Using a Range of more “Active” Incentives to adopt e-billing and payment

With a planned and consistent information-led approach which stresses the many benefits of the transition, as much as 15% of a customer base may adopt your new electronic billing and payment system. This information-led approach is like to use a range of gentle encouragement approaches such as:

1. Letters explaining the new system
2. Short notices about particular benefits
3. FAQ’s on a merchant website explaining the new system
4. Pamphlets/Leaflets/Brochures on the new system
5. White papers (on benefits such as being more “green”)
6. Trials (try using the system but keeping getting paper bills)
7. Offers such as planting a tree (for every 10 customers who switch to e-billing)

However, to get the majority of customers to alter old habits, greater incentives are needed and this will depend on each merchant deciding how much extra pressure to change to apply. This falls into two categories-what we call “active encouragement” and “aggressive encouragement”. Let’s look at each of these in turn.

Active encouragement

Active encouragement uses a range of methods to incent customers to switch but all of these fall short of forcing them to change or imposing new costs on them. Examples here include:

1. Offering donations to charity (for each customer/every 5 customers who switch)
2. Using email campaigns to use e-billing
3. Engaging in planned text messaging campaigns to explain the benefits
4. Educating customers over the phone (via a call-center) on a push basis
5. Running advertisements (print, radio and even cable)
6. Running sweepstakes or other competitions around the new e-billing system
7. Using on-hold messaging to encourage adoption

If gentle encouragement achieves the first 15% to adopt e-billing, the above may add another 25% over a 3-6 month period (with consistent effort).

 

Aggressive encouragement

Give that the first two encouragement approaches described above may convert 40% of the customer base to the new billing system on a combined basis, the last 60% may need to be pushed even harder and this is what we call “aggressive encouragement”. Examples of this might be:

1. Running a loyalty points scheme for prizes (in-house or third-party) for switching customers
2. Offering coupons or discounts for products or services (in-house or external) when switching
3. Offering third-party gift certificates for adoption
4. Forcing customers to opt-out of electronic billing (simply by turning off paper bills for example)
5. Offering discounts on bills viewed and paid electronically  (e.g.1%, 2% or even more off)
6. Charging customers if they want a printed invoice
7. Charging customers a surcharge to call in make to a call center

These more aggressive encouragement approaches need to be carefully discussed before implementation and will also depend on the new system being offered. In the case of using a service such as BillSwyft for example, customers can still print invoices and generate PDF’s, thereby making the switch to no paper rather easier to bear.

The factors that help shape choice in the online payment world

There are now many payments types or channels available to both merchants and customers (cash, cheque, credit card, debit card, pre-paid card, direct debit, Internet direct bank transfer, e-wallet transfer etc.). However, they all present different advantages and disadvantages, and these may be quite different for a consumer versus a merchant. However, by drawing together a range of international literature about payment systems and how they are used by people and organizations of all kinds, six attributes of payment products appear to be most relevant to the choices that are made of both merchants and their customers alike*. These six factors are:
capability

• cost
• convenience
• coverage
• confidence and
• confidentiality

Let’s look at each of these in a little more detail.

Capability

Capability refers to the functional ability to actually use a particular payment type or channel. For example, capability in cash transactions (the oldest and most ubiquitous of payment types) relates to a person or an organization being in a position to hand over a payment (having cash in an acceptable denomination/currency) and then receive the payment (also in an acceptable denomination/currency of course). This becomes a threshold issue in non-cash payments, which often involve technical issues such as the establishment of a means of communicating over distance, ability to verify the parties in a payment transaction, and many other factors.

Cost

All payment systems involve some costs (including cash). Both consumers and merchants are likely to seek to use lower cost payments if they can. This is especially the case if they can readily know what the use of each payment will cost them (sometimes this is transparent and sometimes it is not of course). The cost of a payment is not always spread evenly between the parties. Vendors of payment products will often seek to make some approaches appear to be no-cost or low-cost to the customer-but this may or may not be true. The cost structures of payment methods also differ; some have a fixed transaction charge while others are proportional to the size of the transaction.

Convenience

Convenience refers to the ease of use or “user-friendliness” of a payment method. A need for registration before using the payment method, or the speed of payment (for example, the time taken to approve a payment) can be factors affecting convenience. Consumers generally view cash as convenient to carry for small purchases at the point-of-sale. This means that to be competitive with cash, electronic payments systems have to offer a high level of convenience (hence all the current interest in mobile phone usage for payments). Businesses however typically have a very different perspective on convenience to that of consumers. They are likely to seek payment products and services that fit reasonably well into their broader processes and systems.

Coverage

Coverage refers to how widely a payment method or system is accepted by merchants and other recipients of payments, such as businesses receiving payments from suppliers. An important objective for all payment types and channels is therefore clearly to be widely accessible to merchants, traders, consumers and other users without high-entry or ongoing costs. Similarly, consumers should encounter as few barriers as possible in undertaking transactions using the chosen system.

Confidence

This refers to a customer’s belief that a payment will be successfully executed and completed, and that the value of a payment method will be respected. Confidence rises where arrangements are secure and value does not ‘leak’. The confidence that consumers have in a payment method also depends on the associated payment channel. For example, online payments with credit cards differ from offline payments, in that the card is not physically provided by the customer and the merchant does not obtain a signed confirmation from the customer. Some card schemes provide a system of cardholder authentication, usually through provision of name, credit card number and expiration date. To prevent illegitimate interception, this information is typically encrypted so as to increase levels of confidence in the payment system. 

