Mobile Payments - Rethinking Partnership Strategies

Almost all mobile payment strategies require a closerequires at least associate membership of a card
and complex set of relationships between mobileassociation, a step few MFIs have taken. Most
network operators, banks, reseller agents andimportantly the difference is size between the average
payment solution providers. This article explores someMNO and the average MFI makes any joint venture
of the key issues in defining these partnerships. Forinherently unbalanced. The unhappy outcome is thus
MFIs the key opportunity is the emergence, in somethat many MFIs have wasted time and money on
markets, of large networks that can be leveraged tosolutions that have not been widely adopted or
transform the operations of a MFI without the need forcreated much value for their clients.
a "partnership" with the provider.Leveraging "carrier" services creates far greater
A Partner or Just a Provider?opportunities where such carrier services are available.
Most MFIs and financial institutions view partnerships or(The term carrier services is used to describe solutions
strategic alliances as an important way of improvingthat allow clients to post payment to a third party using
the likely success of a mobile payment venture. Thea standard widely available solution that requires no
alliance can be to access technology, to access adirect investment from the MFI). This is essentially the
mobile network and the customers SIM card or aservice provided by a traditional bank account, a
customer base. However talk of "partnerships" oftenstandard money transfer service (such as M-PESA),
clouds the nature of the required relationship, and canor by a third party fund transfer companies/bill
cover very different relationships with differentpayment companies such as Easypay ( These
degrees of leverage and power between theservices do not require anything than a contractual
participants. This Note distinguishes between tworelationship between the MFI and the payment service
relationships: 1. A standardised contractual relationship inprovider. Both Smart in the Philippines and M-PESA
which one party acquires a service from another, butnow provide a corporate portal as part of a standard
which does not require any development orbusiness service. The portal provides any business
modification on the part of the supplier which is littleuser with the ability to track payments made into their
more than a contract to buy/sell a service, and 2. Aaccount, to prepare batch payments and originate bulk
relationship in which two parties commit to workSMS alerts. For most smaller MFIs adopting such a
together to mutual benefit to create a newplatform could significantly reduce costs, and improve
non-standard solution or proposition. Considerably timeoperational efficiency.
and effort can be saved, if upfront, institutions have aThe critical consideration in such a partnership is the
better understanding of the factors that create ascale of distribution provided by the partner and the
successful partnership.costs of accessing the distribution network. In South
A joint venture normally involves creating a sharedAfrica, a mobile payments solution provider Wizzit
economic interest in a distinct entity normally involvingrecognised that its customers would need to be able
profits and losses shared according to shareholding. Ato use the ATM network, and that by issuing an ATM
good example of this would be the joint venturecard they could give customers access to a large
between Standard Bank and MTN to create Mobilenetwork, with very little of their own investment.
Money. Minority alliances are when larger firms make aHowever as their banking partner lacked its own ATM
strategic investment in smaller firms, which promise tonetwork, customers needed to transact "off us"
achieve business model breakthroughs. Nokia'smaking basic transactions much more expensive than
investment in Obopay fits this model. Contractualmore traditional products provided by the larger banks.
relationships do not create new entities, but involve theSmart Communications, working with one of the major
purchase of a service from another entity supportedbanks in the Philippines, had exactly the opposite
by an appropriate service level agreement. For mostexperience since their partner had one of the larger
MFIs interested in mobile payments the challenge hasATM networks. In most instances MFIs should seek to
been to determine the nature of the relationship theynegotiate bulk discounts from the providers of such
require and can sustain. A lot depends on whether theservices, but should also consider the value of such
MFI seeks to mobilise liabilities (and to own theservices following a proper review of cost savings
underlying bank account), or to leverage carrierfrom changes to their core processes.
services provided by a bank or MNO to supportBottom Line - Fewer Partnerships
lending activities.Managing true partnerships is extremely
Achieving the right partnership to provide bank accounttime-consuming and costly to most parties; vendor
services has proved extremely difficult. Most MFIs lackrelationships are probably a lot easier to manage. In
the technical and managerial depth to negotiatedeveloping a mobile payments strategy, participants
effectively with both technology vendors, and MNOsneed to be very clear on:
to support the deployment of mobile payments. For* Who owns the customer (they should probably also
MNOs, few MFIs have a sufficient customer base toown the marketing budget)?
create a network effect to sustain a person to person* Whoever owns the customer needs to be able to
payment model. From a scale perspective, a networkmanage the customer touch points (each additional
effect only comes into play when 1 in 3 people havechannel adds considerably organisational complexity).
access to the same platform (for example few* Understanding power in defining the "partnership".
people would use a mobile phone if they could reach* Who has what rights to which revenues?
less than 1 in 3 people) For a network effect to be* Does any of the relationships (contractual or
created the solution needs to be inter-operable with aspartnerships) compromise the economics of the
much of the payment infrastructure as possible. Butcustomer value proposition?
most MFI's have not been able to achieve this for aThis note highlighted the complexity of partnership
number of reasons. At the level of technology, allowingoptions and the important opportunity that is now
out of network payments creates a entirely differentavailable to an increasing number of MFIs to engage
level of fraud risk and this needs to be managedwith "carrier" services such as M-PESA to
through more secure and difficult to implementrevolutionise their business model.
solutions. Accessing banking infrastructure normally