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.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
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.
In the next article, we will explore this subject further from the merchant’s perspective.
*The report by the Australian Government called “Exploration of future Electronic Payments” was extremely useful in assembling and describing the factors in more detail.
• 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.
In the next article, we will explore this subject further from the merchant’s perspective.
*The report by the Australian Government called “Exploration of future Electronic Payments” was extremely useful in assembling and describing the factors in more detail.
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Paperless billing-a cost effective and sustainable solution?
“Eco friendly” and “budget friendly” don’t always go hand in hand. But paperless billing is one of those rare measures that checks both boxes – all while keeping customers happy. This is simply because getting a bill to a consumer in a traditional way takes lots of time, effort and money that can be avoided. However, by using modern internet technology, the bill issue time can be reduced, the effort to get the bill out can be lessened and costs can be squeezed or in some cases eliminated.
Lets look a look at some of the specific wins:
Any business of any size or type wins on cost. On the direct or visible cost side, there’s less paper, less envelopes, less ink, less postage. Even though these are often significant in and of themselves there are also big potential cost reductions on the indirect or more hidden side of things...less customer support (handling queries or phone-in payments) and much less time spent on reconciliation. In addition, online bill presentment and payment has been shown to lead to much quicker settlement by the customer-which substantially aids cash-flow for a merchant. All these savings add up.
The customer wins – This includes eliminating or simplifying the tasks of organising bills, querying them and being able to make payments (all being possible safely and securely at a single web site typically with a few clicks). Paper free means more free time for the bill payer, and less to worry about when dealing with paper (including having to put the bill or invoice somewhere safe, finding it when needed and even losing it occasionally).
The environment wins. Paperless billing is a simple but significant step that every business can take with a little focus, effort and determination. Less paper means less use of trees and less transportation (and petrol), reducing a merchant’s carbon footprint. Not all customers will be happy to turn off paper immediately but some will and they will slowly encourage the others to do the same.
So Paperless billing is a worthy goal for all merchants
Whether you’re a large merchant billing tens or hundreds of thousands of customers, or a small business raising a handful of invoices, on-line billing at an aggregation site (such as PaySwyft) is a pain free way to trial the paperless option.
Merchants can raise some or all of their bills online...or test dual billing with late payers and measure the impact on cashflow...or if they prefer, give customers a straight choice: paper or paper free.
Paperless Billing: at a glance:
Merchants are saving money on...
• Printing paper bills
• Fulfilment, postage and franking
• Undeliverable mail
• Chasing late payments
• Handling manual payments
• Archiving paper bills
• Reconciliation/bill matching
Customers are saving time on...
• Checking and paying bills
• Hunting for previous bills
• Checking funds and means to pay
• Writing and posting cheques
• Waiting for a merchant to be open for business
• Talking to customer services
• Worrying over lost cheques and late delivery
Lets look a look at some of the specific wins:
Any business of any size or type wins on cost. On the direct or visible cost side, there’s less paper, less envelopes, less ink, less postage. Even though these are often significant in and of themselves there are also big potential cost reductions on the indirect or more hidden side of things...less customer support (handling queries or phone-in payments) and much less time spent on reconciliation. In addition, online bill presentment and payment has been shown to lead to much quicker settlement by the customer-which substantially aids cash-flow for a merchant. All these savings add up.
The customer wins – This includes eliminating or simplifying the tasks of organising bills, querying them and being able to make payments (all being possible safely and securely at a single web site typically with a few clicks). Paper free means more free time for the bill payer, and less to worry about when dealing with paper (including having to put the bill or invoice somewhere safe, finding it when needed and even losing it occasionally).
The environment wins. Paperless billing is a simple but significant step that every business can take with a little focus, effort and determination. Less paper means less use of trees and less transportation (and petrol), reducing a merchant’s carbon footprint. Not all customers will be happy to turn off paper immediately but some will and they will slowly encourage the others to do the same.
So Paperless billing is a worthy goal for all merchants
Whether you’re a large merchant billing tens or hundreds of thousands of customers, or a small business raising a handful of invoices, on-line billing at an aggregation site (such as PaySwyft) is a pain free way to trial the paperless option.
Merchants can raise some or all of their bills online...or test dual billing with late payers and measure the impact on cashflow...or if they prefer, give customers a straight choice: paper or paper free.
Paperless Billing: at a glance:
Merchants are saving money on...