Confidentiality

As a payment type only cash maintains payer and/or payee confidentiality. Non-cash payments often involve the collection of information that becomes valuable. Users of payment systems are often concerned about the collection and use of this often personal information, and its potential release to other parties, if not properly secured. For example, in general, credit card payments are made via an identifiable account, resulting in the loss of anonymity. This means that some individuals are uncomfortable or unhappy about using payment types or channels which cannot reasonably protect their personal information (and may increase the risk of theft or fraud).

Summary

Payment type or channel choices are complex for both a given consumer or merchant. However, in this article we have described six factors which seem to be most influential in the decision-making process. Although these factors all stand alone, they are not necessarily independent of one another of course. In other words, the boundaries between factors are often blurred of “fuzzy”.

In addition, it is also worth noting that any one of these factors can be primary, depending on a given individual or organizational perspective. For some consumers and/or merchants therefore, cost and convenience may be first and second (with other factors making little difference). However, for other consumers and/or merchants, capability, coverage and confidentiality may all have equal significance, for instance.

*The report by the Australian Government called “Exploration of future Electronic Payments” was extremely useful in assembling and describing the factors in more detail.

The Value of Encouraging Direct Debit Payments

A direct debit is an instruction that a bank account holder (usually a merchant) gives their bank to collect a variable amount directly from another account (usually a given customer). A direct debit is also often called a pre-authorised debit or pre-authorised payment. Direct debits are initiated by the recipient (merchant), as opposed to the Payer (customer), which means that the payer is not in control of the payment. This is quite different to a standing order, which tends to be set up by a customer as a fixed amount payment and can be cancelled by them at any time.

Direct debit payments have become very popular with large merchants in recent years (such as utilities, telecom companies and councils for example) because they allow the merchant to obtain an open mandate from a customer to transfer variable amounts of money out of a bank account on a regular basis.  This make direct debit apparently very good for the merchant (with high levels of control over customer payments). But is this really the case as in reality there are both pros and cons to consider?

 

ADVANTAGES:

DISADVANTAGES:

1. Having a direct debit mandate saves a merchant time as automatic payment is set up to occur regularly by a customer on a given date. The payment is also known and easily reconciled as thee are full records of the transaction.   2. Direct debits tend to avoid late payments by a customer (avoiding chase letters or phone calls or even worse, disconnection notices, and late fees and penalties.   3. Direct debit is cost effective for the merchant as a payment method (at least on the surface-see point 4 in disadvantages). A merchant typically gains the benefit of planned cash-flow at a very low cost (with direct debits costing between a fixed15-25 pence on average).   4. Direct debits provide more security for the merchant and the customer by being made electronically. This is both secure and proof of payment appears on the customer bank statement.

1. A customer needs to trust a given merchant to give bank account access to them or to want to sign a mandate.   2. A customer account has to have adequate funds to cover payments when they’re due. If this is not the case, apart from the loss of payment (and cash-flow) a reversal will occur (see point 4)   3. A bank account may be closed by the bank due to fraud or some other reason.  This will lead to reversal fees (see point 4 below.)   4. Reversals across UK direct debits run at about 4 in one hundred (4%) and cause considerable problems for the merchant. It may cost as much as £30 to set up a new direct debit with a customer. What this means in practice is that these 4 in 100 reversals have to be spread over all 100 (or £120 in total divided by 100 or £1.20 needs to be added to the 20 pence average cost). This means that the real cost of a direct debit is more like £1.40 on average.   5. If a Payer wants to change banks, a merchant will need to set up new direct debit mandates again which is time consuming. Also, merchants need to keep a record of any direct debit mandate from their customers for a 7 year period.

 There is an alternative to direct debit that is available at www.payswyft.com. This is called “dynamic debit” and is set up by the customer rather than the merchant. This payment method is most typically linked with a customer’s debit card (although a credit card can also be used). These recurrent payments can be made indefinitely on a variable basis like a direct debit, but has one major difference. A customer can set a maximum limit (say £50) and have the Payswyft system alert them (by SMS or email) so that they can approve the payment (or query it with the merchant before it is settled). As the cost of this debit-side payment is around 35 pence each time (and has almost no risk of cancellation, reversal or chargeback as transactions are run through the 3D secure system) they are a true win-win for both the merchant and the customer.

Cash-still a key method for consumers to pay merchants

In the last 10 years we would be forgiven for thinking that the use of cash to pay for things has been declining so rapidly that it is now a minor payment method (with debit and credit cards being the dominant force in western society these days). However, even in 2011/12, the figures just do not back these up with cash and debit having about 40% of the total pie, with credit cards a long way behind with only 15%.

The UK Payments Council publishes a full report on “the way we pay for things” as consumers in the economy, in April of every year. In summary, their latest research suggests that cash accounts for about two-thirds of all financial transactions in the economy and about one third of the value of the transaction (meaning that cash is typically used for lower value transactions). In fact, there are around 21 billion consumer payments in cash, but close to 80% of these are below £10. Around two-thirds of these cash payments are made in retail environments (such as supermarkets, service stations, shops and pubs etc).

For our regular commitments (bills etc), cash payments account for about 10% of the transactions and around 7% of the value.

Many individuals choose to use cash to shop on-line (often citing security and risk issues with credit and debit cards as the reason). However, many other have no choice but to use cash when they are trying to purchase goods or services (whether these are on or off line). 

Although the numbers vary, the population of people in the UK who do not have a bank account (often called the unbanked) is around 2 million people or about 1.4 million households. This is therefore around 7.5% of the entire UK adult working population and is therefore hard to ignore if you are a merchant or a payment provider.  Of course, this includes many people who are socially disadvantaged or poor in society but even they have to buy products or services or pay their bills. This is not easy to do without a bank account and can only be accommodated if payment providers recognise their need.

