amu95's picture
From amu95 rss RSS  subscribe Subscribe

Mobile Payments 

 

 
 
Tags:  wireless pos  mobile 
Views:  589
Published:  November 21, 2011
 
0
download

Share plick with friends Share
save to favorite
Report Abuse Report Abuse
 
Related Plicks
Verizon Wireless VI Avatar Sweepstakes

Verizon Wireless VI Avatar Sweepstakes

From: steelers
Views: 410 Comments: 0
Verizon Wireless VI Avatar Sweepstakes
 
Banking Goes MLM at Vitel Wireless with FREE Prepaid Visa Debit

Banking Goes MLM at Vitel Wireless with FREE Prepaid Visa Debit

From: dabitcards
Views: 154 Comments: 0
banking,cell phone,mlm goes banking,virtual banking,vitel debit cards,vitel wireless,vi tel Wireless debit card,debit card

100% Quality,vi tel Wireless debit card,bonus, compensation, kelly tolar, (more)

 
See all 
 
More from this user
Independent Insurance Counselors Testimonial Letter - Great Results with AdzZoo

Independent Insurance Counselors Testimonial Letter - Great Results with AdzZoo

From: amu95
Views: 538
Comments: 0

The Cooke Legacy: Chapter Nineteen - Thanksgiving Day Treat

The Cooke Legacy: Chapter Nineteen - Thanksgiving Day Treat

From: amu95
Views: 173
Comments: 0

The ROI of Human Capital: Measuring the Economic Value of Employee Performance by Dr. Jac Fitz-enz

The ROI of Human Capital: Measuring the Economic Value of Employee Performance by Dr. Jac Fitz-enz

From: amu95
Views: 1113
Comments: 0

Mospra Handout 6 Top 10 Twitter

Mospra Handout 6 Top 10 Twitter

From: amu95
Views: 570
Comments: 0

how to lose weight quick

how to lose weight quick

From: amu95
Views: 966
Comments: 0

xcel energy NSP-MN_2005_10K

xcel energy NSP-MN_2005_10K

From: amu95
Views: 369
Comments: 0

See all 
 
 
 URL:          AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Embed Thin Player: (fits in most blogs)
Embed Full Player :
 
 

Name

Email (will NOT be shown to other users)

 

 
 
Comments: (watch)
 
 
Notes:
 