• Printing paper bills
• Fulfilment, postage and franking
• Undeliverable mail
• Chasing late payments
• Handling manual payments
• Archiving paper bills
• Reconciliation/bill matching
Customers are saving time on...
• Checking and paying bills
• Hunting for previous bills
• Checking funds and means to pay
• Writing and posting cheques
• Waiting for a merchant to be open for business
• Talking to customer services
• Worrying over lost cheques and late delivery
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, 1 August 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Why the massive rise in using debit cards matters to all organisations
According to figures released by the payments council at the beginning of 2011, debit card expenditures more or less matched cash expenditures for the first time ever in the UK (and are expected to outstrip it easily in 2011). According to the statistics, there were around 6 billion purchases made using debit cards in the UK during the previous 12 months, an annual rise of nearly 9% and these transactions were worth a combined £265 billion, at an average value of £44 (up 7.5% overall). Yet while there were the much greater 21.4 billion cash transactions made in that same period (which was nonetheless down by 5.2%), the total value of these payments fell by 0.4% to about the same £265 billion figure.
Now clearly, these figures do not mean that cash is disappearing any time soon, especially since these lower average expenditures of £12 or less are often most conveniently settled by cash. However, it does signal that a lot of non-retail spending in particular is shifting to debit card use (and even some retail too with the interest in payment using NFC technology and smart phones in the near future) and perhaps the greatest area in which this likely to be significant is in paying bills (especially those sent from Government or Business to consumers).
What is driving this trend is that cheque writing is falling steadily (and of course is planned to disappear by 2018 in the UK). In fact, over 100 million fewer cheques were written in the UK in 2010 by consumers and it is the debit card that seems to be the preferred alternative, rather than the credit card. In 2010, credit cards accounted for £125.4 billion worth of payments, an annual fall of 0.7%, with 2 billion separate purchases (making an average credit card transaction £63). Hence, debit card transactions outnumbered credit card payments by three to one and represented more than twice the overall spend.
So what does all of this change mean for organisations on how they currently do business? Well first and foremost, accepting payment by debit card becomes pretty critical. Many small businesses (and even a few medium to large ones) do not at the moment and may well lose customers to competitors in the future. Beyond this perhaps obvious issue is the fact in the modern world people are happy to save as much time as they can and a debit card can often meet this need for faster transaction time and greater convenience (especially when paying over the web).
The benefits of accepting, and even encouraging debit card payments are many for the organisation and include:
•Less trips to the bank (with cash and/or cheques)
•Greater security (with less cash and cheques to keep safe)
•Extended opening hours for payment (allowing customers to pay by telephone or over the Internet 24/7 and 365 days a year-an outcome that can be set up immediately with a relationship with a web billing and payment portal such as PaySwyft.
•A faster transfer of funds to the organisation’s bank account than most other methods
•Generally cheaper than handling cash or credit cards
•Typically much lower charge-back risks than with credit cards
Each of the above is probably compelling reason enough for any business to take debit card payments, but in combination and given this payment type’s rapidly increasing popularity amongst consumers, the decision becomes extremely compelling in today’s fast-moving commercial climate.
Now clearly, these figures do not mean that cash is disappearing any time soon, especially since these lower average expenditures of £12 or less are often most conveniently settled by cash. However, it does signal that a lot of non-retail spending in particular is shifting to debit card use (and even some retail too with the interest in payment using NFC technology and smart phones in the near future) and perhaps the greatest area in which this likely to be significant is in paying bills (especially those sent from Government or Business to consumers).
What is driving this trend is that cheque writing is falling steadily (and of course is planned to disappear by 2018 in the UK). In fact, over 100 million fewer cheques were written in the UK in 2010 by consumers and it is the debit card that seems to be the preferred alternative, rather than the credit card. In 2010, credit cards accounted for £125.4 billion worth of payments, an annual fall of 0.7%, with 2 billion separate purchases (making an average credit card transaction £63). Hence, debit card transactions outnumbered credit card payments by three to one and represented more than twice the overall spend.
So what does all of this change mean for organisations on how they currently do business? Well first and foremost, accepting payment by debit card becomes pretty critical. Many small businesses (and even a few medium to large ones) do not at the moment and may well lose customers to competitors in the future. Beyond this perhaps obvious issue is the fact in the modern world people are happy to save as much time as they can and a debit card can often meet this need for faster transaction time and greater convenience (especially when paying over the web).