Will fees for processing online payments disappear completely?

For many years now, banks and other financial intuitions 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, 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 categories typically apply only to the customers 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 bank account 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 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”.  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 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 instances). However, these fees will not always cover the costs involved completely and it therefore often falls to the other major category to provide other 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 fees to most merchants.

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 and data entry (sometimes carried out multiple times). 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.

Outside cash and cheque payments, the majority of fees that are charged by a bank a 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. However, the merchant will be charged for every transaction that a customer makes with a credit and/pr 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. 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. They range in price- so in order to make it easier, the merchant providers created three categories.

Qualified Discount Rate – a pre-set or agreed percentage is paid for each pound charged.

Non-Qualified Rate – a fee added to the qualified discount rate in certain transactions. For example, 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 that is paid on every sale processed through the credit card processor. (Sometimes the transaction fee is called the interchange fee, authorization fee, or per inquiry fee).

Address Verification Service (AVS)

Merchant banks charge a small fee for the validation service to ensure that the billing address provided in the online checkout process matches the issuing bank’s records. Not using this service will result in hefty charges on the processing of the card for that sale.

Batch Fees

Merchant banks require that customers 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 you don’t have transactions to process, there is no batch fee to pay.

Monthly Statement or Customer Service Fee

Most merchant banks charge a monthly fee in order to cover their monthly costs of operation (paying their customer service team for example).

Monthly Minimum Fee

Many merchant banks providers require a given organisation to process a minimum amounts 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 such as Authorize.net, although some merchant providers will cover this fee on their customer’s behalf as part of the package deal. If you are solely an internet business, you’ll want to look for an internet merchant account that includes the gateway service as part of the package.

Annual Fees

These are often charged by Merchant banks  when free terminal equipment to take payment is offered. There are numerous merchant account providers that do not charge an annual fee, so you may want to shop around if the first few you look at require an annual fee. Sometimes it would be cheaper to purchase the equipment than to pay an ongoing annual fee.

Cancellation/Termination Fees

Most merchant accounts require a contract agreement of one or two years and if you cancel early, you 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 account providers typically charge a “chargeback” fee.

What is the difference between “push” versus “pull” on-line billing?

The terms “push” and “pull” are now commonly mentioned when on-line billing is being described, but what do these terms actually mean in this context and what is the advantages of one over the other? 

A “push” based on-line billing process essentially means that a consumer is prompted or alerted directly with a full invoice, statement or other document describing what has been purchased and what needs to be paid. This is therefore what is commonly called a “rich” document. For the most part, push-based on-line billing systems are carried out as e-mail notifications with attachment files (such as a PDF for example).

A “pull” based on-line billing process will still alert a consumer that an invoice is ready to be paid but instead of including the rich document, invites the consumer to go to a nominated web site where they can find the full bill to be viewed and subsequently be paid in digital form.  Both e-mail and text messaging can be used to simply alert the customer, but merchants may elect to use off-line notifications (letters, paper-based invoices etc) as well.

Both push and pull models on online billing offer merchants the opportunity to reduce or eliminate paper invoices over time but each has advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages and disadvantages or Push-based on-line billing
Push based on-lined billing has the advantage of using a very common and familiar system that most businesses and consumers now use with relative ease -their email. Recipient addresses are unique and go straight into an inbox to be read either immediately or when the person opens their email system. In addition, emails are now readily received on mobile phones and other portable devices, allowing for very fast delivery, flexible viewing and (in some cases) access to online payment options.

Despite the above, there are a number of drawbacks with this push-based delivery model. They include:
* An email address may be incorrect or not reach the right recipient directly
* Many individuals and even organisations may have inbox restrictions the size of incoming emails. This will limit the opportunities for presenting invoices (especially when the attachment is large in size).
* Staff turnover in businesses and changes to email addresses by consumers means that it is often difficult to ensure the complete integrity of email addresses.
* Recipients can claim that they never received an email with an attached e-bill
* It is not always easy to differentiate copy invoices from original invoices with push on-line billing.
* An attachment (such as a PDF) is still only a piece of paper. A consumer may just print it and pay it offline and/or a merchant cannot easily reconcile the data (needing to key in the data again).

The advantages and disadvantages or Pull-based on-line billing
In Pull-based on-line billing, an email is more equivalent to a paper-based notification in the physical mail and simply serves to alert the customer that an invoice is available for viewing and processing at the nominated billing website (the biller’s own or a third-party aggregator’s one). As well as presenting the invoice a fully digital and therefore clickable format, web 2.0 internet technology also makes it possible to distinguish between the original and copy invoice. In addition, this fully digital format makes for very simple upload or transfer to an accounting system, thus eliminating any requirement to key in data manually and greatly aiding the reconciliation process. In addition, full digitisation allows the recipients to view their bill and render payments all on-line, at the same web site (which they may choose to do as soon as it is received).

Just as with Push based on-line billing, there are nonetheless a number of drawbacks with this pull-based delivery model. They include:
* Recipients may forget their logins and passwords to the billing web site to which they are being directed
* Recipients may not trust the web site to which they are being sent, or least feel nervous about the security offered (especially where payments are concerned)
* Consumers may be confused with what is likely to be a simplified bill or one which approximates to the one they receive in the mail-it is often similar but not the same.
* The billing web site may not be very user-friendly (leading to consumer abandonment)

So, in summary, we can say that both push and pull on-line billing have many advantages worth considering but also have a range of disadvantages that need to be considered one-by-one according to each merchant’s needs. In overall terms perhaps there are less onerous disadvantages on the “pull” side, and it is this approach consequently has the present advantage. However, as usual in the online world, choice and convenience are always key considerations, and it may well be that offering both a push and a pull-based solution offers the best outcome of all (and most quickly attains the paperless system than many merchants may crave). 

