future. The site may also ask for additional data such as email address, physical address, date of birth, driving license number or even passport number. In some cases, they may go yet further and ask security questions to help validate a consumer’s identity in the case of a future forgotten login ID or password. Although these may seem personal and even intrusive, these steps are all designed to protect consumer security and ensure that only one person is able to see the bills posted and to effect payment of any kind. In other words, this process allows the web site operator (financial institution or merchant) to know the customer (a process they call KYC) and protect everyone’s security to the best of their ability.
In general, research suggests that consumers worry most about using credit and debit cards on online sites of any kind. However, in the world of bill payment (as opposed to online shopping for example) these risks are not as great. Even a person with a stolen credit card number is highly unlikely to pay a bill for another person (assuming he or she had the bill details to enter) and even if they did, the risk would be with the merchant and not the consumer. So what about merchant side risk?
For a merchant, the greatest risk is charge-backs. This is where the credit or debit card holder disputes the transaction anywhere up to 6 months after the transaction date. Charge backs can either be because the card holder disputes that they made the transaction at all (i.e. it was a stolen or fraudulent), or because they did receive anything in return for the payment that was made. The second reason for chargebacks in the bill pay space is very rare, but the first reason-theft or fraud is obviously quite common (with total estimated costs of just under £1 billion in the UK in 2010). This is why online billpay web sites need to take so much care to ensure that card holders (who are not present as they are in a retail transaction) are who they say they are.
Summary
In the final analysis, for those EBPP sites that have a clear secure socket payment layer (SSL), have clear statements about security of information and sound compliance and a well-structured registration process, consumers face very low levels of risk (with a very low liability even when a rare problem may arise in any case). The merchant however, faces potentially much more risk arising from both debit and credit card fraud (and therefore possible charge-backs), but risk this can be mitigated with good consumer checking processes that are made easy for every customer to the site to use.
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Monday, 12 December 2011
Should public sector organisations care about introducing e-billing?
Electronic billing (or E-billing for short) has now been around for several years and has been introduced in businesses like large utilities, telcos and many smaller commercial organisations (such as accounting and legal firms). However, it seems the switch to some form of e-billing has occurred mainly in the private sector and only in a limited way (if at all) in the public sector. In this blog article, we will explore why this is the case and whether this is because the barriers to adopting this approach are different in the public sector or perhaps that some of the benefits may not apply.
The “public sector” is obviously a catch-all term and one which envelopes large national government departments such as defence (including all the armed forces), education (including state run schools and colleges), employment, social security or tax) and smaller local government entities such as urban and rural councils. In addition, it also includes more directly community-focused organisations such as hospitals (of all sizes and kinds), the fire service and the police, etc. Clearly, this represents a wide range of very diverse types of organisation whose needs are likely to vary greatly when it comes to the flow of money in an out. Of course, not all of these organisations send out a bill or invoice or even provide a receipt. However, they all buy products and services of one kind or another and will often have some kind of internal charging method for services rendered (however infrequent this may be). This means that the vast majority of public sector organisations receive or issue bills (especially where they deal with consumers directly) and the volume can be very high. This is true of large council organisations, medical clinics and tax departments for instance and in some single organisations can run into millions of bills each year. For example, both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) in the UK issue over 20 million bills a year to consumers alone. We will therefore assume that for the purposes of this article that we are referring to the whole public sector, which includes Government to Government (G2G), Government to Business (G2B) and Government to Consumer (G2C) billing.
Based on the volumes of invoices generated (estimated to be over 2 billion bills/ invoices a year across the entire UK public sector), the automation of billing and payment collection processes (to create greater efficiency) should be a primary concern of most governmental entities. However, the evidence suggests that the generally slow take up of new approaches and online technology in particular has arisen from both many perceived barriers and a lack of perceived benefits versus commercial companies. Let’s therefore look at each of these factors in turn.
The Perceived Barriers
Although there are others, there are five main perceptions that public sector organisations often have about e-billing and payment. These are listed below:
The Perceived Benefits
A manager in the public sector can review the commonly perceived benefits of e-billing as easily as a private sector manager can do so. However, he or she may feel that these benefits may not apply as much or even at all in some cases. In the chart below, we have listed six of the major perceived benefits of modern internet based e-billing and payment portals (again such as Payswyft for example) and commented on the likely applicability of each to both private and public sector organisations.
In addition to the above benefits in each of these six categories, online presentment and payment portals provide for many other valuable features. This includes, easy upload of accounting data files (by many means), file transfer compatibly, to and from all major accounting systems, convenient and useful transactional analytics and cheaper bill-storage and retrieval. In fact, public sector organisations are often required to be able to store and retrieve many years of bills and transactional records, which can now all be done in the third party online bill presentment and payment portal. This means that bills can be easily found, referred to, appended with notes or even resent and a very low cost to the organisation in question.
Every one of the above ultimately can potentially create a much more user-friendly process to send a bill and get it paid for both the organisation and its payees (whether these are other public sector organisations, businesses or consumers). Furthermore, many of the legitimate barriers to entry of the past seemed to have disappeared and the benefits of making the change are now clearer. For this reason, e-billing should now be a key strategy for every public sector organisation.
This article was written by Dr Jon Warner of Payswyft (at www.PaySwyft.com). Jon has extensive senior executive experience and has led organizations in a variety of industries through significant transitions to achieve bottom-line results. He is an expert in developing and implementing strategies in operations, marketing, sales, and corporate turnarounds. Jon is currently CEO of PaySwyft in the UK (an innovative on-line billing and payment business) and Chairman of WCOD (a management consulting and publishing business). He can be reached at jon.warner@payswyft.com.
The “public sector” is obviously a catch-all term and one which envelopes large national government departments such as defence (including all the armed forces), education (including state run schools and colleges), employment, social security or tax) and smaller local government entities such as urban and rural councils. In addition, it also includes more directly community-focused organisations such as hospitals (of all sizes and kinds), the fire service and the police, etc. Clearly, this represents a wide range of very diverse types of organisation whose needs are likely to vary greatly when it comes to the flow of money in an out. Of course, not all of these organisations send out a bill or invoice or even provide a receipt. However, they all buy products and services of one kind or another and will often have some kind of internal charging method for services rendered (however infrequent this may be). This means that the vast majority of public sector organisations receive or issue bills (especially where they deal with consumers directly) and the volume can be very high. This is true of large council organisations, medical clinics and tax departments for instance and in some single organisations can run into millions of bills each year. For example, both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) in the UK issue over 20 million bills a year to consumers alone. We will therefore assume that for the purposes of this article that we are referring to the whole public sector, which includes Government to Government (G2G), Government to Business (G2B) and Government to Consumer (G2C) billing.
Based on the volumes of invoices generated (estimated to be over 2 billion bills/ invoices a year across the entire UK public sector), the automation of billing and payment collection processes (to create greater efficiency) should be a primary concern of most governmental entities. However, the evidence suggests that the generally slow take up of new approaches and online technology in particular has arisen from both many perceived barriers and a lack of perceived benefits versus commercial companies. Let’s therefore look at each of these factors in turn.
The Perceived Barriers
Although there are others, there are five main perceptions that public sector organisations often have about e-billing and payment. These are listed below:
The Perceived Benefits
A manager in the public sector can review the commonly perceived benefits of e-billing as easily as a private sector manager can do so. However, he or she may feel that these benefits may not apply as much or even at all in some cases. In the chart below, we have listed six of the major perceived benefits of modern internet based e-billing and payment portals (again such as Payswyft for example) and commented on the likely applicability of each to both private and public sector organisations.
In addition to the above benefits in each of these six categories, online presentment and payment portals provide for many other valuable features. This includes, easy upload of accounting data files (by many means), file transfer compatibly, to and from all major accounting systems, convenient and useful transactional analytics and cheaper bill-storage and retrieval. In fact, public sector organisations are often required to be able to store and retrieve many years of bills and transactional records, which can now all be done in the third party online bill presentment and payment portal. This means that bills can be easily found, referred to, appended with notes or even resent and a very low cost to the organisation in question.
Every one of the above ultimately can potentially create a much more user-friendly process to send a bill and get it paid for both the organisation and its payees (whether these are other public sector organisations, businesses or consumers). Furthermore, many of the legitimate barriers to entry of the past seemed to have disappeared and the benefits of making the change are now clearer. For this reason, e-billing should now be a key strategy for every public sector organisation.