Slide 2: Mobile Payments © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 1
Slide 3: Mobile Payments Portio Research Limited Published December 2008 by Portio Research Limited © Copyright 2008. www.portioresearch.com info@portioresearch.com Disclaimer and Legal Notices Disclaimer Every care has been taken in the preparation of this study to ensure that the information contained herein is accurate, factual and correct to the best of our knowledge, at time of publishing. All opinions, suppositions, estimates and recommendations included in this document are solely the opinions of the authors unless otherwise stated. Portio Research Limited accepts no liability for any loss or damage or unforeseen consequential loss or damage arising from the use of the information contained within this document. The opinions, suppositions, estimates and recommendations within this document cannot be guaranteed, and readers use this information at their own risk. The information published in this document is subject to change without notice at any time, and Portio Research Limited accepts no liability or obligation to inform the reader of such changes. Portio Research Limited do not promote or endorse any specific companies or products, the views and opinions we express in this document are wholly our own assessments, and independent from any external interest or influence. Many terms and phrases and trade names used in this document are proprietary and Portio Research Limited recognises and acknowledges that all trademarks are copyright, belonging to their respective owners. Where possible, this document accords such terms and phrases and trade names to their respective owners. All Rights Reserved. No part of this document can be copied, shared, redistributed, transmitted, displayed in the public domain, stored or displayed on any internal or external company or private network or electronic retrieval system, nor reprinted, republished or reconstituted in any way without the express written permission of the publisher. Forwarding of this electronic document without the correct legal licence is theft. It’s unethical, immoral and against the law. If you have any questions about the legal licence conditions under which this document has been distributed, please contact Portio Research on info@portioresearch.com If you did not buy this document and a colleague or associate has sent it to you, do not assume you are legally entitled to read it, it is your responsibility to ensure you have the correct legal licence to read this document. 2 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 4: Mobile Payments Contents Mobile Payments ......................................................................................................................5 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Payments – An Overview..................................................................................................................... 5 Mobile Payments ................................................................................................................................. 5 Mobile Payments – Value chain........................................................................................................... 6 Mobile Payments – Types.................................................................................................................... 8 Mobile Payments – Implementation Models ...................................................................................... 14 Mobile Payments – Key Concerns ..................................................................................................... 18 Mobile Payments – Market Scenario ................................................................................................. 19 Case Study 1: NTT DoCoMo – Mobile Wallet.................................................................................... 20 Case Study 2: Globe Telecom – GCash ............................................................................................ 21 Case Study 3: Mobile Banking (M-PESA) — Vodafone and Safaricom (Kenya) ............................... 22 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Also available from Portio Research Limited ..................................................................................... 24 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 3
Slide 5: Mobile Payments List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Payment methods – Generic .............................................................................................. 5 Typical Payment Value Chain............................................................................................. 6 Mobile Payment – Value chain ........................................................................................... 7 SMS-based Payment Model ............................................................................................... 8 NFC-enabled Handset........................................................................................................ 9 SMS/NFC/WAP-based model comparison ........................................................................10 Payments Based on Value ................................................................................................11 Examples – Remote and Proximity Payments...................................................................12 An example to distinguish between B2B and B2C models ................................................13 Mobile Payment – Operator Dominated Model..................................................................14 Mobile Payment – Financial Institution/Bank Dominated Model ........................................15 Mobile Payment – Collaboration Model .............................................................................16 List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Payment Value chain – Description of Entities ....................................................................... 6 Pros and Cons of SMS-based Mobile Payment System ......................................................... 8 Pros and Cons of NFC-based Mobile Payment System ......................................................... 