Developing a Payment Strategy-Step 2- Focusing on how to issue bills and invoices in a fast and efficiency way

In exploring what is involved in developing an overall payments strategy, in this article we will look at the second phase of five in total, which is how a business can issue bills and invoices in a the fastest and most efficiency way.

There are few businesses that fail to readily appreciate that when a customer orders a product or service, they expect to have it delivered as efficiently as possible (and this usually means fast). In fact, some organisations even seek to gain competitive advantage by doing this effectively. However, this would be costly unless the invoicing process is equally efficient, so that payment can be collected as quickly as possible. Streamlining the billing process is therefore a critical activity.

There are essentially three options available to streamline the billing process:

First, a business can seek to make an existing manual bill process “flow” more efficiently. For example, this might involve looking at the simplicity of the invoice design or layout, reducing or even eliminating wasteful work tasks, or even further automating the delivery process (such as faster envelope stuffing). Although this may help considerably, the danger is that these process improvements need to be “locked in” to avoid slippage and the changes may only go a short way in terms of overall improvement from a customer perspective.

A second option is to automate the manual billing process as much as possible. For example, this might involve adopting an email-based invoice delivery process (saving on paper, envelopes and franking (if the customer can be convinced to accept an email as the substitute of course). This can save considerably in direct costs and gets the bill to the customer earlier than the physical mail. However, the business is still delivering paper and may not experience much in the way of faster payment. In fact many organisations find that they end up maintaining both their physical mailing and emailing process (and storing more paper than they did before).

A third option is for a business is to let a third-party specialist billing organisation help to streamline the process. One possibility here is to completely outsource the process of both billing and payment collection. However, a more popular option is to either buy full bill automation software from the third-party (and pay for its maintenance and use) or to use a digital billing service. The latter choice is likely to deliver the most change from a customer perspective. Here, a customer’s bill is made available to view at the third party’s dedicated web site, where they can then pay it by a variety of means (on both the credit and debit side).

Each of the above options needs careful consideration, as all three involve time and cost. However, in terms of savings in direct and indirect cost, option three is likely to be the most efficient and cost effective.

In our next article in this series, we will look at the next phase in developing the Payment Strategy- Giving customers as user-friendly billing and payment experience as possible.

Security Protection is the Online Billing World

The use of online billing continues to grow but with this growth comes security risks which need to be managed, especially as far as the consumer is concerned. There are a number of useful steps or measures that can be taken by an individual customer who uses online banking or an online bill presentment portal. A few of these measures include the following:
 
1. Use a strong password- Too many people use their birthday or address for passwords that can be readily discovered. It is therefore better to come up withy something unique. A strong password is at least 7 characters long and contains both upper and lowercase letters. It is also helpful to include a number in the string of possible. This reduces the ability of anyone else guessing a consumer’s chosen password and thereby effect any illegal transactions.
 
2. Keep login data hidden away- Account information, such as a login or password or anything else that will help a person trying to commit fraud, should be kept in a very safe place. This is not on a “post it”, note or scrap of paper on your desk, where others may see it, but in a locked draw or a diary that you carry with you at all times. Even in the latter case, you may want to record the data in a way that you understand it but will confuse a third party person.  

3. Review transaction history- Just as we should check our bank account pages for errors and oversights, so we should apply the same level of scrutiny to our online transactions. This should include not only the most recent transactions but also the history to make sure that a fraudulent transaction is not “buried” in the list. Most fraudsters like to steal quietly and invisibly (one line item that is similar in value) so you need to take extra care to spot that purchase you never made or bill you never got.

 
4. Protect your computer- However careful you may be in your online effort to take security seriously you need to keep your hardware secure through the use of up-to-date antivirus software and firewalls to bar intruders from accessing your network or computer. The greatest risk here is file attachments sent to you on email. Always therefore make sure that any files from people you do not know (that make it past your firewall and spam catcher) are deleted (and attachments from them are never opened).
 
5. Sign out- when operating any online accounts, it is highly advisable that when your online session is complete, you sign out immediately and close the browser window you are done, as double security. If you do need to leave your desk in an office unattended for a few minutes, also make sure that you have locked your computer or password protected it so that others cannot log in to an open session.
 
6. Avoid public computers- Although it is often convenient to be able to log in remotely to your account (and this can certainly be done from your own smart phone or tablet computer for example) you should ideally avoid signing into your online billing portal on a public computer like the ones at cyber cafés. This is simply because they may not have good security and may have software on computers which record your login and password information for later use by someone wanting to commit fraud.
 
7. Beware of Email scams- Many fraudsters try to steal the identity of a bank or other financial services institute and send emails requesting personal and confidential information to be provided. Here it is best to simply avoid putting any login or password data into emails.
 
8. Select a trustworthy Portal- before using any online billing and payment system, be sure to check the credibility of the organization you are dealing with. Check that they are certified and check that they have secure socket layer (SSL) payment certificate etc. You can also read user reviews, blog postings and even “Google” the company to see what you can find that may give you any cause for concern.

If you follow these simple guidelines, you will protect your confidentiality and your account and enjoy the many benefits of using an online billing system.

Will an “iTunes” Type of Web site for ebilling Ever Come into Being?

