最有看点的互联网金融门户

最有看点的互联网金融门户
国际资讯

如何让消费者迷上移动支付

让消费者迷上某种新东西是每一个革新者的梦想,问题仅在于:消费者从不轻易改变旧习惯。

心理学家说消费者对改变有根深蒂固的抗拒心理,他们坚信当下的总比新的好。而作为消费者,我们都曾有意无意地表现过这种想法,比如在最喜欢的餐馆点相同的主菜(我就是这样),或者总买相同品牌的车(我父亲就是这样)。简而言之,比起不了解的家伙,我们宁愿选择熟悉的魔鬼。

过去这些年,我们见识了太多的支付新版本,也看到了它们最后如何“销声匿迹”。没有多少消费者愿意改变旧的支付习惯,自然也不会有多少商家为了这样的市场反映而决定投资一下这些新支付方式。消费者会影响商家,但是两者之间彼此影响的循环反馈却总是那么难以把握。

而历经数年上百亿美元(还有人力)的投入后,革新者(及其投资方)最终却又不得不抽身出来。

上周Facebook决定关闭礼品赠送服务。礼品赠送服务曾经看起来很符合逻辑:在朋友生日的时候送他一份礼物,并且操作简单。他们把一个可爱的提示放在界面上,提示框还可以输入“生日快乐”字样的问候语,操作十分简单。

但前提是你是礼品收件人。

收件人会拿到邮寄给他们的塑料Facebook礼品卡。每一张礼品卡可以同时容纳不容的账户,对应参与了Facebook礼品赠送服务的商家,这样做保持了商家的排他性,但(在我看来)却让礼品收件人有些困惑。比方说,一个幸运的小寿星有四个大方的朋友,他们都通过Facebook 礼品赠送服务给她送了一份电子礼物。因此,她收到了一张Facebook的卡片,里面有四个朋友赠送的不同面值的礼物和对应的四家不同商家。抛开要求消费者改变在商店中使用礼品卡的模式之外,Facebook认为收到一张卡片远比收到四张方便。但是这显然不足以吸引足够多的商家进驻该服务平台,或者让最早进驻的那些商家保持他们的兴趣。所以上周Facebook关闭了该项功能。

有本书讲的就是如何让消费者迷上某种新产品,书名叫作《痴迷:如何制造出能够养成习惯的产品》。作者Nir Eyal既是一位企业家,也是斯坦福大学商学院的讲师。这本书教你如何吸引消费者爱上某种产品并成为品牌的忠实拥趸。支付业总是想让消费者甩开旧模式,追寻“更好的”东西,比如电子钱包、手机优惠券、预付卡、新的会员计划以及一款新的应用。

《痴迷》这本书有四大论点:激发机制、行动机制、奖励机制和投资机制。四点都需要经过管理方能形成习惯并吸引消费者。

屏幕快照 2014-08-18 6.17.51 第1张

激发机制通过激励用户做某事来启动。激发机制可以是外部的(例如:广告,分享并因为看到一家商店喜爱上触发的事物),也可以是内部的(例如:情绪、人、位置和例行公事)。

采取行动就像是人们对激发机制所做的反应——但有两大例外。Eyal说用户必须是积极的(他们得到一个奖励)并且能够采取行动(这种行动应该很简单,不需要花费大量金钱、时间和精力)。

奖励机制既是采取行动的结果也是诱因。虽然常常与钱挂钩,但奖励并非总是与金钱有关。群组式的奖励更具有社交性(例如在Facebook或者Instagram上传照片后得到朋友们的反馈),搜索奖励是搜索资源得到的报偿(比如在Pinterest或者Houzz上找东西),自我奖励则与所精通的事物相关(例如:在BeJeweled或者Skeeball上破自己的记录)。

到目前为止,这还不是真正意义上的复杂事件,听起来也与Charles Duhigg的观点相似。Charles Duhigg是IP 2014的大会发言人,我之前讨论过他的《习惯的力量——为什么我们这样生活,那样工作?》。虽然书里的观点与Eyal的“投资机制”理念不谋而合,但是二者还是略有不同。Eyal在《痴迷》中说投资最终创造习惯,而Charles Duhigg的观点则是对Eyal观点的补充与完善。Eyal说激发机制只有在人们获得符合心意的奖励时才发挥作用,这就像“挠痒”一样,得到想要的东西之后想要得更多。这正是投资机制的概念,Eyal说投资机制为消费者提供了一个“接受下一次激发效应”的理由。Eyal把此类现象表述为存储一家“价值商店”,通过这家商店,消费者可以在未来获取更多价值。投资机制与飞行常客计划的心理学,积点积分制奖励方案,甚至是电视冒险故事相似(如果你一点也不因为《丑闻》或者《国土安全》要出下一季而咬牙切齿的话,就举起你的手)。这也是为什么奖励“游戏化”会成为一个流行理念的原因。

