Brian Roemmele, Alchimiste et métaphysicien
Répondu il y a 387w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 1.3k et de vues de réponses 11.9m
Short Answer: Both companies will do this, very soon.
Histoire des débuts
To give this subject the proper relativity we must look to the past. The history on limiting phone billing to "Virtual" goods or services has it's roots in the 976/900 number products. We could go as far back as 1927 with the 976 exchange. Originally conceived for the carrier to bill the customer for "premium" services like time of day. It exploded into a number of services by the 1970s, but primarily closed to any other provider. By 1980 the 900 number became far more understood by consumers when ABC's Nightline program used it as a polling function to vote on the winner of the Carter/Reagan debates. They broke all records.
The 900 number became "open" when the US Justice Department ruled that AT&T can no longer have a lock on the service. By 1985 the program was fully established for most businesses, AT&T began giving 900 providers up to 5¢ from each call. For the first time, companies of all kinds were able to use 900 numbers to make money. Demand for the numbers increased significantly. AT&T’s Dial-It 900 Service became very profitable. The Adult industry saw great potential and AT&T could not stop it a the Freedom of Interaction Act prevented a carrier from controlling the kind of information available on its network. However, Adult services created a lot of "Honey, I did not call that adult chat line service" disputes.
It was once estimated in the late 1980 that the creative use of the 900 number created over 5000 multi-millionaires. The phone bills were growing larger and larger for consumers. So were the disputes. They reached a record level in 1989 with an estimated 20 million 900 number reversals, but the service was incredibly profitable.. At the same time some companies experimented with Physical goods, delivered through the mail. There were some Tariff limitations but they were circumnavigated and carriers soon learned that the buyers remorse issues of Physical goods were far more challenging then virtual goods like information (eg: "this is not what I ordered", "i did not get my order", etc) They simply did not have the dispute resolution departments needed to conduct such a radically different enterprise and Federal Law requires a proper system in place to address consumer dispute. PayPal spent many years finding ways not to be shut down by the Payment Card companies and he FTC because of this very issue. The experimentation in the sales of Physical goods for the Carriers was a colossal failure.
Mobile Carriers Learn From the 900 Number Business
When more capable cell phones were issued in the early 1990 by Nokia, it brought on great opportunity for carriers to bill it's customers for additional services, ring tones and early versions of Apps/Games. This was Virtual goods being sold in a closed economy. These types of billing systems did not suffer a high degree of disputes, <3%.Over the last 20 years 1000s of ideas have been presented to the mobile carriers on how their billing system can be used for the sales of Physical goods. If you dig enough on why this has not been wildly accepted, most carrieres will point to the failure of 900 numbers for physical goods and the huge problems they had. In just about all cases the challenge over the years has been this mentality of the carriers. The reality was they simply were not aligned to the customer remorse issues and the gross margins merchants face in face to face retail markets. Virtual goods have none of these problems and frankly there is still less then <3% disputes in most cases.Défis
There are two major branches for the sale of physcical goods using a mobile carrier as the billing agent:
- Delivered by mail
- Delivered in real time
We have already looked at the major issues of customer disputes when the products are delivered via mail order. Over the years some carriers have experimented to varying degrees of success. However at this point there is nothing in the market one could point to as being fully successful.
Real time delivery of goods and services in a face to face retail environment has far less customer remorse and dispute issues. In theory a well conceived carrier billing service should work smoothly and as good or better then the customer experience of using a traditional credit card. In reality this is not the case, there are a multitude of carriers that do not tend to really agree. They have a multitude of cost structures they would like to impose.
There is real fear at the carriers that they are not in the position to effectively manage even the relatively lowered chargebacks and disputes. If a service was mildly sucessful there would be the need for 1000s of dispute resolution employees. There is not a single carrier in the world set up to do this. Understand, the collections department is not the place to find effective people for this function.
There is also the very real issue of merchant adoption. Simply put, why? Why as a merchant do I need another from of payment that is restrictive and will cost more? The current rate structure to a retail merchant is outrageous. The rates are outrageous because there is not the vision or the will on behalf of the carriers to be motived at this point to do otherwise.
Also a vast majority of mobile customers already have a credit card and the 8 seconds it takes statically to present the card is not really an issue with most consumers.
Boku and Zong
Both companies have valiantly faced the issues and have produced rather inventive ways to work around the problems. I can say, that we will see a number of changes in the way these companies operate. As they roll out the services for Physical goods, it will be interesting if they can effectively create an enviroment that will address the concerns of the carriers, consumers and merchants.