9 Payments based on Charging Methods .................................................................................12 Pros and Cons of Operator Dominated Model .......................................................................15 Pros and Cons of Financial Institution Dominated Model.......................................................16 Pros and Cons of Collaboration Model ..................................................................................17 4 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 6: Mobile Payments Mobile Payments Introduction As non-voice revenues of mobile operators continue to grow, mobile payment services, along with mobile entertainment services, are among the most exciting growth sectors. This report aims to explore the various aspects of mobile payments, and begins by explaining the mobile payments’ value chain and the roles played by the various stakeholders involved. This is followed by an analysis of the types and modes of mobile payments, as well as the various implementation models that can be adopted by operators to successfully implement mobile payments in their respective markets. Finally, this report details the key concern areas that need to be addressed in order to spur the growth of these services. Payments – An Overview A payment can be defined as a monetary transfer for the purpose of obtaining goods or services. Figure 1 provides a generic view of the existing payment methods. Figure 1: Payment methods – Generic Payments Cash Paper Cheque Credit Card Debit Card Electronic Transaction Mobile Payment Paper Transaction Source: Portio Research Ltd. Mobile Payments When a payment is made through mobile devices, such as mobile phones, smart phones or Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), it falls under the category of mobile payments. With mobile phones now being such a widespread consumer device, mobile operators worldwide are looking for ways to establish themselves in the payments segment, which has to date been largely dominated by financial institutions. © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 5
Slide 7: Mobile Payments Mobile Payments – Value chain To understand the value chain for mobile payments, it is necessary to first understand the generic value chain for payments. A typical payment value chain is depicted in Figure 2. Figure 2: Typical Payment Value Chain Solution/Service Provider Customer Merchant Acquirer Issuer Source: Portio Research Ltd. The payment value chain, as depicted in Figure 2, involves four major entities – the functionality of each is briefly described in Table 1. Table 1: Entity Payment Value chain – Description of Entities Description  Purchases goods/services from the merchant  Gives validation of his/her credentials to the issuer  Makes the final payment – direct cash, cheque, credit, debit or through m-payment  Merchant generates bill as per the goods/services purchased by the customer  Sends bill to the acquirer  Registered with the acquirer/issuer  Receives final payment – directly from customer as cash, or else from issuer  This can be a financial institution, a card association or mobile network operator  Acts as an intermediary between the ‘Issuer’ and the merchant  The party that authorises the payment as per the generated bill against select customers  Has details of user’s credentials in its database  Performs authentication and authorisation of the transaction parties – customer and merchant  Can be a financial institution (bank), bank cards or third party card issuer Source: Portio Research Ltd Customer Merchant Acquirer/Service Provider Issuer 6 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 8: Mobile Payments The value chain for a typical mobile payment-based system is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Mobile Payment – Value chain Solution/Service Provider Customer Merchant Acquirer Issuer Step 1: Customer purchases goods; bill gets generated; shows handset to the installed Mpayment reader or traditional POS device in order to make payment. Merchant accepts the payment through the reader, which is connected to the acquirer. Step 2: Acquirer has ‘merchant’s account’. It handles merchant information and transaction details; the network used for switching transactions is either the operator’s network or an existing traditional payment network. Step 3: Issuer authorises the amount and manages mobile accounts; after validating the customer’s credentials, the issuer approves the generated bill Step 4: Acquirer notifies the merchant regarding the same and the merchant issues purchased goods/services to the customer. Customer pays bills and gets his account recharged Source: Portio Research Ltd. © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 7
Slide 9: Mobile Payments Mobile Payments – Types Mobile Payments based on Payment Mode  SMS-based Payments Also termed as ‘Premium SMS-based Payment’, the mode of payment in this method, as the name suggests, is a text message. In this type of payment method, the customer asks for a payment request by means of a text message. Once the transaction is completed, the customer is charged against his/her phone bill, and the merchant is notified and allows the goods to be released. A description of a typical SMS-based model is provided in Figure 4: Figure 4: SMS-based Payment Model Step 1: The customer purchases goods and the bill gets generated Step 2: Bill is sent to the datacentre through the Internet, mobile device or a wireline Step 3: The datacentre contacts the person through an automated call or SMS Step 4: The customer sends back the approval with the Personal Identification Number (PIN) and unique short code Step 5: The datacentre issues the bill to customer’s issuer for releasing the required funds Step 6: The issuer credits the required amount to the merchant and debits the same amount (plus a processing fee) from the customer’s credit card/phone bill/pre-paid account Solution/Network Provider Customer Merchant Issuer Note: There can be alterations based on the implementation model (Operator dominated, bank dominated, or collaborative or third party models) Source: Portio Research Ltd. There are a few vendors who actively deal in providing the Premium SMS-based model, such as US-based mBlox and France-based Netsize. These vendors act as mobile transaction networks that provide connectivity with operators and the facility for mobile billing. They are therefore the intermediate link between enterprises (merchants) and mobile operators. Pros and Cons The pros and cons of using the SMS-based payment model are discussed in Table 2: Table 2: Pros The security is greater than other options like Near Field Communication (NFC) payments. The inconvenience caused by keeping cash or plastic cards can be avoided. Pros and Cons of SMS-based Mobile Payment System Cons Text messages can get lost if the connection/network is poor, hence lowering the reliability of the system. The speed may not be good; delay in a merchant receiving a receipt may lead to long waiting times for the customer. Source: Portio Research Ltd. 8 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 10: Mobile Payments  Near Field Communication (NFC)-Based Payments NFC-based payments involve a mobile phone with an embedded chip, which acts as the mode of payment. The technology involves contactless communication between two devices over a range of 10 cm. It enables the handset to act as a smart contact credit/debit card, which can be read by any smart card reader and NFC device. Figure 5: NFC-enabled Handset Source: Portio Research Ltd. One example of an operator dominated model for this kind of payment system is NTT Docomo’s FeliCa embedded phone, which features contactless integrated chip based 1 technology developed by Sony. Pros and Cons The pros and cons of using the NFC-based payment model are discussed in Table 3: Table 3: Pros Speedy: the process is similar to swiping of credit and debit cards, but without any contact with the machine. Since there is no need to type a message, this method is more convenient than the SMS based payment method. Source: Portio Research Ltd. Pros and Cons of NFC-based Mobile Payment System Cons NFC- based payment is generally considered less secure than the SMS-based model. NFC-based mobile payment systems represent the family of contactless mobile payment methods. The other members of the group are RFID (radio-frequency identification), Bluetooth and IrDA-based (infrared wireless communication) payment models; the methodology remains the same across all members but there are slight changes in the implementation technology. Mobile Web Payments (WAP) This type of payment involves the customer using online pages on the handset in order to purchase goods or services, and is considered more secure than SMS based payments. 1 Source: http://www.nttdocomo.com/glossary/f/FeliCa.html © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 9
