Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A master thesis presentation at KTH about further developments of mobile payments
Citation preview
Presentation
Master Thesis
Media Management
Stefan Ascherl
05.06.2013
Mobile PaymentThe importance of value networks and value added services
RQ1: How has an m-payment service adjust and develop its current service offerings?
RQ2: Who are advantageous partners in an eco-network of m-payments to capture and dominate the market?
Theoretical Framework
Mobile devices
Territories
Social behaviour
Technologies
Value networks
Mobile Devices
• Opportunities
• Limitations
• Replacement cycles
• Data protection
Territories
• Economics
• Banked und unbanked people
• Mobile phone penetration
Social Behaviour
People react differently.
This difference depends on countries, gender, age and so forth.
Biggest focus on a global strategy: countries
Brands trusted by US Users to handle m-payment services
Social Behaviour: Example/1
Source: SapientNitro 2012
40%
36%
34%
15%
12%
Worry about privacy
Increased risk of fraud
More convenient as other payments
Happy if most payments are done with mobile phones
Source: SapientNitro 2012
ASIA EUROPE & US
79%
77%
69%
64%
69%
66%
26%
29%
Social Behaviour: Example/2
Social Behaviour Investigated
Trust, risk and security
Cost
Convenience and perceived usefulness
Individual behaviour
Technology Investigated
SMS
E-Wallet
Dongle
Value Networks
Mobile payment services
Banks
Retailers
Mobile network operators
Value Networks
Mobile payment services
Banks
Retailers
Mobile network operators
Handset manufacturer/App developer
Administrative bodies
Mobile Payment service
Value added service Innovation
Personal Data Investment Benefits
CustomersTrust
Delivery channel
Handset Manufacturer
Delivery Channel Software standards
Mobile deviceSecurity
Customer loyaltyValue added service
MNOCustomers
TrustTechnological infrastructure
Delivery channel
Value added service
BanksCustomers
Trust Financial experience
Delivery channel
Convenient banking/transactions Mobility
Value added service
Retailers Closest to customer Delivery channel
More customer loyalty Universal use
Administrative Bodies
LicensesTrust
Registered Data
Sensitive informationEconomic country benefits
Practical Investigation
178 contacts
101 accepted vs 77 denied
✅✅
in germany
Investigation results/1
Denied contacts
• Too high single transactions (e.g.1000€) for artists, bands• Satisfied and trust in the current system, not willed to change• Taking only debit cards, because of lower fees and credit cards not common• Have a direct debit authorisation with their regular clients, no effort, no costs• Bad connectivity, e.g. basements, deep inside building, no Wi-Fi• Too slow compared to cash payments (10sec)• Billing, due to unknown final amount of payment (construction, medicine)• No device available, investment not worth the value• Too many devices would be needed, therefore only cash• Transaction costs higher than €4-5k/month, due to lower fees
Investigation results/2
Accepted contacts
• Non-card experience, curious and if for free (during Beta stage) worth a try• Unhappy with current product, outrunning leasing contract• Bikers or pedestrians (sleek product, easy to carry)• Low debit, but high credit card traffic• Non-regular customers with immediate payment• Replace the traditional accounting with the included payment overview• Speed of payment irrelevant (e.g. private teaching)
Investigation results/3
Customer support
• Failed and delayed registrations for identification and bank account approval• Unknown delivery information of the reader• Price battle regarding the kind (30Pin/Audio) and costs of a reader• Functionality problems with software and hardware (Android, iOS)
RQ1: How has an m-payment service adjust and develop its current service offerings?
• Flexibility, e.g. fast online registration
• Efficiency, e.g. self-guided customer support
• Innovations, e.g. announce additional features in time
• Co-operation, e.g. reducing hardware expenses
• Cross border functionality
Discussion/1
Discussion/2
Value added services
• Time saving, e.g. self-check out at supermarkets
• Reducing investments, e.g. no bulky vending machines
• Ratings, e.g. trusted platforms
• Security, e.g. bills pre-paid at exhibitions
• Increase trading volume, e.g. bonus programs
Discussion/3
RQ2: Who are advantageous partners in an eco-network of m-payments to capture and dominate the market?
• Handset manufacturers: Pre-installed apps; common hardware standard, safe devices
• Card issueing companies: Card fragmention; broad acceptance
• Banks: Complete real-time financial overview; limits of ATMs
Discussion/4
• MNO: Offering payment possibilities within their service
• Small retailers: Being able to accept cash payments
• Mobile payment services: Innovation drivers, reaching out for third party app-developers, reaching out for trust
• Administrative bodies: Defining new regulations to promote m-payments
Conclusion
No generic approach for a unique m-payment.
Various influencing external factors have to be considered.
Forming networks to reach the people and promote the service.
Go with the flow and integrate new technological developments.
