2126122, 4:39 PM Choosing a Profit Strategy for Merchant Payments
(CGAP °
Choosing a Profit Strategy for Merchant Payments
October 2019
hitps:wwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-sategy-merchant-payments ane2128/22, 4:39 PM Choosing a Profit Strategy for Merchant Payments
The digital merchant payments space in emerging markets and developing
economies is defined by several important and interrelated trade-offs in the
business model. Providers should go into merchant payments with a clear view
of what these trade-offs are and a long-term commitment to an explicit
strategy for managing them.
«The apparent contradiction between short- and long-term profitability.
Providers need to invest heavily in building scale to reach critical mass. At the
same time, charging fees for digital payments would hurt their position of
encouraging digital payments over cash, because cash is entrenched and free
to use. Most providers are under strong pressure to achieve profitability right
from the start, which can undermine their long-term vision in important ways.
* Who to charge and how much to charge. The industry is still a long way
from arriving at a consensus. Most providers struggle with this question, and it
is not uncommon to alternate between different approaches.
* The balance between focusing on the payments aspect and focusing on the
broader set of opportunities that a successful digital payments ecosystem
can enable. This ends up being a choice between a revenue model that is
simple but problematic and one that is more complex but has greater potential.
Most providers have some sense of that potential, but they tend to launch with
an exclusive focus on payments and leave the rest for later. Ironically, the
limitations of a straight payments model may end up meaning that "later" never
comes.
« The cost and capabilities of different acceptance technologies. Most
providers find it difficult to decide which technology strikes the right balance
between ubiquity, usability, features, and price tag. The choice has major
implications for the cost and revenue sides of the strategy.
A digital payments provider looking to enter the merchant payments space in a
developing economy would typically look at two main examples when considering
its profit strategy and business model: mobile money and credit/debit cards. But
while there are useful lessons to learn from both, providers will be better off
pursuing a third model—one that looks more toward the digital payments
ecosystems in China.
hitps:lwwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-strategy-merchant-payments 222128122, 4:39 PM CChoasing a Profit Strategy for Merchant Payments
Digital merchant payments differ from the remittance-oriented mobile money
business model in important ways.
It is a two-sided market. Digital merchant payments have to meet the needs of
two dis
inct groups of users—merchants and their customers—who may have
different needs, motivations, and preferences around payments. Success in such a
market is heavily defined by the so-called cross-side network effect, in which
demand on one side of the market is directly (and exponentially) dependent on
uptake on the other side.
The Two-Sided Market in Merchant Payments
MMM Cross-Side Network Effects in Merchant Payments
Value for customers depends on the number of merchants who accept
digital payments.
Value for merchants depends on the number of customers who use
digital payments.
Click on image to enlarge
This has implications for the product, which needs to combine two distinct value
propositions that speak to the respective sides of the market. It also has
implications for the revenue model, since any pricing that discourages uptake on
either side of the market will exponentially reduce demand on the other. For more
about the two-sided markets challenge, see “The Challenge of Two-Sided Markets
in Merchant Payments.”
hitps:lwwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-strategy-merchant-payments ana2726/2, 4:99 PM choosing a Prof Sirategy fr Merchant Payments
It faces far stiffer competition from cash. When it comes to the predominant
mobile money use case—peer-to-peer (P2P) remittances—the value added by
digital payments is clear: it helps customers avoid the cost, risk, time, and other
frictions that tend to plague cash-based remittance approaches. These pain
points are very real to customers and avoiding these pain points is well worth the
fees charged for mobile P2P transfers. But in retail commerce, cash tends to work
perfectly well for both merchants and their customers, so the value added by
digital payments is far less apparent.
This has implications for the digital merchant payments revenue model because
willingness to pay is driven by perceived value. Simply put, if customers already
don't see a compelling reason to prefer digital over cash, they will be even less
likely to do so if it incurs a fee. Customers have cash available, and it's free to use.
So why would they pay for digital payments? If providers don’t have a clear and
genuinely compelling answer to that question—for merchants and their
customers—then charging any fee is likely to result in failure. For more on the
challenges around cash, see “Cash Is a Fierce Competitor: Underestimate It, and
You Will Fail”
Digital merchant payments in developing economies differ from the card
payments in important ways.