Slide 11: Mobile Payments Using the web-based payment system on handsets provides the following key advantages: 1. Reliability: The transaction is reliable, which adds to customer satisfaction. 2. After sales proceedings: Consumers can bookmark the pages that they wish to access at a later stage and wish to share with friends. The actual payment mechanisms behind the web pages may differ, as per the following techniques:  Direct Operator Billing – This involves a direct connection between the customer and the billing operator.  Credit Card – This involves the usual web-based credit card transaction, in which users are directed to a ‘credit card payment’ page where they are required to fill in their credit card details. The filling of details can act as a barrier, as it causes inconvenience to the end customer  Online Billing through Third Party Players – This involves mobile payment through companies such as ‘PayPal’, ‘Amazon Payments’ and ‘Google Checkout’ that offer the option for making payments through mobile devices. Figure 6 provides a comparison between the SMS, NFC and WAP-based payment models. Figure 6: SMS/NFC/WAP-based model comparison High SMS-based Payment WAP-based Payment Security NFC-based Payment Low Convenience Low High Source: Portio Research Ltd. Mobile Payments based on Value  Micro-Payments When the payment involves a transaction of a very small amount, it can be called a Micropayment. This kind of payment system plays a vital role in situations where the transaction involves a very small money transfer, which is practically impossible through the usual payment systems, or is very expensive. Micro-payments can also be payments that are easily/affordably processed through the electronic transaction processing mechanism. The present range of Micro-payments is approximated to lie between fractions of a cent to USD 2 1. Vodafone’s m-pay bill is a perfect example of micro-payments. The service was launched by Vodafone UK in 2002 for the purpose of collecting micro-payments and achieved success 2 Sources: http://donationcoder.com/Articles/One/index.html; http://www.hkstp.org/HKSTPC/directory.jsp?lan=en&id=DR_0000677&typeId=DT_04&subcategoryId=DG_029 10 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 12: Mobile Payments within two years. In part through this service, Vodafone was able to attract more than one 3 million buyers to its online mobile portal – Vodafone Live! Micro-Payments can be payments made for purchase of mobile content such as logos, ringtones, tunes, games, etc. It can be also payment for parking or payment made at a vending machine  Macro-Payments When the payment involves a transaction of a substantial amount, it can be called a macro payment. Macro-payments involve transactions higher than USD 10. Macro-Payments are payments made for paying bills or funds transfer. Payment made at a retail shop using a mobile handset can also be classified as Macro payment Figure 7 shows the typical value range for micro, mini and macro payments. The payment classifications vary with various markets and their specifications, and are subject to change. Figure 7: Payments Based on Value Micro-Payment < USD 1* Macro-Payment > USD 10* Payment for purchase of mobile content such as logos, ringtones, tunes, games, etc. Payment for parking or payment made at a vending machine Bill payment or funds transfer Payment made at a retail shop using a mobile handset * The classifications are market specific and change as per the market specifications Source: Portio Research Ltd. Mobile Payments based on location  Remote Transactions This type of transaction involves money transactions irrespective of the customer’s location. Remote payment is used for applications such as pre-paid top-up, online payment, electronic bill payment, digital cash and international fund transfer. An example could be the transaction of goods/services between customers and the merchant done through phone (voice call), SMS, or online payment techniques from a remote place.  Proximity/Local Transactions These types of transactions require a mobile device to be in the local vicinity in order to make payments. Proximity Transactions are used for applications such as making payment at unattended/traditional points of sale (POS) and payment through mobile parking. The technology platform for this type of payment includes Bluetooth, RFID and NFC. 3 Source: http://www.nccmembership.co.uk/POOLED/articles/bf_webart/view.asp?Q=bf_webart_113353 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 11
Slide 13: Mobile Payments Figure 8: Examples – Remote and Proximity Payments Remote Payments Proximity Payments  Prepaid Top-Up  Electronic Bill  mCheck  Peer-to-Peer  Electronic cash/fund transfer  mPOS  mParking  ATM transaction  RFID-based payment  IrDA-based payment  NFC-based payment  Bluetooth-based payments Source: Portio Research Ltd. Mobile Payments based on Charging Methods Based on charging methods, three types of payments have been identified – post-paid, prepaid and real-time payment – and these are discussed in Table 4: Table 4: Payments based on Charging Methods Description  In this method, the user pays after the bill is generated.  This is the most common method used for paying through mcommerce and e-commerce  This user can opt for one of the following payment methods: o Phone bill based: Internal phone bill charged by the operator o Account based: payment done through banks/credit cards  In this method, the services and goods are paid for in advance  It is the most common method for evaluating a customer’s potential. Customer’s potential is determined on the basis of frequency of recharge, amount recharged, etc. and this sometimes forms the basis for migrating the customer to the postpaid method  The user also has the flexibility to monitor usage in advance  In this method, the user pays the amount in real time or almost real time  Example: Electronic Wallet Source: Portio Research Ltd. Charging Method Post-paid Pre-paid Real-time Mobile Payments based on Relationship Models  Business to Consumer (B2C) Mobile Payments The B2C mobile payment model provides an alternative to the usual cash transaction and is therefore one of the most popular models. Both the operator-centric and bank-centric models play an important role in the successful implementation of B2C m-payments. Consumers pay for all types of day-to-day items, monthly bills, insurance premiums and taxes using this kind of a payment model. The model’s success is therefore dependent upon the capability of the handset and its user interface. The supply chain generally 12 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 14: Mobile Payments involves the purchase of finished products by the end consumer. Yeepay and Octopus card are perfect examples of B2C mobile transactions.  