This article was written by Dr Jon Warner of Payswyft (at www.PaySwyft.com). Jon has extensive senior executive experience and has led organizations in a variety of industries through significant transitions to achieve bottom-line results. He is an expert in developing and implementing strategies in operations, marketing, sales, and corporate turnarounds. Jon is currently CEO of PaySwyft in the UK (an innovative on-line billing and payment business) and Chairman of WCOD (a management consulting and publishing business). He can be reached at jon.warner@payswyft.com.
Monday, 14 November 2011
What will happen to bank fees in the future?
In my last blog article I stated that Merchant Banks are now making a large proportion of their profits by charging fees to both end consumers or account holders (although they worry about overdoing this to prevent customer “churn”) and to merchants who want to offer payment services to their customers. In the latter, I also suggested, there are many direct and indirect fees in the mix that need to be closely scrutinised. In this follow-on article I want to look take a more philosophical perspective and gaze into the crystal ball a little. I am therefore going to look at what the future might hold for merchant bank fees of all kinds.
The future of Direct Customer fees
Banks tend to charge transactional fees only when a customer has gone beyond what is deemed to be the core commercial relationship. Hence, fees are typically charged to customers when they have overdrawn an account, written a cheque in circumstances where they are insufficient funds to cover it, written a banker’s draft, made a wire transfer or carried out a foreign exchange transaction etc.
Although different banks are likely to try different approaches, most of them will want to move to a more transparent business model with customers. This will involve no fees whatsoever for customers that maintain a minimum positive balance and are willing to tie inward payments to their checking account (such as regular salary payments for example). It may also be that the bank will require some other accounts to be maintained to keep fees at zero (such as having a separate savings account or buying insurance through the bank etc). However, the model here will typically be not to charge fees for normal everyday transactions, and this will include items such as electronic bill pay, peer-to-peer payments online or via a smart phone app and even account balance enquiries online or at an ATM.
Of course, while this free service approach may work well for customers who can maintain a minimum float in a checking account (and also meet the other standards that may be required), many customers will not be able to do this and may actually pay more than they are charged today. As this encompasses many customers who are potentially still very valuable to a bank in the long term, another strategy here (and one that has been adopted already in several banks) is to charge a single standard account management fee (such as £20 or £30 per month perhaps-often also involving some rewards or loyalty benefits being offered too). This would either render all transactional fees at zero (or at least all but the ones that involve a customer going into debt).
Merchant fees
There has been much controversy about merchant bank fees in recent years. This controversy arises mainly from two factors: The first is the scale of these fees (both fixed and variable). And the second is the number of different fees that are levied (leading to much complexity and frustration on the part of a given merchant, much of the time). As we saw in the last article, there are often many separate charges rendered by merchant banks including: Cash processing fees, Cheque processing fees, Discount Fee Rates, Inter-change Transaction Fees, Address Verification Service (AVS) fees, Batch Fees, Monthly Statement or Customer Service Fees, Monthly Minimum Fees, Gateway Fees, Annual Fees, Chargeback/Retrieval Fees, and even Cancellation/ Termination Fees (not to mention other administrative fees relating to copy statements or reminder letters etc). The shear volumes of these different and often layered fees make not only for extra hidden costs but often considerable internal merchant time and effort to check that they are accurately applied.
While it is highly unlikely that merchant side fees will disappear completely, we are already seeing a shift to fees that fall into two categories. Those fees that are seen by a merchant as relatively arbitrary and unrelated to any real cost or contribution (let’s call them bank overhead recovery fees) and fees that are seen by a merchant to relate directly to a particular service or tangibly valuable outcome (let’s call them convenience fees). The future of these two fee categories will be very different.
Overhead Recovery Fees
Overhead recovery fees (rightly or wrongly in reality) are seen to be things like Discount fee rates, Bank Interchange rates, Gateway Fees, Batch Fees, Monthly minimum fees, Annual fees, Cancellation/Termination fees and any fees related to administration (such as charging for an email being sent) etc. What these fees have in common is that most merchants see these costs as having no direct benefit to their business or add little value as far as they are concerned. In fact, most merchants take the view that many of these tasks and processes have been automated or made very simple and cheap in the advent of modern software and/or Internet based technology, and yet fees have remained broadly the same or in some cases gone up. Debit cards in the US, provide a particular example where fees which often average 75 cents or higher were known to be costing a bank 70-80% less than this.
All Merchant banks will continue to compete aggressively with one another to win new customers or to retain existing ones, and price will be their primary tool. This is likely to drive these perceived to be low valued-added overhead recovery fees down strikingly in the next few years. Furthermore, as more and more mainly internet-based payment providers come to the market (with far less overhead to have to recover of course) there is every chance that all of these fees will evaporate completely-very good news for merchants of all sizes and types.
Convenience fees
Convenience fees (again rightly or wrongly in reality) are seen to be things like Cash and Cheque processing fees, Monthly Statement fees, Chargeback/ Retrieval fees etc. Not only do most merchants appreciate that these services have more easily seen effort and cost associated with rendering them but can more readily appreciate the value that they add to them. In other words, these activities would be as costly or even more expensive if they were to be performed by the merchants themselves or some other third-party organisation. In addition, these activities are perceived to add value in many cases by providing efficiency, or even a direct customer service benefit (which either increases satisfaction or can justify a particular pricing position on goods and services). You’ll notice that Address verification fees or Customer Service fees are not automatically listed here as convenience fees. These qualify to be included but merchant banks need to work hard to explain why and how this is the case (whether it is describing the benefit of having a real live person available in a call-centre to help with an unusual transactional event or bring about better credit card security by using look-up database services etc).
For all of these fees, if well-presented and explained, there is every opportunity to continue to charge for the service offered. However, the real opportunity here (to both retain fee income and then to grow it) lies in really getting alongside merchants in helping them to reduce their costs or to increase their revenue (in tangible ways). In this respect the opportunity is to help the merchant get bills/invoices seen more quickly and in digital form, to set up calendarised and recurrent type payments when they want them, the offer aggregate bulk payments (especially in the B2B space), to offering currency exchange service options, to offer greater payment type ubiquity and to offer better analysis and reporting on progressive transactional activity. In addition to this, merchant banks can offer modern internet-based technology to store invoice and payment data, offer alerts and reminders when wanted and even to provide links to better goods and services pricing and payment options in the future. Simply put, fee income in this convenience category can grow, and do so substantially, but only when there is a true partnership and the bank and merchant can both gain from the relationship in real and visible ways.
Summary
The merchant bank fee scene will change dramatically in the next few years. Overhead recovery type fees will reduce dramatically and ultimately disappear altogether in the competitive landscape ahead. However, convenience type fees, or those that can be seen by a merchant to add-value will continue to exist and can grow. This growth however, will be heavily dependent upon each bank’s ability to work in partnership with their merchants and offer technology and services that tangibly lead to lower costs or higher revenues. This will therefore be the big challenge for merchant banks in the next few years.
The future of Direct Customer fees
Banks tend to charge transactional fees only when a customer has gone beyond what is deemed to be the core commercial relationship. Hence, fees are typically charged to customers when they have overdrawn an account, written a cheque in circumstances where they are insufficient funds to cover it, written a banker’s draft, made a wire transfer or carried out a foreign exchange transaction etc.
Although different banks are likely to try different approaches, most of them will want to move to a more transparent business model with customers. This will involve no fees whatsoever for customers that maintain a minimum positive balance and are willing to tie inward payments to their checking account (such as regular salary payments for example). It may also be that the bank will require some other accounts to be maintained to keep fees at zero (such as having a separate savings account or buying insurance through the bank etc). However, the model here will typically be not to charge fees for normal everyday transactions, and this will include items such as electronic bill pay, peer-to-peer payments online or via a smart phone app and even account balance enquiries online or at an ATM.
Of course, while this free service approach may work well for customers who can maintain a minimum float in a checking account (and also meet the other standards that may be required), many customers will not be able to do this and may actually pay more than they are charged today. As this encompasses many customers who are potentially still very valuable to a bank in the long term, another strategy here (and one that has been adopted already in several banks) is to charge a single standard account management fee (such as £20 or £30 per month perhaps-often also involving some rewards or loyalty benefits being offered too). This would either render all transactional fees at zero (or at least all but the ones that involve a customer going into debt).