Last month an interesting article was published on a blog which made a very useful reference to on line music, and iTunes in particular, in relation to ebilling. In his article the author suggested that if we thought about bills in music terms:
• CDs (and the artists that produce them) are like paper bills;
• Listening to music online is like logging in to a portal to view and pay your bill; and
• Downloading a song (file) to your chosen device from iTunes is like receiving your bill as a file (attachment) to your PC, tablet, iPhone, Android, Blackberry etc.

This article rather strangely goes on to conclude that all music and bills should be delivered by email attachment so that customers can open it/them on all their different listening or reading devices.

Despite that fact that this article seems to get a little lost quite quickly, it does draw a useful general analogy and it is therefore worth looking at the core question that it hints at but never answers-will an iTunes type of web site for ebilling ever come into being (and how of course)?

First and foremost let’s get the comparisons right here:
• Songs (or “albums” of songs) should be compared to bills in general
• Artists should be compared to merchants (and some of both are very large and some are tiny)
• Record companies should be compared to banks
• Music listeners should be compared to customers or bill payers
• CD’s (or Vinyl) should be compared to paper-delivered bills
• Online Audio type files (MP3’s, WAVs etc) should be compared to online emails with attachments
• An online store (like iTunes) should be compared to an online bill-payment portal

You’ll notice that we do not yet talk about a delivery device like a smart phone or tablet in the above table-we’ll cover this later.

The Music Scene
If we look back at recent history, up until as little as 10 years ago, the music industry had been operating in similar fashion for decades. Artists produced songs and approached record companies to back them. If they were successful, the record company would help getting the song(s) to market on vinyl as a single or a long play record, getting the songs played on radio and elsewhere so that people would buy what they liked in main street record stores. Innovation in the music industry was very slow to come. Vinyl eventually became CD’s and radio went slowly from analogue to digital. However, the biggest changes were in listening devices, which became increasingly portable. This was led by Sony’s “Walkman” in 1979-the first step towards MP3 players which led to the huge industry paradigm shift-the iPod-introduced in late 2001 (and the new iTunes music store two years later in 2003).

When Apple arrived on the music scene the portable MP3 scene was ripe for change to something simpler and more appealing to customers. In this sense, the iPod, iTouch and finally the iphone and iPad all became the simplest and most user-friendly way to listen to music (both on a live streaming basis and recorded). As a result, the music industry has been almost completely transformed commercially and listeners (or at least those with a 3G/4G connection and/or access to the Internet) have more choice and convenience than they ever had before.

The Billing Scene
So how does this compare to the billing sector? Like music, billing has operating in similar ways for decades. Bills (the song comparison) have been and still are delivered mostly in very traditional ways, especially by small and medium sized merchants (the artist comparison). This is by paper in the mail as the simplest format (a bit like the vinyl single) or by mail with a plain PDF attachment (the CD comparison). In some cases, the email with attachment may be a little more dynamic and sophisticated and can collect signatures for example (used in the B2B billing world). This is more comparable to the MP3 or wav files in the music world.

Although a dominant player like Apple and a site like iTunes has yet to “explode” in the billing world, we are getting very close to it happening now. For some years, online bill payment has been available at a merchant’s web site, although this does make for some inconvenience for customers when they need to pay a lot of bills (or listen to a lot of songs from different artists at different record companies). Online bill payment has also been available at bank sites for many years now and has become quite well-used by the same people who took quickly to Internet banking. Unfortunately, full digital presentment is not normally available via this channel, so both of these valuable innovations are comparable to the “Walkman”-they have taken us some of the way but there is room for improvement.

The private “cloud-based” bill presentment and payment portal is a much newer innovation in the last 2-3 years, and is much closer to being the billing “paradigm shift” we talked about earlier. In this system, customers can see bills from a given merchant (an artist in music terms) and subscribe to get all the bills they send (or songs they release). Because this is non-merchant owned or bank owned (the equivalent of sometimes cutting out the record companies), customers can see many merchants (or artists), and thus have the capacity to ultimately start to see all of their bills in one place. Naturally, paying bills is never a fun activity like listening to music but the quicker and more easily you can deal with them the better (and you can get back to what you like doing much more speedily). Having all your bills in one online place (with free back and storage and easy retrieval whenever you need access) is the equivalent of getting all of their songs in one playbook-just as iTunes allows now. Customers can then keep these bills (or songs) permanently stored in one place and revisit them whenever they like. These bills are all fully digital and do not have multiple file formats that have to be tackled (much as Apple made MP3, WAV and other music file formats an irrelevance to the listener).

Perhaps most importantly, customers can access their bills at the portal from any device that is connected to the Internet by some means-a computer, a smart phone, a tablet etc. And because this is all digital, customers can use all of the currently available and evolving technology that is available such as bookmarking, flexible sorting (like assembling playlists) and using SMS alerts for example (to prompt the customer when there is a bill to pay or a credit card to update, just as you would when a new song or album by an artist has been released). Of course this is not to exclude other ways of getting a bill in any other format that may be wanted-you can still send an email or a PDF or even print them if you like.

Summary
We are not suggesting that bills are anywhere near as much fun to ‘access’ as music and you will of course listen to the same song a lot more than you will use the same bill. However, we think the broad analogy here is a useful one. Our general conclusion is that the online bill presentment and payment portal is already here and like iTunes will transform the bill payment sector over the next few years just as Apple did. There are a few innovative companies that are competing to be the “big gorilla” at the moment but it is inevitable that one of these will emerge soon as the dominant player in this space. A few early adopters (the merchants or artists as they would be in the music scene) already understand this and are quickly getting on board. For these merchants this is a relatively painless transition, with no capital outlay and they can be in the online bill presentment and payment space almost immediately to reap the benefits.

Will Mobile Devices Soon be the Dominant Channel for Payment Transactions?