Business to Business (B2B) Mobile Payments This type of payment structure involves transactions between businesses or enterprises through mobile phones. The supply chain generally involves the purchase of specific industry solutions between industries. A prominent example of B2B mobile transactions would include Safetrader. Figure 9: An example to distinguish between B2B and B2C models Source: Portio Research Ltd.  Consumer to Consumer (C2C) Mobile Payments This involves end-to-end transactions between two consumers through a third party business platform. A typical example of this model is an online auction, in which the first consumer places an article for sale while the second consumer bids to purchase it. The involved business platform charges a commission on every sale completed and usually does not take any responsibility for the quality of the offered product. A typical example is the mobile based transaction of virtual goods such as gaming features. Person to Person (P2P) Mobile Payments Person-to-person mobile payments involve private mobile transactions between two people either directly or through a third party. The transaction is generally SMS-based and may involve top-up credits, m-banking and digital goods exchanged between two individuals. One of the biggest examples of this kind of mobile payments system is Paypal Mobile.   Remittance Mobile Payments Remittance mobile payments can be interpreted as a part of P2P mobile payments as it also involves the exchange of money between two people; the only difference being that, in this model, the transaction is carried out in a single direction only. Examples of the remittance model include the transfer of money by a working member to his family in another country, or payment by a parent of their child’s cab fare. © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 13
Slide 15: Mobile Payments Mobile Payments – Implementation Models The value chain for mobile payments described in Figure 3 leads to a few models based on the nature of acquirer/service provider and issuer. All the models depicted below are based on who the dominant player in the value chain is - the MNO or the financial institution. To explain the various models, the third element of the value chain, ‘acquirer’, is segregated into two, as: solution provider (primary acquirer) and network provider (processing/secondary acquirer). Operator Dominated Model The basic structure of the operator dominated model, such as NTT DoCoMo’s Felica, is shown in Figure 10 below: Figure 10: Mobile Payment – Operator Dominated Model Solution Provider Customer Merchant Primary Acquirer Service/ Network Provider Processing/Secondary Acquirer Issuer Network Operator  The largest part of the value chain, from primary acquirer to issuing of funds, is dominated by the operator.  There is no involvement of financial institutions and banks.  This model allows operators to take advantage of their existing customer base by positioning it as a Value Added Service to its customers. Source: Portio Research Ltd. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the operator-centric model are mentioned in Table 5 below: 14 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 16: Mobile Payments Table 5: Pros and Cons of Operator Dominated Model Pros Cons Allows the operators to take advantage of their existing customer base by positioning mobile payments as a Value Added Service to its customers. Operators need to obtain a banking license which might result in delays or regulatory issues. Since there is no hopping between acquirers, networks and issuers, the transaction fee is reduced considerably. The operator has the flexibility in determining the transaction fees. Operators have little/no exposure and expertise in handling complex transactions and related risks. During roaming, transaction-based issues might arise across different operators. Initial investment is high. This investment might include the following:  Installation of new POS readers  Supporting software/applications  Network allocation  Banking license  Banking resources/experts and infrastructure Source: Portio Research Ltd. Financial Institution Dominated Model The financial institution/bank dominated model is as shown in Figure 11: Figure 11: Mobile Payment – Financial Institution/Bank Dominated Model Solution Provider Customer Merchant Primary Acquirer Service/ Network Provider Processing/Secondary Acquirer Issuer Financial Institution/Bank/Card Operator  The largest part of the value chain, from primary acquirer to issuing of funds, is dominated by the card operator/financial service providers.  There is preliminary operator involvement only till the initiation of request (over-the air activation, provision of mobile banking services, etc.)  The payment system works on existing networks like those used by credit/debit cards Source: Portio Research Ltd. © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 15
Slide 17: Mobile Payments Some of the positives and negatives of the financial-centric model, as implemented by Visa or MasterCard, are listed in Table 6. Table 6: Pros and Cons of Financial Institution Dominated Model Pros Traditional payment techniques (existing methods used by credit/debit cards) are leveraged; therefore there is no setup cost involved. Financial institutions have expertise in managing payments and related risks. Customers share a historical relationship with banks and thus consider services to be more reliable. Source: Portio Research Ltd. Cons There is hardly any involvement of the mobile operator; their distance may lead to poor service. Collaboration Model The Collaboration Model - a mix of the operator and financial institution dominated model - is explained in Figure 12: Figure 12: Mobile Payment – Collaboration Model Solution Provider Customer Merchant Primary Acquirer Service/ Network Provider Processing/ Secondary Acquirer Issuer Network Operator Financial Institution/Bank/Card Operator  The mobile operator is the primary acquirer; hence the POS machines are rolled out by the mobile operators to the merchants.  Financial institutions/banks are issuers and sanction the final payments.  The model works on the existing networks used by card associations. Source: Portio Research Ltd. Some of the pros and cons of the collaboration model are examined in Table 7 below: 16 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 18: Mobile Payments Table 7: Pros and Cons of Collaboration Model Pros Cons There is a lot of hopping involved between operator and bank’s network; transaction charge thus increases, cost is borne by the customer. Account-and risk management is handled by the financial institutions –experts for the job. Primary acquiring done by the operator – experts for the job. This also helps the operator in leveraging its existing customer base. Operator does not need to acquire a banking license. Source: Portio Research Ltd. SK Telecom’s Moneta mobile payment service is based on a collaboration model. While the primary acquisition is done by the South Korean operator itself, the processing of payments is done through the existing networks from either Visa or MasterCard, and issuance is done by 4 the partnering banks. 4 Source: http://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/features/113334/M_BANKING_&_M_PAYMENTS_-_From_Mpayments_to_M-banking.html © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 17