Merchant fees
There has been much controversy about merchant bank fees in recent years. This controversy arises mainly from two factors: The first is the scale of these fees (both fixed and variable). And the second is the number of different fees that are levied (leading to much complexity and frustration on the part of a given merchant, much of the time). As we saw in the last article, there are often many separate charges rendered by merchant banks including: Cash processing fees, Cheque processing fees, Discount Fee Rates, Inter-change Transaction Fees, Address Verification Service (AVS) fees, Batch Fees, Monthly Statement or Customer Service Fees, Monthly Minimum Fees, Gateway Fees, Annual Fees, Chargeback/Retrieval Fees, and even Cancellation/ Termination Fees (not to mention other administrative fees relating to copy statements or reminder letters etc). The shear volumes of these different and often layered fees make not only for extra hidden costs but often considerable internal merchant time and effort to check that they are accurately applied.
While it is highly unlikely that merchant side fees will disappear completely, we are already seeing a shift to fees that fall into two categories. Those fees that are seen by a merchant as relatively arbitrary and unrelated to any real cost or contribution (let’s call them bank overhead recovery fees) and fees that are seen by a merchant to relate directly to a particular service or tangibly valuable outcome (let’s call them convenience fees). The future of these two fee categories will be very different.
Overhead Recovery Fees
Overhead recovery fees (rightly or wrongly in reality) are seen to be things like Discount fee rates, Bank Interchange rates, Gateway Fees, Batch Fees, Monthly minimum fees, Annual fees, Cancellation/Termination fees and any fees related to administration (such as charging for an email being sent) etc. What these fees have in common is that most merchants see these costs as having no direct benefit to their business or add little value as far as they are concerned. In fact, most merchants take the view that many of these tasks and processes have been automated or made very simple and cheap in the advent of modern software and/or Internet based technology, and yet fees have remained broadly the same or in some cases gone up. Debit cards in the US, provide a particular example where fees which often average 75 cents or higher were known to be costing a bank 70-80% less than this.
All Merchant banks will continue to compete aggressively with one another to win new customers or to retain existing ones, and price will be their primary tool. This is likely to drive these perceived to be low valued-added overhead recovery fees down strikingly in the next few years. Furthermore, as more and more mainly internet-based payment providers come to the market (with far less overhead to have to recover of course) there is every chance that all of these fees will evaporate completely-very good news for merchants of all sizes and types.
Convenience fees
Convenience fees (again rightly or wrongly in reality) are seen to be things like Cash and Cheque processing fees, Monthly Statement fees, Chargeback/ Retrieval fees etc. Not only do most merchants appreciate that these services have more easily seen effort and cost associated with rendering them but can more readily appreciate the value that they add to them. In other words, these activities would be as costly or even more expensive if they were to be performed by the merchants themselves or some other third-party organisation. In addition, these activities are perceived to add value in many cases by providing efficiency, or even a direct customer service benefit (which either increases satisfaction or can justify a particular pricing position on goods and services). You’ll notice that Address verification fees or Customer Service fees are not automatically listed here as convenience fees. These qualify to be included but merchant banks need to work hard to explain why and how this is the case (whether it is describing the benefit of having a real live person available in a call-centre to help with an unusual transactional event or bring about better credit card security by using look-up database services etc).
For all of these fees, if well-presented and explained, there is every opportunity to continue to charge for the service offered. However, the real opportunity here (to both retain fee income and then to grow it) lies in really getting alongside merchants in helping them to reduce their costs or to increase their revenue (in tangible ways). In this respect the opportunity is to help the merchant get bills/invoices seen more quickly and in digital form, to set up calendarised and recurrent type payments when they want them, the offer aggregate bulk payments (especially in the B2B space), to offering currency exchange service options, to offer greater payment type ubiquity and to offer better analysis and reporting on progressive transactional activity. In addition to this, merchant banks can offer modern internet-based technology to store invoice and payment data, offer alerts and reminders when wanted and even to provide links to better goods and services pricing and payment options in the future. Simply put, fee income in this convenience category can grow, and do so substantially, but only when there is a true partnership and the bank and merchant can both gain from the relationship in real and visible ways.
Summary
The merchant bank fee scene will change dramatically in the next few years. Overhead recovery type fees will reduce dramatically and ultimately disappear altogether in the competitive landscape ahead. However, convenience type fees, or those that can be seen by a merchant to add-value will continue to exist and can grow. This growth however, will be heavily dependent upon each bank’s ability to work in partnership with their merchants and offer technology and services that tangibly lead to lower costs or higher revenues. This will therefore be the big challenge for merchant banks in the next few years.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
A guide to bank transactional fees (direct and indirect)
For many years now, banks and other financial intuitions (including credit unions and community banks) have been generating revenue from transactional fees of one kind or another. In fact, these fees can make up a large proportion of overall revenues and corresponding profits (in some cases constituting up to 50% of all profits in some banks).
In general, transactional fees fall into two categories-those that are charged to the end customer or the consumer and those that are charged to an organisation or merchant, when it wants to allow payment services to its customers.
Direct Customer fees
Transactional fees typically apply only to the direct customers or account holders of a given bank (as the bank has no direct relationship with other consumers) and even then, only when a customer has gone beyond what is deemed to be the core commercial relationship that the bank is prepared to offer at no direct cost. Hence, fees are typically charged to customers when they have overdrawn an account, written a cheque in circumstances where they are insufficient funds to cover it, or perhaps used an automated teller machine or ATM in another banks’s network. However, even here, a bank will allow many transactions without fees, if a customer maintains a positive balance (sometimes with a minimum threshold) or commits to regular income being paid in or saved every month. This is because banks worry a lot about customer “churn” and know that fees can often be a “switching factor” if they become too much of an irritant to an account holder (especially now that opening another account with a different bank can be done online very easily in many cases). The simple logic here is that it is more cost effective and profitable to keep good customers who transact regularly with a bank (and do so for the most part in the black) for what might be many years, than to risk losing them completely over a fair but nonetheless irritating fee that “pushes them over the edge”. But even though this results in what might be seen as a better deal for the end consumer, banks still have to find ways to recover their internal transactional costs and overhead in some way. For some transactions, such as bank cheques, wire transfers and transactions involving foreign exchange a customer will be relatively happy to pay (as these are often “one-off” or special instances). However, these fees will not always cover the costs involved completely and it therefore often falls to the other major category to provide the fees that can cover costs and the bank’s overhead-the merchant.
Merchant fees
Although every individual commercial merchant relationship will be different, depending on a given organisation’s size, type of business, types of services offered etc, banks will typically charge a very wide variety of transactional fees to most merchants to provide a payment service.
The most obvious fees charged to merchants (because they have been around for a long time) are for cash and cheque handling. In both cases, these payment transactions are expensive for any financial institution because they involve human intervention (a teller in a branch perhaps or a reconciliation and settlement clerk in a head office) and in both cases, considerable human data entry (sometimes carried out multiple times) is required. As with an end consumer, a merchant may be able to bring about lower fees by maintaining a positive balance or “float”. However, it is rare for any merchant these days to be able to operate without an overdraft, at least some of the time, so fees in this area need to be monitored carefully by every merchant.
Outside cash and cheque payments, the majority of transactional fees that are charged by a merchant bank are credit and debit card use fees. Cards are typically issued to a consumer without charge, and with no transaction fees when they are paid off regularly each month. However, a merchant will be charged for every transaction that a customer makes with a credit and/or debit card and this may be a very complex affair. In some cases, the fee charged will be a single “aggregate rate” for say credit card use, such as 2.5% of the transaction size. Hence for a £100 consumer purchase, a charge of £2.50 will be made to a merchant. However, this rate may vary from one transaction to another and this is because the aggregate rate is made up of many sub fees that every merchant needs to know about. Here are just some of the fee types that are typically charged:
The Discount Fee Rate
Credit and debit card companies (Visa and MasterCard being by far the largest of these) have what is called “interchange” rates. These can range in price- so in order to make it easier, the merchant banks often have sub-categories. These include rates such as the Qualified Discount Rate – a pre-set or agreed percentage is paid for each pound charged or the Non-Qualified Rate – a fee added to the qualified discount rate in certain transactions. For example, this may occur if a merchant does not use an address verification service (AVS) when they manually enter or take a transaction.