In the last 9-12 months, those of us in the financial services industry might be forgiven for thinking that the main issues to face and gain advantage from in the near future is going to be who will win the lion’s share of the mobile market when it comes to payment transactions. This arises because of the huge rise in smart phone sales all over the world in the last few years and in more recent times, the fast growth of tablet computer devices (both of which create great mobility for customers). While both of these innovations are certainly exciting and possibly “game-changing” in this article, we will briefly explore whether they will soon really become the dominant payment channel of choice, as many people seem to believe they will. We will therefore look at arguments for and against this prediction.

The arguments for the case
Without doubt, along with wireless access internet innovation, smart phones are a transformational technology. This technology allows individuals to perform many everyday tasks that previously were done via traditional telephony or even on paper in some instances. The same can be said for the newer but just as ground-breaking tablet computers. The added value here is that the larger screen format allows what was previously done mainly on a personal computer in one location to be done almost anywhere because of the high level of portability and touch screen convenience. As we all know, very soon even aeroplanes will allow the use of both smart phones and tablets via the internet (and the last bastion of true peace from cell phones and computers will disappear).

Of course the two “gorilla issues” here are the use of NFC or Near Field Communication technology which allows the smart phone to become a credit or debit card, and the linked facility of a smart phone as an electronic or digital wallet, capable of storing value and therefore having the capacity to readily make may payment transactions including person-to-person payments.

NFC has a short range of about 1.5 inches. This makes it a good choice for secure transactions, such as contactless credit card payments. Smart phones can therefore “tap and go” using infrastructure already in place for credit card systems such as MasterCard’s PayPass program or Visa’s payWave.

Smart phones can now also replace customer loyalty cards, not only by storing retail store credit card information, but also automatically select the right customer loyalty card information for a given consumer purchase.

The “digital wallet” concept could extend to coupons and other offers. Consumers can now download coupons from a web site, which they exchange by having their phone swiped at the point of purchase. The retailers benefit from being able to track who their coupons are sent to and how they are used.

If you add in the benefits of smart phone tickets (for trains, buses an car parking for example) and the use of phone-based barcodes (as infrastructure allows) we can quickly see how this technology will dramatically change the consumer purchase experience in many areas (especially at the retail level) and help many merchants to gain efficiencies and save costs.

The arguments against the case
In considering the arguments against the proposition that mobile technology is soon going to be the dominant channel for payments, it is worth establishing a few facts about smart phones and tablets. Firstly, there were around 450 million smart phones sold around the world in 2011. As there are about 5.5 Billion mobiles phones in total (which means that around 80% of the world population own one) smart phones represent about 8% of the total-a number expected to go to 12% within 5 years and 20% in 10 years-meaning around 1.2 billion smart phones will be owned by 2022.

As far as tablet computers are concerned, there were around 75 million of them sold in 2011 (compared to 440 million PC sales), with predictions of at least 250 million in 5 years and 750 million with 10 years (although these figures are much more speculative of course). As a percentage of all computers (there are around 1.3 billion computers in use in total in 2011), this means that tablets represent about 4% of the market today, predicted to grow to 7% in 5 years and 15% in 10 years. The reason that % growth of tablets is much slower proportionally than smart phones by the way is that PCs have a much longer life, with companies and individuals holding on to them for 4-5 years or longer before upgrading or changing.

Given the above, it is difficult to see how mobile technology can quickly become the dominant channel for payment, even before we consider other issues. At best in 5 years time only 12% and 7% of consumers (with each technology respectively) will be able to pay on their tablets and smart phones (and only if they wish to of course). This is higher in the younger age groups naturally and is still a lot of transactional volume but not dominant by any means.

To add to the above, about 75% of all payments transactions today take place “offline”. In other words, bills are sent out by physical mail or email (with PDF attachments) and are still paid over the counter with cash and debit/credit cards and by cheques in the mail or by phone or voice over IP. Larger payments are made via internet banking via direct debit and by businesses via bank payment systems such as wire transfer for instance. It is hard to see any of these processes changing quickly, especially in the B2B space, although cheque volumes will continue to decline at the expenses of electronic payment for both consumers and businesses.

Perhaps the other major disadvantage of mobile technology is one of available infrastructure. All smart phones and tablets create much greater accessibility but are only useful when they are connected. 3G and 4G is expensive today for large data packets and access to the Internet relies on old-world “hubs”-most of which rely on old copper-wire systems. NFC technology is perhaps less encumbered as it is more like “Bluetooth” but it still needs a device with which to communicate, and in a payment situation this means that every retailer needs a reading device. Installing such devices is happening of course but it will take time and will only penetrate those market verticals where it makes sense.

So what does it all mean?
Now that we have all of the above figures and facts on both the plus and minus side what does all this mean for payments? Well, its obvious that the times are changing and in the consumer world we will see very fast rises in payments being made not only online in years to come (at the expense of more traditional methods) but a large proportion of these will be made on smart phones and tablet computers, especially in the under 30 population. However, as a proportion of the total transactional volume it is likely to be much slower than the media hype suggests. This is because retail (where much of the take-up will occur, makes up only 10% of the consumer transactional volume. Consumers themselves, of course, are typically only half of the total market transactional volume and less than a quarter of the payment value. The rest is taken up by Government and Business and both of these are likely to take many years to adopt mobile technology into mainstream payment systems-perhaps 15-20 years. For this reason, and the fact that we continue to leverage old system payment “rails”, we can conclude that mobile devices are interesting and growing as a payment option but will be far from dominant for a few years yet. Smart phones (with NFC technology) are therefore likely to slowly replace the “bricks and mortar” retail market (helping customers to migrate from a plastic card to a mobile device). And as both smart phones and tablets are effectively mobile enabled PC’s that will make all forms of payments easier and increase/accelerate on-line payment activity this will be a good thing for both merchants and consumers when it comes to the ease with which future payments can be made.