那么,每一种支付创新模式所寻求的养成习惯的最短路径是什么?我想给你们介绍Webster的习惯培养式的支付定理。

 

屏幕快照 2014-08-18 6.18.03 第2张

如果两大变量决定了人们是否形成一种习惯——或者说为之痴迷——那么这两个变量就是人们是否能够做(有能力)并且想要做(有动力)。如果二者兼备,那么消费者积极性和能力就很高,最后革新者就会受益。

那些不能对激发机制有反应的自由消费者就像是革新者在既不感兴趣也没有反应的人们身上花费了无数金钱之后得到的安慰奖。

那么,为了赢得终极大奖,定位一项创新的最佳途径是什么?

对此,Webster的习惯养成定理可能有帮助。x轴代表能力,y轴代表愿景——两个变量都从消费者的角度出发。如果一项创新有许多有意愿却没有能力的用户,那么它是一个失败的机遇。如果有大量有能力的人去使用这项创新技术,但他们又没有意愿,那么它会是一场艰苦的战斗。这个简单的2 x 2矩阵可以帮助革新者自己决定他们的创新真正可以应用的环境以及所面临的挑战。

现在,我们用Webster定理来进行测试。

以开环的预付卡为例。

这些产品已经问世约13年了。这些带有磁条的塑料卡片被所有的线上线下能够使用卡的商家所接受。作为无银行账户人士的一种必备工具,以及一种能够向世界上数以百万计的生活在金融主流圈以外的人展示金融包容性的产品,这些卡片已经被市场化了。当前只有一个问题:它们已经开始使用了,但是为开发这些产品所定位的目标消费者尚未形成使用产品的习惯。

事实上,拥有它们的消费者(也许雇主会把薪水存在上面)会表现出下列行为:工资被打到卡里,消费者去自动提款机取出大部分存款。没有提前存钱的消费者不需要在商店里展示卡片然后成群结队地购买货架上开环的预付费产品。更多“不幸存储了的”消费者现在所使用的产品,像沃尔玛的Bluebird,无论看起来还是使用起来都与早已存在的银行账户非常相似(除去高额的银行收费)。没有提前存钱的消费者一般都不愿意放弃有形的现金产品,因为他们不需要为无形的塑料产品付费。所以对于这些产品原定的消费者而言,既是他们有能力,但他们也不愿意使用。根据Webster的定理,这种情况让预付卡陷入“艰苦的战斗”。

通过增加功能让塑料卡片上现有的资金更具吸引力:价格优惠,提供短期贷款等等,许多革新者正竭尽所能地提升产品矩阵的“必杀技”。移动设备通过提供账户余额和交易信息能降低预付产品的不确定因素。而且处理无形产品有关的问题时,移动设备非常有用。但是,除非产品的效用与经济价值发生改变,不然这场艰苦的战斗都将持续,因为预付产品已经成功培养的唯一习惯便是继续使用现金。

下面再举一个例子,这是一直以来我最喜欢的例子:NFC。

在美国,NFC始于绝望的象限——既没有有意愿的消费者,现实中也没有可以使用NFC卡(或者手机)的地方。而在消费者能够使用卡或者手机的地方,比方说英国,消费者似乎又没有兴趣。现在,你阅读到的所有东西就像要了解一个明白NFC如何工作的复杂的人一样,毕竟这是你自己的事情。有NFC功能的手机会随机与POS终端互动,并且耗尽了他们的银行账户,我问过的一些人的确有这样的担忧。你也许会笑。但消费者的看法是感应式支付方式让他们亲自控制的地方太少,而且这种支付方式还附带着他们不了解的技术。即便已经使用NFC多年的英国人也会说他们更倾向于使用生物识别技术。根据你的观点,NFC技术要么会继续呆在无望的门类中,要么已经转移到“艰苦斗争”的象限。但事实上,NFC已经有可能发展成一种有助于消费者培养习惯的体验,因此,商家们愿意投资这个技术。