Transaction Fees
This is a specific, flat rate (such as 5 or 10 pence) that is paid on every sale processed through the specific credit card processor. Sometimes the transaction fee is called the interchange fee, authorization fee, or per inquiry fee.
Address Verification Service (AVS) fees
Merchant banks charge a small fee for the validation service to ensure that the billing address provided in say an online checkout process matches the issuing bank’s records. Not using this service can sometimes result in hefty charges on the processing of the card for that sale.
Batch Fees
Merchant banks often require that customer organisations complete or “close out” their transactions a minimum of one time each day. The batch fee pays for expenses for the “gateway” or software that accesses the credit card processing network. If a merchant doesn’t have transactions to process, there is no batch fee to pay of course.
Monthly Statement or Customer Service Fee
Most merchant banks charge a monthly fee in order to cover their deemed monthly costs of operation for a given merchant (paying their customer service team for example).
Monthly Minimum Fee
Many merchant banks require a given organisation to process a minimum amount of sales per month, or they pay a monthly minimum. Monthly minimums tend to range between £15 and £50 per month.
Gateway Fees
There are fees for internet and mail order merchants to use an internet gateway service, although some merchant banks will cover this fee on their customer’s behalf as part of the package deal.
Annual Fees
These are often charged by Merchant banks when free terminal equipment to take payment is offered.
Cancellation/Termination Fees
Most merchant accounts require a contract agreement of one or two years and if a merchant cancels early, they are likely to be charged a termination fee.
Chargeback/Retrieval Fees
When a customer requests a refund (or the customer’s credit card issuer requests a refund), merchant banks typically charge a “chargeback” fee. This can typically range from £10 to £30. This can mount up quickly when possibly chargebacks are not managed carefully.
Summary
Banks are now making a large proportion of their profits by charging fees to both end consumers or account holders (although they worry about overdoing this to prevent customer “churn”) and to merchants who want to offer payment services to their customers. In the latter, there are many direct and indirect fees in the mix that need to be closely scrutinised, as they can make the cost of providing a product or rendering a service a lot more expensive than may organisations think (up to 5% o revenue as we suggested in an earlier blog article). However, with the rise of the Internet and much more choice now being available to the merchant, the fee landscape for the merchant in particular is changing quickly and it may be possible for a merchant to gain greater value for their fee spending (especially as they come to better understand what different transactional fees may be charged). In the next article we will therefore look at whether merchant fees on payment transactions are likely to change over the next few years (and we predict that they will certainly change considerably).
This article was written by Dr Jon Warner of Payswyft (at www.PaySwyft.com). Jon has extensive senior executive experience and has led organizations in a variety of industries through significant transitions to achieve impressive bottom-line results. He is an expert in developing and implementing effective strategies in marketing, sales, operations, (even in corporate turnaround situations). Jon is currently CEO of PaySwyft in the UK (an innovative on-line billing and payment business. He can be reached at jon.warner@payswyft.com.
In general, transactional fees fall into two categories-those that are charged to the end customer or the consumer and those that are charged to an organisation or merchant, when it wants to allow payment services to its customers.
Direct Customer fees
Transactional fees typically apply only to the direct customers or account holders of a given bank (as the bank has no direct relationship with other consumers) and even then, only when a customer has gone beyond what is deemed to be the core commercial relationship that the bank is prepared to offer at no direct cost. Hence, fees are typically charged to customers when they have overdrawn an account, written a cheque in circumstances where they are insufficient funds to cover it, or perhaps used an automated teller machine or ATM in another banks’s network. However, even here, a bank will allow many transactions without fees, if a customer maintains a positive balance (sometimes with a minimum threshold) or commits to regular income being paid in or saved every month. This is because banks worry a lot about customer “churn” and know that fees can often be a “switching factor” if they become too much of an irritant to an account holder (especially now that opening another account with a different bank can be done online very easily in many cases). The simple logic here is that it is more cost effective and profitable to keep good customers who transact regularly with a bank (and do so for the most part in the black) for what might be many years, than to risk losing them completely over a fair but nonetheless irritating fee that “pushes them over the edge”. But even though this results in what might be seen as a better deal for the end consumer, banks still have to find ways to recover their internal transactional costs and overhead in some way. For some transactions, such as bank cheques, wire transfers and transactions involving foreign exchange a customer will be relatively happy to pay (as these are often “one-off” or special instances). However, these fees will not always cover the costs involved completely and it therefore often falls to the other major category to provide the fees that can cover costs and the bank’s overhead-the merchant.
Merchant fees
Although every individual commercial merchant relationship will be different, depending on a given organisation’s size, type of business, types of services offered etc, banks will typically charge a very wide variety of transactional fees to most merchants to provide a payment service.
The most obvious fees charged to merchants (because they have been around for a long time) are for cash and cheque handling. In both cases, these payment transactions are expensive for any financial institution because they involve human intervention (a teller in a branch perhaps or a reconciliation and settlement clerk in a head office) and in both cases, considerable human data entry (sometimes carried out multiple times) is required. As with an end consumer, a merchant may be able to bring about lower fees by maintaining a positive balance or “float”. However, it is rare for any merchant these days to be able to operate without an overdraft, at least some of the time, so fees in this area need to be monitored carefully by every merchant.
Outside cash and cheque payments, the majority of transactional fees that are charged by a merchant bank are credit and debit card use fees. Cards are typically issued to a consumer without charge, and with no transaction fees when they are paid off regularly each month. However, a merchant will be charged for every transaction that a customer makes with a credit and/or debit card and this may be a very complex affair. In some cases, the fee charged will be a single “aggregate rate” for say credit card use, such as 2.5% of the transaction size. Hence for a £100 consumer purchase, a charge of £2.50 will be made to a merchant. However, this rate may vary from one transaction to another and this is because the aggregate rate is made up of many sub fees that every merchant needs to know about. Here are just some of the fee types that are typically charged:
The Discount Fee Rate
Credit and debit card companies (Visa and MasterCard being by far the largest of these) have what is called “interchange” rates. These can range in price- so in order to make it easier, the merchant banks often have sub-categories. These include rates such as the Qualified Discount Rate – a pre-set or agreed percentage is paid for each pound charged or the Non-Qualified Rate – a fee added to the qualified discount rate in certain transactions. For example, this may occur if a merchant does not use an address verification service (AVS) when they manually enter or take a transaction.
Transaction Fees
This is a specific, flat rate (such as 5 or 10 pence) that is paid on every sale processed through the specific credit card processor. Sometimes the transaction fee is called the interchange fee, authorization fee, or per inquiry fee.
Address Verification Service (AVS) fees
Merchant banks charge a small fee for the validation service to ensure that the billing address provided in say an online checkout process matches the issuing bank’s records. Not using this service can sometimes result in hefty charges on the processing of the card for that sale.
Batch Fees
Merchant banks often require that customer organisations complete or “close out” their transactions a minimum of one time each day. The batch fee pays for expenses for the “gateway” or software that accesses the credit card processing network. If a merchant doesn’t have transactions to process, there is no batch fee to pay of course.
Monthly Statement or Customer Service Fee
Most merchant banks charge a monthly fee in order to cover their deemed monthly costs of operation for a given merchant (paying their customer service team for example).
Monthly Minimum Fee
Many merchant banks require a given organisation to process a minimum amount of sales per month, or they pay a monthly minimum. Monthly minimums tend to range between £15 and £50 per month.
Gateway Fees
There are fees for internet and mail order merchants to use an internet gateway service, although some merchant banks will cover this fee on their customer’s behalf as part of the package deal.
Annual Fees
These are often charged by Merchant banks when free terminal equipment to take payment is offered.
Cancellation/Termination Fees
Most merchant accounts require a contract agreement of one or two years and if a merchant cancels early, they are likely to be charged a termination fee.
Chargeback/Retrieval Fees
When a customer requests a refund (or the customer’s credit card issuer requests a refund), merchant banks typically charge a “chargeback” fee. This can typically range from £10 to £30. This can mount up quickly when possibly chargebacks are not managed carefully.