What is Likely to Occur in the Payments and Online Billing Landscape in the Next Few Years?

Although it is always extremely difficult to make predictions about an industry which changes as fast as online payments (including online bill presentment) there are always a few “clues, trends and patterns” around to draw upon. As a result and as it’s close to the start of a new year, in this article we will seek to make a few predictions about what is likely to happen in the near future. To do this we will use a number of key headings that are often seen to be important in this industry.

The general changes that we can expect
In broad terms, the payments landscape (which is still very paper or physical form-based in so many ways) will continue to switch inexorably to an online environment at many levels with “barcode type” paper to replace physical monetary exchange products like cheques and cash in the next few years and possibly even Card (debit, credit and pre-paid) in the more distant future. The market will increasingly use smart phone and PC tablet as a channel, although the infrastructure required to support this will take as long as 20 years to make the full transition.

Online person-to-person or P2P payments will increase using mobile devices or social network sites as the initiation point. In the early days of this transition, bank account details will need to be known but accessing and using cleared funds (as the way customers want to interact will each) will see more new players emerging outside of the traditional banking community.

While banks are competing with each other for market share, new players entirely are likely to be able to capture payment market share away from their base, by better satisfying the needs of market. PayPal, Google & Apple are good examples of this or it may be entirely new companies that are yet to become well-known.

The cultural shift to perform everyday functions on-line is still in its infancy. While on-line shopping is growing exponentially, other behaviour will move more towards online. For example, full digital bill presentment and payment services.

So, if that’s the general scene, let’s look at what might happen under a few specific headings

TIMELINESS & CHOICE
Customers want to choose when they pay, day or night, 24/7, 365 days of the year and whether to pay ‘just in time’ or in real time. Customers want very wide payment type options and the ability to choose which option best suits each payment activity.

In many cases, recipients of funds prefer real-time or same-day settlement. Surety of settlement in real time will be critical in most cases.

ACCESSIBILITY
Customers want to access the same payment options regardless of the channel by which they pay. For example, this may be the same payment choice regardless of whether they are in a store, at an on-line store or paying a bill.

Merchants will increasingly prefer to receive funds from the same payment options, regardless of channel, to reduce vendor management and improve internal efficiencies.

EASE OF USE
Customer like payment types that are easy to use and one they understand and trust. Mobile, PC tablet & social network usage is making the introduction of new payment processes easier to manage and educate the market, but present other challenges for the payment industry as a whole.

EASE OF INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PROCESSES
Online payments will grow steadily and will ultimately dominate the payment landscape. However, capability and capacity to integrate with internal computer systems will be a barrier that will need to be overcome. Seamless integration with Point-of-Sale systems, on-line store, ERP, inventory systems and billing engines will be a critical factor.

Cloud-based technology will assist in keeping capital outlay lower and at manageable levels while providing high speed access to the payment instruments and associated internal systems.

RELIABILITY
The new payment instruments and channels that arise will need to be ever more reliable. Traditional payment providers can still play a huge role in ensuring that high quality standards and suitable interoperability is maintained ensure the instrument can be trusted.

Convenience can sometimes trump reliability, but both having both is likely to be a winning combination.

PRICING
New payment instruments will have to be cost effective is all cases and this will start to happen slowly.

What is blurring the price aspect is merchants will try to demand low transactional costs even when real demonstrable value is being added. For example, instant bank transfer provides significantly more benefits to both a consumer and a merchant and yet the expectation would be that this should be priced the same as, or even lower than, the transactional cost to write a paper-based cheque.

Another example is that presenting an electronic invoice with a wide range of payment options would be significantly more cost effective than a biller managing their own bill collection, even though individual transaction pricing by payment type may be more expensive in that particular silo.

SECURITY AND ROBUSTNESS
Similar to the reliability heading, secure and robust payment instruments will be increasingly essential, although convenience and ease-of-use are considerations that will often dilute how secure and robust the new instrument has to be in practice.

INTEROPERABILITY
All online digital Payment systems will have a much higher degree of interoperability with other systems than they do now. This will apply to the movement of money (where necessary) and more particularly to data transmission. The intelligent design of this data transition process (nationally and internationally) will be done by at least one large player outside current financial services sector or by a new market entrant.

RISK MANAGEMENT
Much richer risk management tools will be available and these will have sophisticated algorithms that track all payment patterns and provide risk attenuation or control options at every level. This is likely to be a new software-based market entrant.

Summary
No-one has a “crystal-ball” to predict the future, but the online payments space is changing rapidly around us. It will be interesting to see whether, we are still heading in the general direction that this article suggests in 12 months time and whether some of the forecasts are starting to come true or not.

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.

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.

Who Will Win the Online Billing and Payment War?

In the last 2-3 years, large research companies who focus on Internet trends in billing and/or payments, such as Ascent, Aite Group, Billentis, Forrester, Javelin Research, and several others, have suggested that a “war” has broken out to try to win the race to control most of the online billing and payment transactions (at least it seems to have done so in much of the developed world). This war is apparently between 3 parties –The “consolidators”, the large billing merchants themselves (usually called “biller-direct”) and the “aggregators”. In this brief article we will look more closely at this on-line billing and payment “war” and try to assess who seems to be leading or lagging in their efforts to emerge triumphant.