Slide 19: Mobile Payments Mobile Payments – Key Concerns Supply Side Concerns  Absence of Worldwide Standards There are no universal standards in place for mobile payments. Different operators and banks have different standards, which may result in limited deployment of m-payment solutions. Lack of Interoperability Different operators use different technologies (CDMA, GSM, etc.). This difference in technologies, combined with a lack of interoperability between different standards, also hinders growth. Inadequate Support Service Pre-sales/post-sales payment related support is also an area of key concern. Call centre support needs to be outstanding in order to attract new users and retain the existing ones. Collaboration Issues Choosing a ‘right’ partner is a concern for both the banks and the operators. Operators and banks look for the geographical presence and reliability of the other entity before getting into an agreement. This results in delays in service implementation. Small Operators’ Concerns – Inadequate Capital to support M-payment Small operators cannot leverage the custom-built solutions from a vendor due to the lack of capabilities and capital.     Demand Side Concerns  Reluctance in Adoption of Technology by Users Owing to supply side constraint of no universal standards of mobile payments to date, users are reluctant to switch from existing card-based payments (credit/debit cards) to mobile-based payments Cautious Mindset of the Consumer Security is the major concern in a user’s mind while making a financial transaction. The perception by users that m-payments are a less secure transaction method may hinder its growth.  Regulatory Concerns  Lack of Government Authorization Mobile payments’ methods do not enjoy the legal status of other payment methods, such as cash and cheque. It is not sanctioned, accepted and assured by the Government. Mobile Payment Abuse5 While there are around 1 billion bank accounts and approximately 3 billion handsets worldwide, at the same time there is a growing trend towards online payment or paperless banking. This might increase the possibility of system abuse by money launderers who can bypass regulatory requirements to exchange “dirty” money for terrorist and related activities. Currently, law enforcement and Intelligence agencies may not have adequate expertise over the technology. Arguably, most of the security features implemented by m-payment networks hinder the ability of law enforcement and Intelligence agencies to detect suspect transactions.  5 Source: http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2008/vol2/html/101346.htm 18 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 20: Mobile Payments Mobile Payments – Market Scenario6 Since the beginning of this decade, there have been a number of mobile payment initiatives worldwide. Many of them, such as DualSlot and Simpay, did not succeed because they lacked a clear business model. Moreover, the infrastructure cost was very high and did not justify the revenues the services generated. However, over the past few years, the market has witnessed various positive changes that have made the mobile payments application more attractive and more realistic. Contactless technology is being increasingly used by the financial world and its application in mobile payments is going to be a natural progression. Mobile networks and handset technology have also improved, setting the stage for better and more successful mobile payment services in most regions worldwide. In Europe, the Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA) was created in 2000 and restrictions on payment operators are gradually being eased. These factors are expected to improve the chances of success for mobile payments across Europe. Operators in the European region realise the need for speeding up deployment and this has led to an increased focus on mobile payment services from operators as well as other stakeholders. The uptake of mobile payment services will be less aggressive in the North American region than in European markets. In North America, the market for the service is expected to grow slowly. Mobile payment services are still at an embryonic stage and have started picking up only recently in the US; payment through the Internet is still the preferred payment channel in the US. Development of a mobile payments ecosystem is a challenging task in the US, considering the large number of stakeholders involved; however, many pilot projects are being run to introduce the service commercially in this market. The increasing interest shown by Canadian mobile subscribers is expected to boost the mobile payments market in Canada, where many pilots are being run to commercially launch mobile payment services. Japan and South Korea have been world leaders in the development and adoption of mobile payment services. Mobile payments have fared very well in both countries and the trend is expected to continue in the years to come. The markets of China, India, the Philippines and Indonesia are demonstrating decent growth in mobile payments uptake, while the markets of Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan have shown little comparable adoption of mobile payments with use restricted to specific areas only. Overall, most countries in the Asia Pacific region are watching the progress of mobile payments in Japan and South Korea with interest and these services are likely to show growth in the Asia Pacific region. The developing countries of Africa are expected to be the biggest beneficiaries of mobile payment services, as a large proportion of the African population does not have access to traditional banking services; Africa also has a fast growing mobile market. The region has already witnessed some of the earliest and most successful mobile banking deployments and mobile payment services have transformed the lives of many Africans. Due to the strong value proposition it brings to the masses, the success of mobile payments is expected to continue in the future in Africa. The Middle East is also witnessing growth in mobile payment services. In Latin America, the robust smartcards market, coupled with an emerging mobile market, is expected to foster the growth of mobile payment services. 6 This passage is quoted from our report ‘Mobile Data Services Markets 2008’ © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 19