The benefits of accepting, and even encouraging debit card payments are many for the organisation and include:
•Less trips to the bank (with cash and/or cheques)
•Greater security (with less cash and cheques to keep safe)
•Extended opening hours for payment (allowing customers to pay by telephone or over the Internet 24/7 and 365 days a year-an outcome that can be set up immediately with a relationship with a web billing and payment portal such as PaySwyft.
•A faster transfer of funds to the organisation’s bank account than most other methods
•Generally cheaper than handling cash or credit cards
•Typically much lower charge-back risks than with credit cards
Each of the above is probably compelling reason enough for any business to take debit card payments, but in combination and given this payment type’s rapidly increasing popularity amongst consumers, the decision becomes extremely compelling in today’s fast-moving commercial climate.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Can Better Billing Practices Improve Merchant Cash-flow, Cost Effectiveness and Customer Satisfaction?
This blog article explores whether more efficient and effective billing practices deliver greater Cash-flow, Cost effectiveness and Customer Satisfaction for the merchant and more Convenience, Clarity/Certainty and Choice for the consumer-the 6 C’s
Billing is never the most exciting of subjects for business owners or managers, coming as it does as the last and perhaps most administrative or clerical step in the sales to delivery cycle. However, being a last step should not relegate it to being the least important and there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest that efficient billing practices may be one of the most critical. In this article we will therefore briefly explore why better billing practices can have a significant impact on cash-flow, cost-effectiveness and customer satisfaction for the merchant (as well as several equally beneficial, and linked, outcomes for their customers).
Before we look at each of these 3 merchant benefits in turn, let’s define what we mean by “efficient billing practices”. Presenting a bill or invoice can clearly be done in person (albeit rarely), in the physical mail (with a stamp), via an email (typically with a PDF attachment) or by digital means (via an Internet web site). All four of these options can be relatively “efficient” if they reach the right person quickly and facilitate the earliest possible settlement. However, experience (and much research) tells us that these practices are likely to be progressively more effective in the order in which they are listed. In other words, a full digital presentment of the bill is likely to be a much better option that delivering a bill by email, which in turn is better than doing so by physical mail etc. In this article we will therefore assume that a merchant will have, or aspire to have, the most efficient and effective approach –a full digital e-bill and it will be our contention that getting this bill delivered allows all the benefits we will elaborate upon subsequently to follow. The diagram below illustrates this rather more visually.
© PaySwyft, 2011. All Rights Reserved
Greater Cash-flow
The vast majority of organisations that supply a product or render a service to another organisation, or an end consumer, usually do so on credit terms (a lucky few get paid ahead of time of course). To operate somewhat like a lending bank, an organisation must therefore use shareholder funds, cash in its bank account, supplier credit (if they have any) or other money that is borrowed in some way (with interest being payable). These credit terms, or what is sometimes easier to visualise as the time taken to receive payment from customers, can have a huge impact on the working capital needed by a business and thereby have a critical affect on cash-flow. From the point of the delivery, spending days preparing and sending an invoice along with offering normal credit terms for a given industry (say 30 day terms on average), might mean that a particular enterprise may have an average days outstanding in practice of 40-45 days to get paid. Even for a relatively small business turning over say £500,000 a year this would mean working capital of £30,000 needs to be maintained just to stay in business (or in this case 6% of turnover).
Given the above, if a merchant takes its billing practices seriously, it should present an invoice to the customer in the fastest way possible (ideally digitally, the day after delivery-or even the same day perhaps). In addition, with a full digital bill, an opportunity can be offered to check that the bill has all the information that the customer needs to see and in as much detail and as they need to see it. This creates clarity and certainty that they are paying appropriately for what they have received. On a digitally presented bill, “clickable” payment options can allow the customer to render payment immediately (at the same web site and in the same session) or perhaps schedule a payment there and then (especially if there are multiple payment choices available, which we will look at later). All of this combines to ensure that invoice days outstanding are reduced, in some cases by up to 30-40%. This clearly has a very positive impact on cash-flow and allows working capital to be reduced or freed up for other uses (in the above small business example it could lead to 2-3% of total revenue in savings).
Greater Cost Effectiveness
It is estimated that physical bills (paper-base ones) still account for around 80% of the total volume of bills in all major economies, where there is good data to measure it such as the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Holland, Germany, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, and the US (amongst others).