Summary
Banks are now making a large proportion of their profits by charging fees to both end consumers or account holders (although they worry about overdoing this to prevent customer “churn”) and to merchants who want to offer payment services to their customers. In the latter, there are many direct and indirect fees in the mix that need to be closely scrutinised, as they can make the cost of providing a product or rendering a service a lot more expensive than may organisations think (up to 5% o revenue as we suggested in an earlier blog article). However, with the rise of the Internet and much more choice now being available to the merchant, the fee landscape for the merchant in particular is changing quickly and it may be possible for a merchant to gain greater value for their fee spending (especially as they come to better understand what different transactional fees may be charged). In the next article we will therefore look at whether merchant fees on payment transactions are likely to change over the next few years (and we predict that they will certainly change considerably).
This article was written by Dr Jon Warner of Payswyft (at www.PaySwyft.com). Jon has extensive senior executive experience and has led organizations in a variety of industries through significant transitions to achieve impressive bottom-line results. He is an expert in developing and implementing effective strategies in marketing, sales, operations, (even in corporate turnaround situations). Jon is currently CEO of PaySwyft in the UK (an innovative on-line billing and payment business. He can be reached at jon.warner@payswyft.com.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Can a Third-Party Digital Billing Company Put Big Savings on the Bottom Line?
In a recent article, we broadly confirmed that a general claim of the international billing and payment research companies was true for two companies (one small and one large) and that it is therefore likely to apply more widely. This claim is that on average every organisation spends around 5% of its revenue on issuing invoices and collecting payment for them. Now that we believe this claim to broadly accurate, in this article I want to test the claim of some third-party electronic billing and payments companies that they can make cost savings of up to 50% if their clients adopt a fully digital billing and payment service. At the full 50%, this would mean that up to 2.5% of a given company’s revenue would be saved. And as the large company in our previous article had an annual turnover of £90 million, this would amount to a whopping £2.25 million (and that’s certainly worth having as recurrent additional income).
To properly analyse this situation, we first need a few facts. In the information below therefore are some statistics about the company which we called Beta in the earlier article:
What this chart tells us immediately is that Beta spends slightly more than 5% of its revenue on issuing invoices and getting them paid, with 43% of this £4.62 million cost being on the staffing side and 57% being on the transactional cost side. So, now that we know this, where is the particular scope for savings, taking each of these two headings separately?
A) The Staff side savings potential
By moving to a fully digital billing solution, there is an expectation that many more people will be happy to both get/view their bills or invoices on line and pay them by the same means. However, this is not going to be the case for all customers and even for those who do make the transition, it takes time. For our purposes here we will therefore estimate potential take up after a three year period, at which point, 50% of Beta’s customer base is happy to view their bills online and half of these (or 25%) are happy to pay online. For simplicity we could say that this is a switch of 35% of the customer base to online billing and payment (the other 65% staying with previous practices and methods).
The implications of the above is that Beta cannot cut or redeploy its staff too aggressively, as the majority of customers still need to be serviced in the old way. However, we can nevertheless estimate that staff man-hours necessary to tackle the new workload (and therefore numbers needed) are reduced as follows:
Accounting: The 50% of customers now viewing their bills on line and the 25% paying by online means, allow much easier settlement and reconciliation, with electronic records at every step, less errors and much easier analysis of data (because the digital billing system can be used for the entire customer billing process and not just part of it). As a result, the people handling invoicing and payments could be reduced to a manager plus four accountants at Beta (a reduction in staff of 38%).
Clerical staff: Quite high numbers of clerical staff are needed at Beta to handle the 25% cheque and cash mix, general data entry (with records often being keyed two, three and even four times on occasions) banking and the chasing of invoices when overdue. Because there is also likely to be faster payment in the electronically paying customer base, this reduces the amount of time chasing late payments. In summary, data administration is simplified considerably across the whole system. As a result, the people handling invoicing and payments could be reduced to a manager plus fifteen clerks at Beta (a reduction in staff of 39%).
Call-centre staff: 50% of all Beta’s payments are taken on the phone, where service agents have to find the customer data and invoice, take the payment manually and payment data to a system of some kind. With a fully digital solution being used by 50% of the customer population, and half of these paying on line, the burden on the call-centre is reduced by 25% (as there is no need to contact the call-centre anymore for these customers). In addition, call-centre staff may be able to convert more and more customers to online payment by showing them the digital invoicing and payment system and pointing out that this is available 24/7, 365 days of the year-and not just 9am-5pm call centre hours. As a result, the people handling invoicing and payments could be reduced to a manager plus forty agents at Beta (a reduction in staff of 30%).
All of the above adds up to staff savings (even with a lower overhead recovery now of 40% as there are less offices, desks, computers etc needed) of £730,056.
B) The Transactional cost side savings potential
We have assumed no change in Beta’s business in terms of revenues and overall transactional volumes (and therefore average cost of each transaction). There are, however, two major changes that a digital system is likely to bring:
1. A change in bill presentment costs
2. A change in the mix of payment types being used
Bill presentment costs: Now that 50% of the customers are viewing their bills on line, it is reasonable to assume that they are happy to see paper “turned off”. As Beta were emailing invoices previously this was a preparation cost mainly (on the staff side) but it does allow the opportunity to send statements electronically as well as give customers copy invoices in the new digital system forever as a free service. This means that paper and envelope costs would reduce, as well as the need to store physical paper copies within the Beta organisation or externally (so costs of storage space are reduced also). Perhaps more significantly, the marketing material send in the post by Beta can now be put online for half of the customers (where it is presented without the cost of having to send it out). All up, savings in all of these presentment areas for Beta are estimated to be £481,035 per annum.
Payment costs: In the new world, a fully digital presentment and payment solution is likely to half Beta’s volume of cheques and eliminate the use of cash completely (even though the option to pay by cash may still be available to customers in some solutions –such as the one offered by PaySwyft). On line bill payment however goes up to become 15% of the total mix (with the other 10% coming from credit and debit card payments that used to go through the Beta call-centre). This adds a transactional cost of £0.50 per invoice to Beta, or £116,379 per annum, but it is more than offset by savings elsewhere. The greatest of these is in the float costs of the business. Because online payments are known to get to customers quicker and lead to faster payment, cash flow is accelerated and days outstanding are reduced (in Beta’s case from 45 days to 38 days (a drop of 22%). This contributes a total of £123,288 in annual savings to Beta. In addition, the often linked costs of having to handle bounced cheques, chasing debt and writing off unpaid invoices, diminishes considerably, adding another annual saving of £387,931.
If we add all the transactional side potential savings up, the total is £924,908
Summary
So, on the staff side we have estimated total savings of £730,056 and on the transactional cost side estimated total savings of £924,908. This makes a grand total of £1.652 million in savings per annum (recurrently) or 1.84% of revenue. Hence, the claim that a good digital billing system can save a company 50% of its costs (or in this case 2.5% of revenues) is not quite met here. However, with the potential to add more savings over future years as more and more customers switch to the new online system it would get very close to the 50% target and make the switch to digital billing still seem like a very good idea.
To make the above figures easier to see at a glance, a summary of all of the above is presented in the table below:
To properly analyse this situation, we first need a few facts. In the information below therefore are some statistics about the company which we called Beta in the earlier article:
A) The Staff side savings potential
By moving to a fully digital billing solution, there is an expectation that many more people will be happy to both get/view their bills or invoices on line and pay them by the same means. However, this is not going to be the case for all customers and even for those who do make the transition, it takes time. For our purposes here we will therefore estimate potential take up after a three year period, at which point, 50% of Beta’s customer base is happy to view their bills online and half of these (or 25%) are happy to pay online. For simplicity we could say that this is a switch of 35% of the customer base to online billing and payment (the other 65% staying with previous practices and methods).
The implications of the above is that Beta cannot cut or redeploy its staff too aggressively, as the majority of customers still need to be serviced in the old way. However, we can nevertheless estimate that staff man-hours necessary to tackle the new workload (and therefore numbers needed) are reduced as follows:
Accounting: The 50% of customers now viewing their bills on line and the 25% paying by online means, allow much easier settlement and reconciliation, with electronic records at every step, less errors and much easier analysis of data (because the digital billing system can be used for the entire customer billing process and not just part of it). As a result, the people handling invoicing and payments could be reduced to a manager plus four accountants at Beta (a reduction in staff of 38%).