Slide 21: Mobile Payments Case Study 1: NTT DoCoMo – Mobile Wallet NTT DoCoMo operates the world’s leading mobile Internet portal service, i-Mode, which has 7 48 million subscribers (as of 1 December 2008). The company launched its ‘Osaifu-Keitai’ service in July 2004, which refers to mobile handsets with wallet functions. Service Description Under the mobile wallet concept, mobile handsets can be used instead of coins and paper currency, credit cards, tickets and more. In order to be compatible with this service, certain 2G and 3G handsets are fitted with a contactless communications IC, which enables the use of this service when a user holds the mobile handset over i-mode Felica reader at a store or a ticket gate. The mobile wallet services provided to NTT DoCoMo’s customers include the following:  Cashless Payments: Purchases can be made at a wide range of stores and vending machines.  Online Shopping: Payments can be made to online services via mobile handsets.  Transportation: Mobile wallet handsets can be used for booking flights and also enable customers to automatically check in at airports. Train tickets and other services can also be billed through the mobile wallet.  Tickets: Tickets which are reserved online can be printed out by waving the mobile handset in front of a machine at the venue.  Finance: Cash withdrawals and credit card payments can be completed with ‘OsaifuKeitai’ handsets.  Keys and IDs: Systems can be deployed at residences and offices which enable mobile wallet handsets to act as door keys.  Membership Card: Mobile wallet handsets can serve as programme ID cards as well as purchase point cards. Subscriber Base As of May 2006, more than 13 million of NTT Docomo’s users were using this mobile wallet 8 service in Japan , a clear indicator of the success of the service. The figure reached over 20 9 million subscribers by March 2007 and 28.5 million subscribers by March 2008. The growing uptake of the service is complemented by the growth in the number of shops providing the 10 facility – approximately 608,000 by March 2008 . Factors that Influenced the Success of Mobile Wallet Service  Partnerships with Handset Vendors: The company had formed alliances with handset vendors to provide advanced handsets for mobile wallet services to its customers. The company also ensured that they had enough handsets available at the time of the launch of the mobile wallet services. Remember the saying, “You never get a second chance to make a good first impression”. Mobile Market in Japan: Japan has the most advanced mobile market in the world. Internet access via PCs has been surpassed by Internet access via mobile handsets. A high penetration of mobile data services amongst the Japanese population has been one of the major reasons for the success of new innovative services, such as mobile wallet services, in the country. The Japanese population is extremely tech-savvy and earlyadopter culture is strong, helping to keep the nation at the cutting edge of such innovation in technology.  7 8 Source: http://www.nttdocomo.com/pr/2008/001423.html Source: http://www.paymentsnews.com/2006/09/the_mobile_phon.html 9 Source: http://www.nttdocomo.com/binary/about/mobility_doc_12.pdf 10 Source: http://www.ctst.com/CTST08/pdf/NomuraHaruhiko.pdf 20 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 22: Mobile Payments Case Study 2: Globe Telecom – GCash The Philippines’ mobile market is characterised by its consolidation in the last two to three years, leading to the emergence of two key operators. While the mobile market in the Philippines has five major operators, namely Smart, Globe, Sun Cellular (Digitel Mobile), Extelcom and Next Mobile; Smart and Globe are the leading MNOs in the country, with the majority of the total mobile market share between them. Service Description GCash is an m-commerce service which allows Globe’s Handyphone and Touch Mobile subscribers to make electronic transactions, enabling them to send and receive cash, and make payments via SMS. GCash was launched by Globe Telecom in October 2004. Globe Handyphone and Touch Mobile subscribers have to register for GCash via SMS to make use of the service. Once registered, users can then load their GCash wallets by visiting authorised GCash outlets and submitting cash and identification forms (to prevent money laundering). 11 The service has the following features for its registered customers:           Domestic and international transactions (remittances) Payment of utility bills, online bills, insurance premiums, loan interests, etc. Sales commissions and payroll disbursements Payment of school tuition fees Purchasing airline tickets Cash deposits and withdrawals P2P credit transfers Donation to charitable organisations and institutions Micro-finance through co-operation with rural banks and business registration Prepaid account recharge GCash is also providing a facility for wholesale payment in addition to the transactions stated above. Subscriber Base 12 GCash totalled more than 1.2 million users by December 2005. However, the registered GCash customer base stood at 469,349 as of end-June 2006. This reduction in the number of GCash registered customers is due to a change in the way the company counts the number of subscribers using GCash, starting May 2006. Until May 2006, a registered GCash user was considered as a GCash user until such a time as he or she voluntarily suspends or stops his or her GCash service. After May 2006, registered GCash customers were reported on the basis of cumulative registrations, reduced by the number of voluntary suspensions net of 13 reactivations during each month. By the end of year 2007, GCash registered users reached 14 15 1.2 million. The GCash registered user base touched 1.9 million by September 2008. GXchange, a wholly-owned Globe Telecom subsidiary, manages the m-commerce initiatives of Globe Telecom, including the GCash service. Factors that Influenced the Success of GCash Service The key success factors of Globe Telecom’s GCash service include the high volume, lowprice model and the presence of strong distribution networks by establishing partnerships with various industries present in and outside the Philippines. 11 12 Source: http://www1.globe.com.ph/about.aspx?artid=11 (SEC Reports Q3, 2008) Source: http://www1.globe.com.ph/uploads/GlobeTelecom2005AnnualReport.pdf 13 Source: http://www1.globe.com.ph/uploads/GT17Q2Q2006.pdf 14 Source: http://www1.globe.com.ph/img/documents/Globe_Annual_Report_2007.pdf 15 Source: http://www1.globe.com.ph/about.aspx?artid=11 (SEC Reports Q3, 2008) © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 21