The direct costs of preparing an invoice and sending it in the mail alone are relatively high, especially in an age when we can send almost any document electronically. However, they are even higher when you factor in the indirect costs associated with the potential for keying errors, mis-delivery and loss and the extra time often needed for accounting and reconciliation (to name but a few problems). The email based bill (now accounting for around 15% of the total volume of bills according to most research) removes some of the direct costs above, but almost none of the indirect costs of keying errors and mis-delivery, and extra time needed for accounting and reconciliation. The full digital bill is the only option therefore which has the scope to make a large dent in both direct and indirect costs.
With a well-designed system, a fully digital billing approach allows the customer to see the full bill immediately it is delivered (24/7 and 365 days a year) to analyse it versus other bills from the same merchant potentially and to immediately effect payment (or plan for it to occur on the system). This therefore affords much greater customer convenience (especially when they can use the system for their own personal bill storage and not have to wait for a merchant call-centre to be open to take a payment, for instance). However, the major benefits to the merchant are in having a full electronic record of each transaction (individually or in aggregate), with as much detail as they wish to see. And by maintaining the whole billing process in electronic form, all the data can flow in digital form in all directions, including reconciliation in the accounting system-thereby saving many labour hours and costs.
Greater Customer Satisfaction
When customers are asked about their overall experiences of organisational billing (in general) they will tend to mention three factors more than any other.
The first is that it should offer “clarity and certainty”. By this they typically mean that it should be a clear and easy to follow invoice, be accurate, be securely delivered to them and reflect what they have purchased in a certain way.
Secondly, they will typically say that a bill should be “conveniently” presented. Mailing it may meet this need (physically or by email) but digitally allows it to be viewed at any time day and night and, if it is user-friendly enough, can allow for further detail to be scrutinised, when desired.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, customers will nominate the need for “choice” to be available to them. On the presentment side this may be whether to pay the bill now or later or to set up a scheduled or recurrent payment (with associated electronic alerts and reminders to an email account of mobile phone, as needed). On the payment side, this may be to have lots of immediate and widespread payment types or options to be used on both the debit and credit side if possible. In a well-designed digital billing web site, all of this can be available with an even greater range of choices being available in terms of individual customer preferences, in many cases.
Summary
In conclusion then it should by now be clear that the apparently basic and administrative item of a simple bill to a customer can be presented in a way that can have a significant bearing on Cash-flow, Cost Control and Customer Satisfaction. A well-designed and fully electronic or digital billing process will typically give the best results and all organisations should therefore consider moving to such a system as quickly as possible, especially if they can add it as an additional channel to existing practices (minimising disruption) and on a pay-as-you-go basis (as offered by systems such as PaySwyft for example).
Billing is never the most exciting of subjects for business owners or managers, coming as it does as the last and perhaps most administrative or clerical step in the sales to delivery cycle. However, being a last step should not relegate it to being the least important and there is actually plenty of evidence to suggest that efficient billing practices may be one of the most critical. In this article we will therefore briefly explore why better billing practices can have a significant impact on cash-flow, cost-effectiveness and customer satisfaction for the merchant (as well as several equally beneficial, and linked, outcomes for their customers).
Before we look at each of these 3 merchant benefits in turn, let’s define what we mean by “efficient billing practices”. Presenting a bill or invoice can clearly be done in person (albeit rarely), in the physical mail (with a stamp), via an email (typically with a PDF attachment) or by digital means (via an Internet web site). All four of these options can be relatively “efficient” if they reach the right person quickly and facilitate the earliest possible settlement. However, experience (and much research) tells us that these practices are likely to be progressively more effective in the order in which they are listed. In other words, a full digital presentment of the bill is likely to be a much better option that delivering a bill by email, which in turn is better than doing so by physical mail etc. In this article we will therefore assume that a merchant will have, or aspire to have, the most efficient and effective approach –a full digital e-bill and it will be our contention that getting this bill delivered allows all the benefits we will elaborate upon subsequently to follow. The diagram below illustrates this rather more visually.