Clerical staff: Quite high numbers of clerical staff are needed at Beta to handle the 25% cheque and cash mix, general data entry (with records often being keyed two, three and even four times on occasions) banking and the chasing of invoices when overdue. Because there is also likely to be faster payment in the electronically paying customer base, this reduces the amount of time chasing late payments. In summary, data administration is simplified considerably across the whole system. As a result, the people handling invoicing and payments could be reduced to a manager plus fifteen clerks at Beta (a reduction in staff of 39%).
Call-centre staff: 50% of all Beta’s payments are taken on the phone, where service agents have to find the customer data and invoice, take the payment manually and payment data to a system of some kind. With a fully digital solution being used by 50% of the customer population, and half of these paying on line, the burden on the call-centre is reduced by 25% (as there is no need to contact the call-centre anymore for these customers). In addition, call-centre staff may be able to convert more and more customers to online payment by showing them the digital invoicing and payment system and pointing out that this is available 24/7, 365 days of the year-and not just 9am-5pm call centre hours. As a result, the people handling invoicing and payments could be reduced to a manager plus forty agents at Beta (a reduction in staff of 30%).
All of the above adds up to staff savings (even with a lower overhead recovery now of 40% as there are less offices, desks, computers etc needed) of £730,056.
B) The Transactional cost side savings potential
We have assumed no change in Beta’s business in terms of revenues and overall transactional volumes (and therefore average cost of each transaction). There are, however, two major changes that a digital system is likely to bring:
1. A change in bill presentment costs
2. A change in the mix of payment types being used
Bill presentment costs: Now that 50% of the customers are viewing their bills on line, it is reasonable to assume that they are happy to see paper “turned off”. As Beta were emailing invoices previously this was a preparation cost mainly (on the staff side) but it does allow the opportunity to send statements electronically as well as give customers copy invoices in the new digital system forever as a free service. This means that paper and envelope costs would reduce, as well as the need to store physical paper copies within the Beta organisation or externally (so costs of storage space are reduced also). Perhaps more significantly, the marketing material send in the post by Beta can now be put online for half of the customers (where it is presented without the cost of having to send it out). All up, savings in all of these presentment areas for Beta are estimated to be £481,035 per annum.
Payment costs: In the new world, a fully digital presentment and payment solution is likely to half Beta’s volume of cheques and eliminate the use of cash completely (even though the option to pay by cash may still be available to customers in some solutions –such as the one offered by PaySwyft). On line bill payment however goes up to become 15% of the total mix (with the other 10% coming from credit and debit card payments that used to go through the Beta call-centre). This adds a transactional cost of £0.50 per invoice to Beta, or £116,379 per annum, but it is more than offset by savings elsewhere. The greatest of these is in the float costs of the business. Because online payments are known to get to customers quicker and lead to faster payment, cash flow is accelerated and days outstanding are reduced (in Beta’s case from 45 days to 38 days (a drop of 22%). This contributes a total of £123,288 in annual savings to Beta. In addition, the often linked costs of having to handle bounced cheques, chasing debt and writing off unpaid invoices, diminishes considerably, adding another annual saving of £387,931.
If we add all the transactional side potential savings up, the total is £924,908
Summary
So, on the staff side we have estimated total savings of £730,056 and on the transactional cost side estimated total savings of £924,908. This makes a grand total of £1.652 million in savings per annum (recurrently) or 1.84% of revenue. Hence, the claim that a good digital billing system can save a company 50% of its costs (or in this case 2.5% of revenues) is not quite met here. However, with the potential to add more savings over future years as more and more customers switch to the new online system it would get very close to the 50% target and make the switch to digital billing still seem like a very good idea.
To make the above figures easier to see at a glance, a summary of all of the above is presented in the table below:
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Sending Bills and collecting payment from customers costs every organisation 5% of Revenue on average!-can this really be correct?
According to several leading research companies who look at international billing and payment issues on an ongoing basis, (including perhaps the leader in the field of billing research -Billentis) they say, that on average, the overall cost of sending out a bill or invoice and then collecting payment from the customer, is anywhere from £4 to £17 per invoice. Unfortunately, apart from the fact that this is a pretty big range, it tends to create an unnecessary defensiveness in organisations (and often in the finance department in particular) who understandably become very keen to point out that they spend nowhere near that kind of money on such a mundane and clerical activity (although they will often fail to include many of the indirect and hidden costs of the process). Another recently published general statistic, however, could be much more useful and may make a few divisional heads and even CEO’s sit up and think about the efficiency and effectiveness of their billing and payments practices for the first time. This is the statement that on average, an organisation spends 5% of its revenue on issuing its invoices and in collecting payments from customers. In this article, we will explore this claim and see if it reflects reality for both small and large organisations. To do this we will look at the figures based on two real UK businesses.
First and foremost let’s deal with the “on average” part of the 5% of revenue claim. What is being done here is to look at many organisations of many sizes and types and simply working out the median or middle value in a range of numbers. In this case the median cost of billing and collecting payment in proportion to total revenues is 5%. Of course, this means that they are some companies that may be higher or lower than this but statistically, we can say that around two-thirds of all companies would fall into this average of 4%.
The Small Company
The first company (let’s call them Alpha) employs 26 people, has a turnover of £5 million in total revenues per annum. This is earned by selling goods and services at an average of £500 on average each time. Hence their total bills in a year are 12,000 or 1,000 per month. There are two broad cost categories that we now need to look at –staff and transaction costs.
On the staff side, Alpha have one accountant (on a salary of £45,000 per annum, three clerical admin people (at a salary of £21,000 each) and two people answering the phones (at a salary of £17,500 each). Hence, the all up payroll for this group of people is £143,000. The three clerical admin people devote all of their time to billing and payments but the accountant and customer service people devote only 50% of their time to this activity. Hence, we can say the cost of the people’s time which is devoted to billing and payments is £103,000. However, the company has staff overhead costs of 40% (cost of offices, equipment, training etc) which brings this cost up to a total of £144,200.
On the transaction cost side, 40% of the 12,000 bills are paid by cheque, 10% by BACS, 30% by phone (half by debit card and half by credit card), and 20% by cash. For cheques the bank charge fees of £1,200 (£0.25 pence times 4,800 cheques). For BACS, a charge is made of 15 pence per transaction (so £0.15*12000*0.1 or £180). For cash handling the bank charges a flat annual fee of £500 for all cash deposits of this size. For cost of transactions by phone, on the debit side the company pays £0.35 pence per transaction or £630 and on the credit side 2.5% of each transaction value (£500*0.025*1800 transactions or £22,500). Finally, we have to worry about how long it takes to get paid (and the cost of borrowing money to operate and allow for possibly late payments). Given that this small company has average invoice days outstanding of forty, they have to cover this £500 for 40 days or just under 11% of the year. As Alpha is paying interest at 5%, this means the cost to fund the necessary float is £26,027.
There are also a few direct invoicing costs for Alpha to bear including printing invoices, paper, envelopes, stamps and even marketing material (to also design and print). This adds up to a total of £0.90 per invoice (the stamp alone being half of this). We therefore have a total annual cost of £10,800. This makes the grand total on the transactional side of things £61,837. If we total all of the above, we now have a grand total billing and collection cost of £206,037. As a % of the £5 million in revenues this is 4.12% (or what would be £17.17 per invoice).
The Large Company
The second company (lets call them Beta), employs 525 people, has a turnover of £90 million in total revenues per annum. This is earned by selling goods and services at an average of £58 each time. Hence, their total bills in a year are 1,551,725 or 129,310 per month on average. Once again, there are two broad cost categories that we now need to look at –staff and transaction costs.
On the staff side, Beta have a team of eight accountants (on an average salary of £48,000 per annum each, thirty-two clerical admin people doing bookkeeping, settlement and reconciliation (at a salary of £23,500 each) and a call-centre with sixty people answering the phones (at a salary of £18,500 each on average). Hence, the all up payroll for this group of people is £2,214,000. The Beta company does not keep detailed records but estimates that billing and collecting payments occupies about 60% of the time of this whole team. Hence, the cost of the people’s time, which is devoted to billing and payments is £1,347,600. However, the company has staff overhead costs of 45% (cost of offices, equipment, training etc) which brings this cost up to a total of £ £1,954,020.
