This thesis examines mobile payments and value networks. It investigates how mobile payment services develop offerings and identifies advantageous partners. The document outlines the theoretical framework, including mobile devices, territories, social behavior and technologies. It discusses value networks and presents results from investigating 178 contacts regarding mobile payments. Key findings are the need for payment services to be flexible, efficient and innovative, and to form networks. Value-added services like time savings and security are important. Advantageous partners include handset manufacturers, card issuers, banks, mobile network operators and administrative bodies. The conclusion states there is no generic mobile payment approach and external factors must be considered. Networks are key to reach people and promote services.

1. Presentation
Master Thesis
Media Management
Stefan Ascherl
05.06.2013

2. Mobile Payment
The 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?

3. Theoretical Framework
Mobile devices
Territories
Social behaviour
Technologies
Value networks

4. Mobile Devices
• Opportunities
• Limitations
• Replacement cycles
• Data protection

5. Territories
• Economics
• Banked und unbanked people
• Mobile phone penetration

6. Social Behaviour
People react differently.
This difference depends on countries, gender, age and so forth.
Biggest focus on a global strategy: countries

7. Brands trusted by US Users to handle m-payment services
Social Behaviour: Example/1
Source: SapientNitro 2012
40%
36%
34%
15%
12%

8. 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

9. Social Behaviour Investigated
Trust, risk and security
Cost
Convenience and perceived usefulness
Individual behaviour

10. Technology Investigated
SMS
E-Wallet
Dongle

11. Value Networks
Mobile payment services
Banks
Retailers
Mobile network operators

12. Value Networks
Mobile payment services
Banks
Retailers
Mobile network operators
Handset manufacturer/App developer
Administrative bodies

13. Mobile Payment
service
Value added service
Innovation
Personal Data
Investment Benefits
Customers
Trust
Delivery channel
Handset
Manufacturer
Delivery Channel
Software standards
Mobile device
Security
Customer loyalty
Value added service
MNO
Customers
Trust
Technological infrastructure
Delivery channel
Value added service
Banks
Customers
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
Licenses
Trust
Registered Data
Sensitive information
Economic country benefits

14. Practical Investigation
178 contacts
101 accepted vs 77 denied
✅✅
in germany

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. Questions?
Stefan Ascherl
stefanstefan@me.com