© PaySwyft, 2011. All Rights Reserved
Greater Cash-flow
The vast majority of organisations that supply a product or render a service to another organisation, or an end consumer, usually do so on credit terms (a lucky few get paid ahead of time of course). To operate somewhat like a lending bank, an organisation must therefore use shareholder funds, cash in its bank account, supplier credit (if they have any) or other money that is borrowed in some way (with interest being payable). These credit terms, or what is sometimes easier to visualise as the time taken to receive payment from customers, can have a huge impact on the working capital needed by a business and thereby have a critical affect on cash-flow. From the point of the delivery, spending days preparing and sending an invoice along with offering normal credit terms for a given industry (say 30 day terms on average), might mean that a particular enterprise may have an average days outstanding in practice of 40-45 days to get paid. Even for a relatively small business turning over say £500,000 a year this would mean working capital of £30,000 needs to be maintained just to stay in business (or in this case 6% of turnover).
Given the above, if a merchant takes its billing practices seriously, it should present an invoice to the customer in the fastest way possible (ideally digitally, the day after delivery-or even the same day perhaps). In addition, with a full digital bill, an opportunity can be offered to check that the bill has all the information that the customer needs to see and in as much detail and as they need to see it. This creates clarity and certainty that they are paying appropriately for what they have received. On a digitally presented bill, “clickable” payment options can allow the customer to render payment immediately (at the same web site and in the same session) or perhaps schedule a payment there and then (especially if there are multiple payment choices available, which we will look at later). All of this combines to ensure that invoice days outstanding are reduced, in some cases by up to 30-40%. This clearly has a very positive impact on cash-flow and allows working capital to be reduced or freed up for other uses (in the above small business example it could lead to 2-3% of total revenue in savings).
Greater Cost Effectiveness
It is estimated that physical bills (paper-base ones) still account for around 80% of the total volume of bills in all major economies, where there is good data to measure it such as the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Holland, Germany, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, and the US (amongst others).
The direct costs of preparing an invoice and sending it in the mail alone are relatively high, especially in an age when we can send almost any document electronically. However, they are even higher when you factor in the indirect costs associated with the potential for keying errors, mis-delivery and loss and the extra time often needed for accounting and reconciliation (to name but a few problems). The email based bill (now accounting for around 15% of the total volume of bills according to most research) removes some of the direct costs above, but almost none of the indirect costs of keying errors and mis-delivery, and extra time needed for accounting and reconciliation. The full digital bill is the only option therefore which has the scope to make a large dent in both direct and indirect costs.
With a well-designed system, a fully digital billing approach allows the customer to see the full bill immediately it is delivered (24/7 and 365 days a year) to analyse it versus other bills from the same merchant potentially and to immediately effect payment (or plan for it to occur on the system). This therefore affords much greater customer convenience (especially when they can use the system for their own personal bill storage and not have to wait for a merchant call-centre to be open to take a payment, for instance). However, the major benefits to the merchant are in having a full electronic record of each transaction (individually or in aggregate), with as much detail as they wish to see. And by maintaining the whole billing process in electronic form, all the data can flow in digital form in all directions, including reconciliation in the accounting system-thereby saving many labour hours and costs.
Greater Customer Satisfaction
When customers are asked about their overall experiences of organisational billing (in general) they will tend to mention three factors more than any other.
The first is that it should offer “clarity and certainty”. By this they typically mean that it should be a clear and easy to follow invoice, be accurate, be securely delivered to them and reflect what they have purchased in a certain way.
Secondly, they will typically say that a bill should be “conveniently” presented. Mailing it may meet this need (physically or by email) but digitally allows it to be viewed at any time day and night and, if it is user-friendly enough, can allow for further detail to be scrutinised, when desired.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, customers will nominate the need for “choice” to be available to them. On the presentment side this may be whether to pay the bill now or later or to set up a scheduled or recurrent payment (with associated electronic alerts and reminders to an email account of mobile phone, as needed). On the payment side, this may be to have lots of immediate and widespread payment types or options to be used on both the debit and credit side if possible. In a well-designed digital billing web site, all of this can be available with an even greater range of choices being available in terms of individual customer preferences, in many cases.
Summary
In conclusion then it should by now be clear that the apparently basic and administrative item of a simple bill to a customer can be presented in a way that can have a significant bearing on Cash-flow, Cost Control and Customer Satisfaction. A well-designed and fully electronic or digital billing process will typically give the best results and all organisations should therefore consider moving to such a system as quickly as possible, especially if they can add it as an additional channel to existing practices (minimising disruption) and on a pay-as-you-go basis (as offered by systems such as PaySwyft for example).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)