On the transaction cost side, 20% of the 1,323,530 bills are paid by cheque, 20% by BACS, 50% by phone (half by debit card and half by credit card), 5% by cash and 5% via Beta’s Internet bank site portal. For cheques the bank charges fees of £52,941 (£0.20 pence times 264,706 cheques). For BACS, a charge is made of 12 pence per transaction (so £0.12*264,706 or £31,765). For cash handling the bank charges a flat annual fee of £15,000 for all cash deposits of this size. For cost of transactions by phone, on the debit side the company pays £0.30 pence per transaction or £99,265 and on the credit side 1.8% of each transaction value (£58*0.018*330,883). transactions or £405,000). Finally, we have to worry about how long it takes to get paid (and the cost of borrowing money to operate and allow for possibly late payments. This company has average invoice days outstanding of 45, they have to cover this £68 for each transaction for 45 days or 12.3% of the year. As the Beta company is paying interest at 5%, this means the cost to fund the necessary float is £553,500.
There are also a few direct invoicing costs for Beta to bear including sending invoices (which Beta does via email not paper unless it is requested by a customer), monthly mailed statements and accompanying marketing material (to also print and design). This is a total of £0.40 per invoice. We therefore have a total annual cost of £620,690. This makes the grand total on the transactional side of things £1,860,054.
If we total all of the above (all staff plus all transaction costs), we now have a grand total billing and collection cost of £ £3,814,074. As a % of the £90 million in revenues this is 4.24%. (or £2.46 per invoice).
Summary
Although the data from these two very different sized companies cannot in any way constitute a statistically significant result, it is nonetheless quite remarkable that both costs of invoicing and collection are so close. At 4.12% and 4.24% respectively they are also only a little less than the 5% average claim made by the research companies. In fact, it is a reasonable assumption that a few more “hidden costs” still need to be added to both sides here (which may completely close the gap). For example, the small company Alpha added no costs for the senior managers (GM and CFO) who both spend some of their time in payment matters, nor for the extra bank charges for bounced cheques, debt collection and writing off-unpaid invoices (issues also not included for Beta). And, in the large company, there were some system and invoice storage costs that were excluded. This may well have made both % numbers even closer to the 5% figure and possibly slightly higher.
In the final analysis, this is just the data from two individual companies. However, they seem to provide a useful general justification to the claim and serve as a basis for calculating the actual figures for almost any business. This may be especially useful ahead of talking with online digital bill presentment and payment companies that often claim that they can reduce these costs by up to 50%-if this is true, what a great way to lift revenues by up to 2.5%!
First and foremost let’s deal with the “on average” part of the 5% of revenue claim. What is being done here is to look at many organisations of many sizes and types and simply working out the median or middle value in a range of numbers. In this case the median cost of billing and collecting payment in proportion to total revenues is 5%. Of course, this means that they are some companies that may be higher or lower than this but statistically, we can say that around two-thirds of all companies would fall into this average of 4%.
The Small Company
The first company (let’s call them Alpha) employs 26 people, has a turnover of £5 million in total revenues per annum. This is earned by selling goods and services at an average of £500 on average each time. Hence their total bills in a year are 12,000 or 1,000 per month. There are two broad cost categories that we now need to look at –staff and transaction costs.
On the staff side, Alpha have one accountant (on a salary of £45,000 per annum, three clerical admin people (at a salary of £21,000 each) and two people answering the phones (at a salary of £17,500 each). Hence, the all up payroll for this group of people is £143,000. The three clerical admin people devote all of their time to billing and payments but the accountant and customer service people devote only 50% of their time to this activity. Hence, we can say the cost of the people’s time which is devoted to billing and payments is £103,000. However, the company has staff overhead costs of 40% (cost of offices, equipment, training etc) which brings this cost up to a total of £144,200.
On the transaction cost side, 40% of the 12,000 bills are paid by cheque, 10% by BACS, 30% by phone (half by debit card and half by credit card), and 20% by cash. For cheques the bank charge fees of £1,200 (£0.25 pence times 4,800 cheques). For BACS, a charge is made of 15 pence per transaction (so £0.15*12000*0.1 or £180). For cash handling the bank charges a flat annual fee of £500 for all cash deposits of this size. For cost of transactions by phone, on the debit side the company pays £0.35 pence per transaction or £630 and on the credit side 2.5% of each transaction value (£500*0.025*1800 transactions or £22,500). Finally, we have to worry about how long it takes to get paid (and the cost of borrowing money to operate and allow for possibly late payments). Given that this small company has average invoice days outstanding of forty, they have to cover this £500 for 40 days or just under 11% of the year. As Alpha is paying interest at 5%, this means the cost to fund the necessary float is £26,027.
There are also a few direct invoicing costs for Alpha to bear including printing invoices, paper, envelopes, stamps and even marketing material (to also design and print). This adds up to a total of £0.90 per invoice (the stamp alone being half of this). We therefore have a total annual cost of £10,800. This makes the grand total on the transactional side of things £61,837. If we total all of the above, we now have a grand total billing and collection cost of £206,037. As a % of the £5 million in revenues this is 4.12% (or what would be £17.17 per invoice).
The Large Company
The second company (lets call them Beta), employs 525 people, has a turnover of £90 million in total revenues per annum. This is earned by selling goods and services at an average of £58 each time. Hence, their total bills in a year are 1,551,725 or 129,310 per month on average. Once again, there are two broad cost categories that we now need to look at –staff and transaction costs.
On the staff side, Beta have a team of eight accountants (on an average salary of £48,000 per annum each, thirty-two clerical admin people doing bookkeeping, settlement and reconciliation (at a salary of £23,500 each) and a call-centre with sixty people answering the phones (at a salary of £18,500 each on average). Hence, the all up payroll for this group of people is £2,214,000. The Beta company does not keep detailed records but estimates that billing and collecting payments occupies about 60% of the time of this whole team. Hence, the cost of the people’s time, which is devoted to billing and payments is £1,347,600. However, the company has staff overhead costs of 45% (cost of offices, equipment, training etc) which brings this cost up to a total of £ £1,954,020.
On the transaction cost side, 20% of the 1,323,530 bills are paid by cheque, 20% by BACS, 50% by phone (half by debit card and half by credit card), 5% by cash and 5% via Beta’s Internet bank site portal. For cheques the bank charges fees of £52,941 (£0.20 pence times 264,706 cheques). For BACS, a charge is made of 12 pence per transaction (so £0.12*264,706 or £31,765). For cash handling the bank charges a flat annual fee of £15,000 for all cash deposits of this size. For cost of transactions by phone, on the debit side the company pays £0.30 pence per transaction or £99,265 and on the credit side 1.8% of each transaction value (£58*0.018*330,883). transactions or £405,000). Finally, we have to worry about how long it takes to get paid (and the cost of borrowing money to operate and allow for possibly late payments. This company has average invoice days outstanding of 45, they have to cover this £68 for each transaction for 45 days or 12.3% of the year. As the Beta company is paying interest at 5%, this means the cost to fund the necessary float is £553,500.
There are also a few direct invoicing costs for Beta to bear including sending invoices (which Beta does via email not paper unless it is requested by a customer), monthly mailed statements and accompanying marketing material (to also print and design). This is a total of £0.40 per invoice. We therefore have a total annual cost of £620,690. This makes the grand total on the transactional side of things £1,860,054.
If we total all of the above (all staff plus all transaction costs), we now have a grand total billing and collection cost of £ £3,814,074. As a % of the £90 million in revenues this is 4.24%. (or £2.46 per invoice).
Summary
Although the data from these two very different sized companies cannot in any way constitute a statistically significant result, it is nonetheless quite remarkable that both costs of invoicing and collection are so close. At 4.12% and 4.24% respectively they are also only a little less than the 5% average claim made by the research companies. In fact, it is a reasonable assumption that a few more “hidden costs” still need to be added to both sides here (which may completely close the gap). For example, the small company Alpha added no costs for the senior managers (GM and CFO) who both spend some of their time in payment matters, nor for the extra bank charges for bounced cheques, debt collection and writing off-unpaid invoices (issues also not included for Beta). And, in the large company, there were some system and invoice storage costs that were excluded. This may well have made both % numbers even closer to the 5% figure and possibly slightly higher.
