Is it "Safe" to View and Pay Bills online?

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 bill-pay 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.

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 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 also). 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%!

Are PDF Invoices better or worse than old-fashioned paper invoices?

A recent study published by AIIM on progress towards the paperless office makes interesting reading as it relates to current billing practices. The study is worth taking note of because apart from AIIM being a credible non-profit research business which has been around for almost 70 years, as the chart below indicates it was a very large survey of companies of almost all sizes. In addition, the study went to companies in multiple sectors all over the world (although around 50% of the companies were in the US).

 

What the Study Showed

As we all know, the capability to exchange PDF files as e-mail attachments is said to have reduced the volume of paperwork traded between companies and small businesses considerably. However, this study says that the reduction is minimal at best, but quite possibly creates more paperwork than it saves.

In specific terms, the study revealed the following facts about PDF as invoices

• Over three-quarters of people surveyed say one of the first things they do with a PDF-based invoice… is print it out.
• From the 77% of the 395 respondents that print out their invoices, 16% scan the invoices right back into the system for use as……PDF attachments.
• 10% of people print out their PDF invoices multiple times.
• 10% of people say they print out at least one copy for archival purposes.

The chart relating to this data is shown below: 
 

What is happening to Invoices?

Although many of the larger companies in the survey seem to be pressing to have all-electronic billing and payment systems, it seems that we are still a long way from this ideal (perhaps as few as 2-3% of companies have a fully digital system which includes no printing and only digital storage systems). However, many businesses are at least trying to save on postage and paper costs by sending invoices as PDF files, or as faxes. However, even here the invoices are often printed out as paper, sometimes at both ends, which almost completes defeats the object. Such practices obviously do not generally result in a reduction of paper within the receiving business in particular. As we saw from the statistics earlier in total, 77% of respondents are likely to print at least one copy of a PDF invoice, and 16% admit to printing it out and then scanning it in for capture, as do 31% receiving a faxed invoice.

Are new more “intelligent” PDF’s the answer?

Most respondents to the AIIM survey were referring to the basic PDF files generated by their Acrobat software, which are obviously less feature-rich than intelligent PDFs have become in recent years with functionality such as XML files being included with all the relevant invoices and embedded payment buttons and even digital signature capture systems. Although this is undoubtedly an improvement, the adoption of these more function-rich PDFs has been very slow and in most cases has had little impact on the rate at which companies of all sizes continue to print out and scan invoices. This is partly because, a PDF is still regarded as paper in real terms-it may be electronic but it is not easy to digitize in ways that are useful for data transfer and exchange. Full digitalization is therefore the goal of many organizations and this is why scanning remains popular. In this regard, when asked what the biggest drivers are for scanning, responses were mainly about data-exchange, availability and flexibility (as the chart below from the survey indicates).

 

So what are the implications?
PDF’s are very convenient as a way to send documents electronically but far less so when it is an invoice. The speed of the sending process is better than physical mailing but so many people are printing it out anyway, it is far short of being the “path to digitization” that companies of all sizes want or need. Fully digital invoices seem to be a much more attractive option and when an invoice can be presented in full in third-party cloud-based portals such as those such at PaySwyft, any company gets all of this immediately.

Will Mobile Phones Become the Dominant Channel for Bill Delivery?

There are now a multitude of channels available to customers to pay their bills. These channels include:

1. Print and mail (paper-based)
2. Fax
3. Email with embedded data
4. Data interchange (system-to-system)
5. Email with PDF and/or link to on-line
6. Customer Web Portal
7. Mobile (MMS; HTML; WAP; USSD)
8. Mobile via App
9. Mobile Tablet
10. Emergent technology (via cable TV etc)

Only print and mail on the above list existed as an option until around 30 years ago when fax arrived and 25 years ago when email came along (both of which still have quite a strong following today). Data interchange options were mainly evolved and used in the B2B rather than direct Business to customer or B2C space but again are still around today as a strong channel, supported in the main by large international software companies, who have sufficiently large installed volumes to want to protect their position in the billing market.

Web based technology has driven the greatest change in the billing space in the last 10 years or so and seen the emergence of both consumer and merchant portals (for presentment and payment) and the use of mobile technology as 3G and 4G have made the internet available to mobile phones.

Even though each of these channels presents a new and perhaps better and more convenient choice to a given customer (and are often presented as the channel to replace earlier channel choices) in reality, they are often just additional options. In other words, consumers have shown time and time again that they like the extra choice but do not necessarily want to be driven too quickly to only one channel (however “efficient and effective” it is presented to be).

The implication of customers wanting lots of channel choice to both view and pay their bills is that the same bill may need to be presented and rendered possible to pay in several channels, at least for now.

 
Today’s challenges
Some technology experts are starting to say that customers will be move rapidly away from e-billing to m-billing (m for mobile of course) in the next few years. Modern mobiles can certainly handle very complex tasks today - just look at the hundred of thousands of Apps available for all different platforms. These Apps can do complex tasks, even generating bills “on-the-fly”. A mobile can also handle a simple task such as bill presentment with ease today – in some cases on quite a detailed basis (even though reading it may present quite a challenge!). However, viewing a PDF bill attachment on a mobile (as opposed to a tablet) is often a long scrolling exercise, making it impractical in most cases. There is a solution to this but it needs the biller to solve the problem of displaying their bills in more flexible ways according to the kind of mobile platform to which it is being delivered. In this way, a customer can see a simple version of the way and then “drill into the detail” as they wish when they want to see itemization. 