Brian Wey, Product guy
Répondu il y a 240w
As others have mentioned, there's a variety of barriers. Some of them fall into the "can't do" bucket, some in the "really really difficult" bucket. I'll split my answer to address both.
The reasons why Zong/Boku ne peut pas support physical goods:
- The carrier (i.e. funding source) is in a market where the local regulations prohibit the carrier from selling physical goods.
- Related to the above, the carrier does not support a disclosed agency model, and therefore (legally) takes possession of the good being sold before reselling it to the customer. This has lots of implications on where the tax is collected and which entity is responsible for paying/reporting the tax.
The reasons why Zong/Boku/Others have a really really difficult time supporting physical goods:
- Carrier interchange - As mentioned below, carriers take a pretty hefty cut to be a part of the transaction. This is partially due to the fact that carriers are not payments companies and aren't operationally efficient, so they pass bad debt and customer service costs onto the merchant. Cependant, carriers in general are getting better about this and with some, an interchange fee that rivals credit cards can be negotiated, given the right opportunity.
- Fixed price points - Some carriers are still on legacy platforms that only recognize fixed price points (e.g. $1.99, $2.99, $4.99, $9.99) and nothing in between. As a physical goods seller, that is a deal-breaker, especially if you have to add sales tax on top of goods sold. Cependant, some carriers now support flexible price points so merchants can charge any amount (up to a transaction limit).
- Transaction limits - Since carriers aren't payment companies, they generally do not have the risk management and operational capabilities to effectively control losses. One of the easy ways to manage risk is to limit the amount of exposure by limiting the amount customers can spend (e.g. $25 per month). As a merchant, that is also a deal-breaker.
- Chargebacks/refunds/settlement - As mentioned by other answers.
There are a lot of challenges in direct mobile billing. Most of them are solvable, and they will be solved. The problem is uniformity. If you think about it as a merchant, dealing with different rules and parameters for each carrier in each country you want to sell your goods in is a small nightmare. Different rates, different refund rules, different tax treatment, different transaction limits - the complexity adds up quickly. Over time, carriers will move toward a more standardized merchant experience, and that's what companies like Zong (PayPal), Boku, and others are pushing for.
Gus Fuldner, travaille chez Uber
Répondu il y a 387w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 208 et de vues de réponses 1.5m
There is no regulatory or technical barrier. The challenge is économie.
Zong and Boku have fees of 25-30%. Many carriers also have caps on the size of individual transactions or total transactions in a month. These vary by carrier. If you were selling a very low cost and high gross margin physical good (e.g., a post card service like Postagram) Zong or Boku might be economically viable. Zong and Boku's fees aren't an issue for virtual goods where gross margins are >90%. In that case, the sales lift from higher conversion rates far outweighs the high cost of these payments.
At 10-15% fees things like coffee and movie tickets might become feasible in addition to the post card example.
Répondu il y a 370w
Several factors currently hinder merchants and carriers from adopting mobile payments (carrier-billing) for physical goods transactions.
From the merchant perspective:
- Costs of Goods: In most markets, current transaction costs exceed the cost of goods sold.
- Settlement: Mobile payments cannot currently match the one-day settlement times that traditional/card payment networks can.
From the carrier perspective:
- Opportunity Costs: Why decrease what are already very high margins on consistent (albeit growing) revenue streams?
- Cost of Operations: Each transaction has associated costs, e.g. customer care calls.
These problems are all solvable. For reference, see DOCOMO (Japan) or Mobilians (Korea).
Matthias Janocha, Carrier Billing Guru
Répondu il y a 190w
My company, Boku Inc., actually just started to process online payments for Physical goods.
By acquiring an E-Money license, we effectively are able to surpass the Telecommunication Provider's restrictions and regulations.
Here's an article on Mobile Payments today about this.
Currently, we're able to process payments for physical goods in a handful of countries, such as the UK, Japan and the Nordics - more to come.
Mike Garelik, Launched multiple alternative payments systems
Répondu il y a 387w
Again no reason they ne peut pas
There is a limit to how much the MNOs want to be managing credit risk for larger purchases by their post-paid customers. This would greatly expand their A/R without some of the tools/protections of the payments industry.
if the MNOs set up (or subscribe to) a system that creates a credit line attached to their customers' accounts perhaps they can move purchases (or even their own bills) to that seamlessly.