Digital merchant payments do not require expensive hardware. Card payments
in retail commerce require point-of-sale (POS) devices that often cost many
hundreds of US. dollars to buy and are typically leased to merchants for a
monthly fee. This is worthwhile only for merchants who have enough turnover on
electronic payments to make up for the cost of the hardware, which can be
several thousand dollars.
This has immediate implications for merchant-acquiring strategy because it rules
out the vast majority of retail shops in most developing economies. That is a
central reason why card payments have so far reached only limited penetration
across large parts of the developing world. One advantage of adopting digital
merchant payments based on mobile technology is precisely that it can avoid this
major problem.
hitps:lwwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-strategy-merchant-payments ane2726/2, 4:99 PM choosing a Prof Sirategy fr Merchant Payments
However, digital providers would still be wise to heed this hardware lesson: even
far cheaper POS devices can result in prohibitive costs for the provider if
merchants are not willing to pay for them. If they are willing to pay anything at all,
it will be only because they are offered a truly compelling value proposition and a
sizeable customer base that wants to use the technology. In early markets, it can
be hard to persuade merchants of either.
If merchants are not willing to pay for the hardware, the provider needs to cover
the cost across what will inevitably amount to hundreds of thousands—and in
many markets, ultimately millions—of acceptance points. Several African mobile
money providers learned this lesson the hard way: they initially opted for NFC
(near-field communication) technology, only to realize that they were not
prepared to sustain the hardware spending this would require. For more on the
trade-offs around acceptance technology, see “Acceptance Technologies for
Merchant Payments?
Transactions are less risky. A card transaction is known as a debit pull, where a
merchant initiates a payment against a customer's account by claiming that the
merchant has been authenticated to do that. This claim is supported by various
bits of information, which may be no more than the details printed on the card.
Such a trans:
ction is risky because it did not originate from the customer and the
merchant may be submitting the information fraudulently. This risk translates
into cost, which is baked into the pricing model, hence increasing fees.
A payment made via mobile money and many other digital wallets is known as a
credit push, where the customer initiates the transaction by instructing his or her
bank to send money to the merchant's account. While such transactions could
also be fraudulent, the risk tends to be lower because a credit push typically
requires access to the customer's phone or other physical payments instrument
as well as authenticating via personal identity number.
This has implications for pricing levels. Because credit push transactions are
much less risky, the baseline cost of a merchant payment from a digital wallet is
lower than that for bank cards—and it should be priced accordingly.
hitps:wwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-stategy-merchant-payments 5122726/2, 4:99 PM Choosing Prot Strategy for Merchant Payments
There is no legacy
pricing model. The
revenue model, fee
structure, and pricing
levels in the card
space have evolved
over more than half a
century. As a result,
there is a high degree
of acceptance from all
parties around its
A merchant in Guinea who accepts mobile money waits for customers.
basic tenets. In Photo: Vincent Tremeau / World Bank
addition, payments
providers have become very good at fine-tuning key aspects of the model, which
entrenches it even more.
Perhaps most notably, card issuers have become so adept at driving consumer
demand for credit and debit cards that merchants have little bargaining power. In
a market like the United States today, it is difficult for a merchant to choose not
to accept cards, because it would almost certainly result in lost revenue. That
means card acquirers don't need to worry as much about creating a compelling
value proposition for merchants, and they are freer to set the pricing they choose
—the merchants have no choice but to accept it. This is clearly visible in, for
example, the difference in pricing to small merchants versus very large ones. The
bargaining power of huge retail chains has translated directly into substantially
lower transaction fees. In some markets, this power imbalance has become so
great that regulators have taken measures to level the playing field, while in
others, small merchants have brought (and won) class action lawsuits against the
card networks,
Digital payments providers in developing economies don't have this legacy to rest
on, for better or for worse. This has direct implications for the product. Providers
need to be far more concerned about creating compelling value for merchants
because they cannot simply leverage the massive consumer demand that the card
companies have managed to build over decades. It also has implications for
hitps:lwwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-strategy-merchant-payments siz212822, 4:39 MA Choosing Prot Sraegy for Merchanl Payments
pricing and the underlying revenue model because it is far less obvious that they
can get away with charging merchants anything at all, let alone 2-3 percent of the
transaction value like credit card providers do.
The point here is that digital payments providers should not default to looking at
the card model for pricing levels or a revenue model. Instead, they should create a
new model based of the unique characteristics—advantages as well as limitations
—of their own markets, technologies, and business model opportunities.