Slide 23: Mobile Payments Case Study 3: Mobile Banking (M-PESA) — Vodafone and Safaricom (Kenya) Vodafone launched an SMS-based mobile money transfer service called M-PESA in Kenya in March 2007. Here, the market opportunity was significant: Kenyans send more than 5 million 16 text messages a day and, at the time of launch, the country had only 400 bank branches and 600 cash dispensing machines. Poor banking infrastructure excluded more than 80 17 percent of the population from adequately participating in formal banking channels and about 38 percent of the Kenyan population—mostly from rural areas—was entirely 18 unbanked. In March 2007, after a highly encouraging pilot, Vodafone launched M-PESA, a simple SMS-based money transfer service, in Kenya in collaboration with the country’s largest mobile operator, and Vodafone partner, Safaricom. M-PESA addressed a significant gap in the market and opened up banking channels for Kenya’s significantly large ‘unbanked’ population. Service Description M-PESA is essentially a mobile money transfer service that does not require a new handset or SIM card. Using M-PESA, subscribers can change real money into virtual money (emoney) and transfer this virtual money to other subscribers—recipients of M-PESA transfers can then withdraw the money in its physical form. The conversion of real money to virtual money at the sender’s end and the subsequent re-conversion at the recipient’s end takes place with the help of authorised M-PESA agents. Other than transferring money, M-PESA 19 can also be used to maintain virtual accounts of up to USD 669.5 (50,000 Kenyan Shillings ) and to buy pre-paid airtime. Subscriber Base The service met with phenomenal success and, within a year of operation (as on 10 February, 20 2008), gathered 1.6 million subscribers. After a year of operations, by the end of March 2008, M-PESA had 2 million subscribers—some 20 percent of Safaricom’s subscriber base. With 2 million subscribers, M-PESA dwarfed the largest bank in Kenya, Equity Bank, which 21 had just over 1 million account holders. The M-PESA subscriber base has reached more 22 than 3.6 million by July 2008. Factors that Influenced the Success of M-PESA Service M-PESA’s success can be attributed to several factors; first and foremost, it is based on the most widely used data service in Kenya—SMS. Secondly, M-PESA is offered to Kenyan mobile subscribers for a negligible fee. While keeping the charges low, Vodafone and Safaricom worked out an innovative business model for creating revenue streams from MPESA. Therefore, M-PESA is a brilliant example of how operators in fast-growing, but low ARPU markets can capitalise on popular data services, think beyond the normal mode of delivering data services, and break technical and regulatory bottlenecks to finally create an innovative business opportunity. 16 17 Source: http://www.mefeedia.com/tags/ndege/ Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS44198+11-Feb-2008+RNS20080211 18 Source: http://innovationcafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/safaricom-m-pesa-in-kenya-sms-text-news.html 19 NOTE: Conversion rate used :1 KES = USD 0.01339 for November 2008 20 Source: http://www.vodafone.com/mobile_world/announcements/m-pesa_reaches_1_6.html 21 Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200804072077.html; http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143992228&cid=457 22 Source: http://wirelessfederation.com/news/category/m-pesa/ 22 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved
Slide 24: Mobile Payments Conclusion Mobile Payments represent an opportunity for operators that they can ill afford to ignore. However, when assessing whether to enter this segment, MNOs need to very carefully consider which mode of payment they would like to implement, be it NFC/RFID based, SMSbased or WAP-based. At the same time they need to look at the markets for the various relationship models and then decide whether they would like to enter the B2B, B2C, C2C or P2P segment. While reviewing the kinds of payment to target – micro or macro - operators need to keep in mind that while customers might be willing to embrace micro mobile payments much faster than they would in the case of macro payments, it might result in a “low value-large volume” scenario. Such a situation might place a strain on network resources but not bring in the anticipated revenues. However, in the case of macro payments, while the potential revenue might be high, users might not be as willing to switch to mobile payments, hence resulting in slow uptake of the technology. In addition to the above, while deciding on whether to implement remote or in-store mobile payment methods, the investment involved needs to be kept weighed against the potential gains that a particular implementation method can bring in. Also, while deciding on the implementation models, operators need to keep in mind the relative position of the telecom operators and financial institutions in the particular market before opting for a particular implementation model. Finally, to ensure that mobile payments live up to expectations worldwide, operators need to make mobile payments widely accepted by merchants so as to speed up user uptake of these services. © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved 23
Slide 25: Mobile Payments Also available from Portio Research Limited Portio Research Ltd is a UK-based research company focussing on the mobile space, providing reports, handbooks, directories and database products. New and Best Selling Reports in 2008: Mobile Messaging Futures 2009-2013 Back by popular demand, you can now order the 3rd edition of our best selling messaging report. This new edition is even bigger and better than ever before, packed with detailed market analysis, traffic and revenue forecasts and a new 2008 vendor survey. The report gives you all the data you need for SMS, MMS, mobile email and .mobile IM markets worldwide, all packed into this massive 382-page report. Please click here for more details. Strategies for Driving Data ARPU This detailed new report will help you understand how best-of-breed mobile data services are driving world-leading high ARPU levels. In this report you can study 20 case studies of leading mobile network operators, which will help you understand the core strategies you need to adopt to drive class-leading non-voice service adoption. Complete with studies from Europe, Asia, North America and the Middle East. For full details please click here PortioDirect.com Portio Research’s new site, PortioDirect.com, is now online and offers lots of exciting and useful new market reports, studies and databases. If you are an existing customer of Portio Research you will find the products at PortioDirect.com offer our familiar look, feel and quality, but at a more accessible price point. New content includes Mobile Operator Group Profiles, Mobile Operator Profiles, Mobile Market Snapshots, Mobile Growth Forecasts, Market Strategies, and Sector Reports. Please feel free to look around the site. Click here for more details. If you have any questions or if we can be of any assistance to you, please contact us by e-mail: info@portioresearch.com Copyright 2008. Portio Research Limited 2008 www.portioresearch.com 24 © 2008, Portio Research. All Rights Reserved

   
Time on Slide Time on Plick
Slides per Visit Slide Views Views by Location