In the final analysis, this is just the data from two individual companies. However, they seem to provide a useful general justification to the claim and serve as a basis for calculating the actual figures for almost any business. This may be especially useful ahead of talking with online digital bill presentment and payment companies that often claim that they can reduce these costs by up to 50%-if this is true, what a great way to lift revenues by up to 2.5%!
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Are emailed invoices just as good as digital ones?
Most people now believe that electronic invoicing offers significant advantages over paper-based processes (saving direct costs like printing an invoice, stamping an envelope and sending it in the mail etc and saving indirect costs such as lost invoices, late and missing cheques in the mail and often much more difficult reconciliation). However, there is not always agreement on what the term “electronic invoicing” actually means and in this brief article we will look at two very different kinds of e-invoicing-emailed invoices and digital invoices. These are often perceived to be similar and/or equivalent methods but, as we will see, they are actually quite different.
Emailed invoices
Sending an invoice via email is usually done these days by attaching the invoice as an Adobe PDF document. This allows the invoice to be sent cheaply and quickly to the recipient who can use a free product (Adobe Acrobat Reader) to open and view it. The simple idea here is that once the customer has reviewed the document (and even saved it to his or her hard drive) he or she can then pay it. In theory (especially in Business to Consumer or B2C markets) the invoice is not only sent out quickly (and at much lower costs than traditional invoicing methods) but means that the customer can send back a cheque or phone in a credit card payment within hours or just a few days (and well ahead of the latest date he or should could technically pay) thereby helping to accelerate merchant cash-flow. Unfortunately, although this works in some situations, the process is rarely this smooth and a number of problems can occur.
Firstly, the merchant needs to have a customer’s email address to be able to send a PDF. Secondly, the PDF is still a flat document which most customers will not only have to open, but will often print and put in a pile to deal with later, when they are ready (just like receiving the paper-based invoice in the mail). This means that the customer may wait as long as they did before to pay the invoice (assuming they do not lose their printed piece of paper in the meantime having deleted their original email). In addition to all of this, an emailed PDF does not encourage the customer to pay by electronic means any more than an invoice arriving in the mail does. Research suggests that customers actually often like to have the option to pay online by debit or credit card for example and can often only do so by calling the merchant (and having to spend time and effort, and within the hours of business operated by the call-centre). Finally, in Business to Business (or B2B) invoicing, the emailed PDF presents a whole new layer of challenges as these often require a digital signature. PDF technology is now much better at allowing digital signatures to be securely added to invoices when they are sent in the mail. However, the process is by no means simple and presents many logistical issues, particularly when multiple approval signatures are required.
Digital invoices
A digital invoice is available at a web site. Sometimes this is embedded in part of a merchant’s web site or it is “hosted” on a third-party web site (to which customers can go directly or can be redirected from a link on a merchant’s web site). In most cases, the digital invoice rendering process is even quicker than emailed invoices, as there is no need to generate a PDF and attach it to an email address. In addition, although a customer may be notified that a new invoice is available via email, it is not necessary to have an email address (as the customer can be notified about the web address by normal physical mail and then subscribe to the web site service to be later notified by either email or even their mobile phone –via SMS). In practice this means that digital invoices will often collect or “scrape” new email addresses from customers progressively.
Perhaps most importantly, a digital invoice is viewed in a truly online way (and does not require printing (as it can be easily stored and retrieved permanently or resent by a merchant at almost no extra cost). This means that not only can the customer view the invoice (in as much detail as they wish) but they can use many online features to both deal with the invoice (save it, schedule it for later payment or send it on for viewing or approval to another person) or even just pay it immediately of course. And if they do choose to pay it immediately, they typically get to do so via their debit card if they want to use their current bank account or by a variety of credit card options (and in some cases even by cash by printing out a voucher and taking it to a local newsagent or local store that takes cash payments). This is therefore much more likely to accelerate merchant cash-flow than in the emailed invoice situation and means that the payment is much easier to reconcile (as less difficult to reconcile cheques or phone-based payments are being made). Finally, the invoice recipient (whether it is a B2C one or B2B one) can elect to pay a bill 24/7 as the bill presentment and payment web site is truly “open-all-hours”.
Conclusion
Emailed invoices are superior to traditional invoices sent in the mail. However, they fall far short of full digital invoices, which offer many additional benefits (which translate into much greater time and cost saving for the merchant). These two approaches are therefore far from equivalent and a merchant can realise considerable advantages by upgrading from an emailed invoice to a full digital one.
Emailed invoices
Sending an invoice via email is usually done these days by attaching the invoice as an Adobe PDF document. This allows the invoice to be sent cheaply and quickly to the recipient who can use a free product (Adobe Acrobat Reader) to open and view it. The simple idea here is that once the customer has reviewed the document (and even saved it to his or her hard drive) he or she can then pay it. In theory (especially in Business to Consumer or B2C markets) the invoice is not only sent out quickly (and at much lower costs than traditional invoicing methods) but means that the customer can send back a cheque or phone in a credit card payment within hours or just a few days (and well ahead of the latest date he or should could technically pay) thereby helping to accelerate merchant cash-flow. Unfortunately, although this works in some situations, the process is rarely this smooth and a number of problems can occur.
Firstly, the merchant needs to have a customer’s email address to be able to send a PDF. Secondly, the PDF is still a flat document which most customers will not only have to open, but will often print and put in a pile to deal with later, when they are ready (just like receiving the paper-based invoice in the mail). This means that the customer may wait as long as they did before to pay the invoice (assuming they do not lose their printed piece of paper in the meantime having deleted their original email). In addition to all of this, an emailed PDF does not encourage the customer to pay by electronic means any more than an invoice arriving in the mail does. Research suggests that customers actually often like to have the option to pay online by debit or credit card for example and can often only do so by calling the merchant (and having to spend time and effort, and within the hours of business operated by the call-centre). Finally, in Business to Business (or B2B) invoicing, the emailed PDF presents a whole new layer of challenges as these often require a digital signature. PDF technology is now much better at allowing digital signatures to be securely added to invoices when they are sent in the mail. However, the process is by no means simple and presents many logistical issues, particularly when multiple approval signatures are required.
Digital invoices
A digital invoice is available at a web site. Sometimes this is embedded in part of a merchant’s web site or it is “hosted” on a third-party web site (to which customers can go directly or can be redirected from a link on a merchant’s web site). In most cases, the digital invoice rendering process is even quicker than emailed invoices, as there is no need to generate a PDF and attach it to an email address. In addition, although a customer may be notified that a new invoice is available via email, it is not necessary to have an email address (as the customer can be notified about the web address by normal physical mail and then subscribe to the web site service to be later notified by either email or even their mobile phone –via SMS). In practice this means that digital invoices will often collect or “scrape” new email addresses from customers progressively.
Perhaps most importantly, a digital invoice is viewed in a truly online way (and does not require printing (as it can be easily stored and retrieved permanently or resent by a merchant at almost no extra cost). This means that not only can the customer view the invoice (in as much detail as they wish) but they can use many online features to both deal with the invoice (save it, schedule it for later payment or send it on for viewing or approval to another person) or even just pay it immediately of course. And if they do choose to pay it immediately, they typically get to do so via their debit card if they want to use their current bank account or by a variety of credit card options (and in some cases even by cash by printing out a voucher and taking it to a local newsagent or local store that takes cash payments). This is therefore much more likely to accelerate merchant cash-flow than in the emailed invoice situation and means that the payment is much easier to reconcile (as less difficult to reconcile cheques or phone-based payments are being made). Finally, the invoice recipient (whether it is a B2C one or B2B one) can elect to pay a bill 24/7 as the bill presentment and payment web site is truly “open-all-hours”.
Conclusion
Emailed invoices are superior to traditional invoices sent in the mail. However, they fall far short of full digital invoices, which offer many additional benefits (which translate into much greater time and cost saving for the merchant). These two approaches are therefore far from equivalent and a merchant can realise considerable advantages by upgrading from an emailed invoice to a full digital one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)