The revenue side
As discussed above, and in more detail in “If What You Are Selling Is a Solution to
the Cash Problem, Don't Bother? most providers struggle with the question of
how to generate revenue from merchant payments while competing with cash,
which is ubiquitous and free.
Transaction fees are particularly problematic, simply from a behavioral
standpoint. Regardless of which side is being charged, transaction fees are a
constant, tangible disincentive against the very action providers need to promote
—paying with a digital instrument. It is difficult enough to compete with the “zero
cost” of cash without reminding customers of the fee every time they transact.
Aless problematic way to charge such fees would be through a subscription
model that delinks the choice of paying for the service from the choice of which
payment instrument to use in each individual moment of transaction. Providers
like Vodafone Ghana have been testing such a model to good effect. While this
avoids half the problem, it still suffers from the other half—charging a fee for
solving a problem people don’t have, since cash is not broken.
Another way to generate revenue is by selling value-added services (VAS) based
on the data generated from payments transactions. This creates a revenue source
that solves both problems. First, it does not have the behavioral problem the
transaction fees do. Second, it is linked to a clear source of value for the user,
which increases willingness to pay. Put differently, it beats cash by offering
solutions that cash-based systems cannot offer. There is considerable anecdotal
evidence from markets around the world that merchants are happy to pay for a
solution that gives them real value.
hitps:lwwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-strategy-merchant-payments m222a, 439 Choosing a Prost Sraegy or Merchant Payments
WeChat and Alipay in China provide credit scores and customer information to
financial services companies that want to offer tailored services to their
customers. Similarly, Visa and Mastercard have generated entire industries
around the analysis and sale of their customer data.
The opportunities for building compelling VAS are likely to be greater for
merchants, who have many pain points in the course of running their business
that could be addressed through solutions linked to digital payments. For more on
what this could look like, see “Digitizing Merchant Payments—What Will It Take?”
and “VAS Playbook”
On the consumer side, the most common source of added value used by
payments providers is some form of loyalty scheme, although it is also possible to
imagine personal financial management tools and similar solutions. This is
particularly true in the credit card space, but more recent entrants like Alipay,
WeChat Pay, and Google Tez have also used loyalty rewards to effectively drive
consumer use. For more on what loyalty reward schemes might look like in
merchant payments, see “Loyalty Overview” and “Loyalty Playbook”
Regardless of which side is being charged, it is essential to remember that
willingness to pay for a solution will be only as great as the genuine value it
brings. While this may sound obvious, many merchant payments providers don't
appear to have sufficiently taken this to heart.
The cost side
Another contradiction
between short-term
and long-term
profitability derives
from the significant
cost of building a
sufficient critical
mass of users on both
sides of the market.
This cost is
particularly acute Fish merchants. Photo: Mahabub Hossain Khan, 2016 CGAP Photo Contest
hitps:wwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-stategy-merchant-payments a22726/2, 4:99 PM choosing a Prof Sirategy fr Merchant Payments
around merchant POS
hardware and is an essential part of choosing the right acceptance technology.
Providers have to pick the technology they and/or other acquirers are able to
distribute at sufficient scale from day one and one that enables them to keep
scaling up substantially over time.
At the same time, providers need to bear in mind other central aspects of the
acceptance technology, including any hardware requirements on the consumer
side and the inherent usability of the solution for merchants and their customers.
USSD is clearly the cheapest acceptance technology, but it also comes with
significant drawbacks that could doom the business from the start. For more on
the trade-offs around acceptance technology, see “Acceptance ‘Technologies for
Merchant Payments”
The capital expenditure (capex) for providers to build out acceptance networks
also depends on the extent to which merchants are willing to shoulder the costs.
If merchants don't find digital payments alone worth paying for, providers going
to market with a simple payments offering may find themselves forced to bear the
entire cost of any acceptance devices. However, those that offer merchants a
genuinely compelling solution to address important pain points in the business
may find merchants perfectly willing to take on that cost themselves. This trade-
off is a central one for merchant payments providers to explore and understand.
For more on how to create value for merchants, see “For Merchants, the Real
Value Lies beyond Payments?