Introduction
The capacity to send an invoice via online means, and to facilitate payment of it electronically, is a relatively recent phenomenon. In reality, this has only been possible for around 10 years or so, and has only become broadly available as fast Internet access has become widespread and Internet banking has been taken up in far greater numbers. However, we need to separate online bill presentment from online payment. Research suggests that true online bill presentment (a digital bill/invoice capable of showing full detail as needed) is used by less than 5% of the adult population in the US for example (and may be as little as 3% in the UK). And as the chart below on preferred payment channels suggests, only 13.2% of the US population (at least in 2008) actually pays bills online (around two-thirds of which is via a bank and the customer’s linked checking account). This may have increased a little in the last couple of years but not by very much.

©Ascent Group: 2008

So, despite the fact that over 80% of the adult population now has Internet access in the US and the UK, there is still huge potential to switch people from sending cheques in the mail, bank drafts, in-person payments and even phone-in payments in the future (a total of around ¾ of all payments). For this reason, there are a wide variety of companies trying to win control of this potentially large and lucrative sector but the strategies for doing so are quite different. Let’s look at each one of what we see to be four different categories with a unique approach.

1. Consolidators
As the overall chart on the next page illustrates, consolidators are those organizations that seek to show a number of usually large merchant bills, as line items on an Internet web site. As most consolidators are banks, or at least large financial services firms, this is usually an extension of the bank’s internet payment web-site, and allows customers to immediately debit funds from a current/checking account to pay a bill (such as an electricity or telephone bill). It is actually rare for a consolidator to offer other alternative payment options, and it is even rarer for a customer to be able to see a full bill. This means that they can usually only remit a payment for a bill that he or she has received in the mail or by email (so that they can enter the payment information needed).

In recent years, the larger consolidators have penetrated the market well for this relatively basic service. However, they only have limited growth potential with a full presentment facility, which in any case is typically restricted to their own customer base or bank account holders.

2. Biller-Direct
Larger merchants (utilities, mobile phone operators and cable companies, for example) will often allow customers to both see their bill online in a part of the merchant’s web site and pay it (possibly by several means on the debit and credit side). However, to create this functionality for their customers, these merchants have to either build the handling software themselves, or buy it in as a package from a software vendor. This entails up-front capital, time to design and integrate the solution, as well as the effort to train internal staff to use the new system, once built.

From a customer perspective, this approach does afford the benefit of non-standard business hours access and some extra payment flexibility in some cases. However, there are also several drawbacks. These include some very unfriendly sites (buried/hard-to-find information, pop ups, missing detail, etc) and general customer irritation at having to remember each merchant’s site login and password process each time. For this reason, most large merchant biller-direct sites have relatively low levels of customer conversion (5% or less). In addition, the high cost of set-up makes this an unattractive approach for small to medium sized merchants to consider.

3. Consumer Aggregators
Aggregators are typically specialist organizations that have been set up to both present a bill and allow it to be paid online on behalf of a group of usually large merchants. If well-run and focused, consumer aggregators typically have considerable scope for future growth because they can theoretically provide a service for all consumers in the market. However, when consumers are asked to come to a web-site to find all or even most of their bills, only to find that one or two at most are available to them, they may not return. This makes consumer penetration a very long-term affair and assumes that the consumer aggregator finds it possible and even economic to approach all merchants in the market, however small and/or local they may be. In addition to this problem, although there are several consumer aggregator companies, they offer a slightly different range of features and in many cases may not even offer a full or detailed presentment option. This may act to simply confuse the consumer who may not then be prepared to use any of these sites, especially without their merchant encouraging them to use this as the primary channel.

4. Merchant Aggregators
Like consumer aggregators, merchant aggregators are also typically specialist online companies, but they have a different business model. The goal is to provide a service to one particular merchant at a time, and then work with that merchant to encourage consumers to view and pay their bill electronically (and particularly switch away from cash and cheques). To date, this service has been mainly aimed at small to medium sized merchants (rather than the “super-billers”). This means that both the penetration and growth rate has been slow so far. However, there is much scope for considerably greater growth and therefore higher market penetration in the future.

From a consumer perspective, the expectation here is limited to being able to see one given merchant’s full bill online and to be able to pay it by multiple methods. However, over time, more merchants are progressively added, meaning that consumers get to see several bills, from several merchants (some of which may be quite small and/or local) at the same site (with a familiar login and password).

The main challenge for merchant aggregators is acquiring merchants in the first place (which requires marketing and sales effort). Although merchant aggregators can do this in particular market verticals to manage these costs, one strong possibility is that consolidators (who already have many merchants already for payment purposes) may find it worthwhile to partner with the merchant aggregators, who get transactional volume in return for making available a full online presentment option.

Conclusion
As our chart on the previous page indicates, the biller-direct model has already proved to be a slow and expensive path for many large merchants and looks to be the worst current position to be in, if they were to try to win the online billing wars. Consolidators often have a large bill payments consumer population but do not have a cross-market platform to get their beyond their own customer base. Consumer aggregators have the potential to offer a multi-merchant solution, across the entire market, but having recruited many of the “super-billers” are finding it expensive to add the smaller merchants that consumers would want to see on their site in order to return again. Finally, merchant aggregators, although small in market penetration to date, probably have the most potential to offer a truly cross-market solution, which benefits all merchant and their consumers.

In the final analysis, it is, of course, extremely difficult to predict who is likely to emerge victorious in such a competitive space, especially where the financial stakes of wining or losing are so high. However, if the merchant aggregators can gain enough momentum, perhaps by partnering with the consolidator banks, they seem to be in the best position to win the online billing war at this particular time-we will watch the next couple few years with interest.