However, perhaps all of this is a false dilemma. In the final analysis, customers do not care if a bill is delivered to their computer, their tablet or their mobile (or even all three). In fact, many want to see it delivered in as many ways as possible to allow maximum flexibility, including by email or by PDF attachment and even in the physical mail or fax on some occasions. This multi-channel approach is therefore a customer centric approach. The challenge for billers then is how to provide as many of these channels as possible at the lowest cost possible. In the end there is only one solution to this –use a full digital bill presentment and payment portal, such as PaySwyft for example. This not only means that a bill can be sent in all 9 of the current channels above (and can be paid at the same portal) but means that a biller would be well-placed to take advantage of the new emergent technologies that will come along as in the near future.

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.

Is it "Safe" to View and Pay Bills online?

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.

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:

Are you ready to take electronic payments of all kinds?

One of the most talked about topics in the electronic payment space for companies of all sizes is, “how can we have our customers pay through the web?” As the payments industry continues to evolve and more and more individuals are comfortable using the web, as well as their smart phones to make a payment, all businesses have a tremendous opportunity to speed up their receivables process while lowering costs and improving efficiencies. The question however then becomes “what is the best way to go about this?”

There are several choices available to a merchant to start to accept payments via the web, including building an online shopping cart themselves (writing the software), buying a third-party piece of software to do this (such as Basware or Tieto), adding a third-party payment system (such as AcceptPay or PayPal for example) or using an aggregator service (such as PaySwyft for example).

Whatever option is finally selected, there are several issues for a merchant to think about:
•Branding/Marketing issues
•Website Availability
•Customer Service
•PCI-Compliance
•Costs/fees

Branding/Marketing Issues
Any business will need to decide how much marketing control they want to have over the look and feel of the payment page or pages. In some companies, this may not matter very much and a generic payment site may be fit for purpose. However, if a brand is important or even if a company wants to maintain a very similar look and feel (including use of logos etc) then an internally built or a purchased software solution is likely to give a merchant the most customization potential. However, third-party sites may have some customization potential and have the added advantage of fast set up and faster speed of processing.

Website Monitoring and Availability
A critical component to any company’s desire to add web payments is ensuring that the payment website is consistently monitored and available for use. A couple of typical metrics measured and monitored are response time and website availability or uptime. Clearly an internally built system or purchased piece of software will need to be well-built and well-supported to be available as needed. However, most third-party web site solution providers should be able to easily provide these availability metrics to any business that wants to offer web payments.

Customer Service
Many considerations need to be fleshed out when deciding on what type of customer service is needed for your customers. For example, is the system going to be user-friendly to all people who may be interested in using it? do you need 24/7, 365 days a year availability? Do you require international payments? or can your system quickly find a payment transaction when needed (and can it communicate easily with the customer –via online means, when necessary)?

PCI-Compliance issues
As with accepting credit or debit card payments in person (or via a phone call), any merchant accepting credit cards as a payment type must ensure that they are in compliance with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Security Standards Council’s rules. The PCI Security Standards Council offers comprehensive standards and supporting materials to enhance payment card data security. The PCI Data Security Standard includes requirements for security management, policies, procedures, network architecture, software design and other critical protective measures. With an internal or purchased solution PCI compliance has to be handled directly.

External payment system providers clearly need to have a very good understanding of the requirements and be able to both help the merchant on best practices for securing credit card data, or in some cases handle this on the merchant’s behalf. This means that tasks such as tokenization and encryption etc are handled by the third-party helping the merchant to better manage the risk of charge-backs, identity theft and other abuses. Once again, providers will have very different approaches and it is worth discussing these in detail.

Costs/Fees
One other issue to think about when accepting credit or debit card payments through the web is costs or fees. Many businesses that operate on low margins could see those margins deteriorate even more as credit or debit card fees (direct and indirect) would add an additional (and perhaps unnecessary) layer of cost.

Although fees are payable to process payments with an internally developed or software based solution, third-party providers can also charge a courtesy or convenience fee. Merchants need to be aware that a convenience fee is not allowed as a method of just passing on credit or debit card processing charges. According to the Merchant Council, “Surcharging customers for paying with a credit card is considered discrimination based on payment type. A convenience fee is a charge for offering customers another payment option that is separate and in addition to standard payment methods.” All fees therefore need to be carefully scrutinized ahead of time so that there are no surprises when a monthly transactional statement is sent.

Conclusion
In the final analysis, as payment channels and options on the web expand, and more and more customers become comfortable with the whole process of paying electronically, offering payment capability via the Internet will become more standard for most businesses. However, there are several possible strategies available to achieve this and several important areas of consideration to take into account. In this article we have briefly explored five of these, namely: Branding/Marketing issues, Website Availability, Customer Service, PCI-Compliance issues and finally Costs/fees.