Also, the capex involved in building and maintaining acceptance networks can be
slashed by enabling interoperability and third-party merchant acquirers. By
enabling their customers to transact at third-party merchants, providers get an
immediate positive network effect that helps drive momentum and build critical
mass, And by enabling their merchants to accept payments from third-party
customers, they boost the basic value proposition and the utility of any VAS.
solutions powered by digital transaction data.
In fact, providers should consider whether they want to do the acquiring piece
themselves at all or focus on the issuing side, serving the wallet customers that
already tend to be their core user base. All banks in developed markets issue
hitps:wwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-stategy-merchant-payments on2228i, 429 Mt Cheosng 2 rot Strategy for Merchant Payments
cards, but the vast majority do not acquire merchants. The ones that do primarily
use it as a means to cross-sell other services, not for the sake of the payments
business.
And even then, acquiring banks tend to rely on third-party merchant aggregators
to find, recruit, and service the majority of the merchants. These aggregators
specialize in giving merchants value, including by building solutions highly
ized to the needs of restaurants, gas stations, supermarkets, and so forth.
This degree of specialization to serve the particular needs of different merchants
is something most acquiring banks would be neither interested in nor well-placed
to create. This is why banks in the card space rely heavily on third-party
aggregators like independent sales organizations and payment facilitators to
acquire the majority of small and medium-sized merchants.
Source:
McKinsey,
Driving
Merchant
Acquiring
and Digital
Commerce.
For more on the role of third parties in the merchant acquiring value chain, see
“Acquiring Models”
The bottom line
If providers accept all of this—transaction fees are problematic; free transactions
will help substantially to drive volumes; digital payments alone are not compelling
enough to users; VAS create better customer value and better opportunities for
revenue; interoperability and specialized acquirers are necessary—then they have
a foundation for a very different type of profit strategy than the classic card and
mobile money models. The strategy will be closer to the route taken by Alipay and
WeChat Pay, which have unleashed a rapid shift away from cash in China in just a
few years. (See “China: A Digital Payments Revolution”)
hitps:wwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-stategy-merchant-payments sonesreaee «0 Choosing a Prot Seay for Merchant Payments
This strategy is entirely centered on scale and the richness of the ecosystem
created by the provider. It means the provider should aggressively focus on
driving uptake and use on both sides of the market, potentially as a loss leader. At
the same time, the provider should equally aggressively create a wide array of
services available to custome
gain on both sides of the market, through which
they can generate revenue. This implies an ambitious, proactive strategy for
developing partnerships with other companies—some of which may be willing to
provide the revenue in lieu of the customer. It also implies an open approach to
technology, including APIs.
Needless to say, reaching that vision takes time, and the typical developing
economy does not have all the advantages that China has, including a high
penetration of bank accounts, smartphones, literacy, etc. But if this vision is the
future that providers are aiming toward, then it will shape central decisions about
the business model, operational model, and partnerships strategy from day one.
All of the same basic principles can be applied even if the solutions are simpler in
some ways. And indeed, this realization is precisely what is enshrined in, for
example, the recent emphasis of GSMA, the global association of mobile network
operators, on mobile money evolving into payments as a platform.
‘Topic: Business and Markets
‘Tag: Payments
Featured Collection
DIGITIZING MERCHANT PAYMENTS
Related Research
PUBLICATION 06 JUNE 2021
Fintech and Financial Inclusion: A Funders’ Guide to Greater Impact
hitps:wn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing proft-stategy-merchant-payments ane228i, 429 MA Cheosng 2 rot Strategy for Merchant Payments
‘This practical guide, based on two years of global research, describes how development
funders can identify promising fintechs and maximize the impact of their support.
PUBLICATION 24 DECEMBER 2020
Agent Network Journeys Toward the Last Mile: A Cross-Country Perspective
CGAP’s analysis reveals three distinct journeys country stakeholders have taken to
extend the reach and quality of rural agent networks.
‘COVID-19 BRIEFING 15 SEPTEMBER 2020
Social Assistance Payments in Response to COVID-19: The Role of Donors
Countries worldwide are using social
‘ance payments as a component of their
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This briefing addresses how donors and their
partners can design and implement social assistance payments that are efficient and
secure while providing recipients with reliable, convenient, and safe access to their
payments.
CGAP (Consultative Group to Assist the Poor), All Rights Reserved, Disclaimer Privacy Policy
hitps:wwn.cgap.orgiresearchipubliction’choosing prott-stategy-merchant-payments sane