我知道你在说:苹果的新款iPhone将有NFC功能,那时候你就要承认错误了!正如我上周所说,你不得不因为我对苹果和NFC的观点等上几周,但是我还没有看到苹果为他们自己以及所服务的消费者推出一款要么无望的,要么处于艰苦斗争情形的产品。

接下来用Webster的定理进行其他测试,这次来说说移动钱包。

现在“移动钱包”还在不断发展,而这种定义现在还不明确。我们举两个例子:消费者为了在实体店可以付款而下载到手机上的应用;消费者用于其他目的而下载的并且也带有支付功能的应用。

为了取得成功,移动支付应用必须要让消费者使用,并且使用频率要足以形成一种习惯。星巴克移动应用的成功在于咖啡连锁店在两个根深蒂固的习惯之上培养了一种简易的支付方式:每天至少买一次咖啡,并且每次都使用星巴克预付卡来付钱。星巴克让那些随身携带智能手机的消费者使用二维码移动应用,并且每一个消费者都可以在Day One简易日记软件上运行这个程序。这种模式在不到3年的时间里就带动了星巴克15%的销售量。有意愿且有能力的消费者也向别人传达了星巴克“绝杀的”移动应用体验。

达到习惯性的频率也是许多革新者转向QSR领域推出有二维码功能的移动应用的原因。日常的早餐和午餐加上用手机支付所带来的便利正是这样的环境里一个不错的组合。像LevelUp一样的革新者根据消费者使用的频繁程度提供奖励,现在消费者已经值得下载并使用这个应用了。这导致投资到继续使用LevelUp更有价值。一种在二维码基础上发展起来的支付方式使得在手机和商家间的支付更加有效,同时也在其他移动应用设置中充分挖掘出消费者所熟悉的行为。消费者使用带有二维码的移动登机牌和移动优惠券已经有些年头了。他们喜欢使用这些模式,也知道如何使用它们。再一次,这个移动支付方案里有意愿的和有能力的消费者实现了“涅槃”。顺便提一下,一旦你获得的有意愿和有能力的消费者数量达到进入“天堂”的临界点,要实现规模问题就变得很简单了(虽然仍然很难,但至少有东西可以利用一下来保持飞轮的旋转)。

 人们下载移动应用还有其他的原因,例如打车软件Uber以及其他许多可以在网上订购的应用。许多付款革新者为了形成习惯以及一定的使用频率把支付和那些应用绑定在一起。这正是中国互联网巨头支付宝和腾讯在自己的地盘之外为了扩大数字账户用户所采取的行为。像星巴克,他们把支付应用内嵌到使用频率高并且实用性能高的移动应用里,以此来培养习惯和偏好,从而实现“涅槃”。

但是,我觉得用Webster的定理来检验整个移动支付领域的各类玩家也许很有趣,甚至可以得到点警示。

矩阵中最糟糕的一种情况是消费者既没有意愿也没有能力使用支付产品。然而,令人惊讶的是,这并不能阻止革新者们花费时间和金钱努力解决最棘手最花钱的支付问题。我曾问过Square的联合创始人Jim McKelvey,他会给一个想要解决支付领域里这些双面问题的创新者什么样的忠告。他的回答只有一个字:“不。”

今天大多数的革新者都在处于“艰苦战斗”的模式,他们花费巨资说服消费者,希望后者能心甘情愿地放弃现在,转而选择一些新的东西,这样他们也许能在一些市场上播下种子。所谓“战斗”的艰苦指出在于说服足够多的消费者作出长期投资,而远期效果对于消费者来说却既不明显,又常常不足以吸引他们耐心等待。足够多感兴趣的消费者是一个能让商家签字进驻的招牌广告。这就是我认为在Square的钱包应用上所发生的事情——没有大量的消费者能在合适的地方使用它,慢慢的,消费者和商家都失去了兴趣。我预计,在未来的一年里,我们将看到许多这样历经“艰苦战斗”的创新项目被慢慢关掉,或者投资者会慢慢弄明白,想让消费者的改变习惯只不过是迈向无望(和更小型的银行账户)的一小步而已。

所以说,诸如上文所述的支付的悲剧注定会发生。这在数字支付世界就是失败的前兆,也是那些拥有数字消费者基础并且已经让消费者养成使用习惯的产品必须避免的问题。仔细想想,失去机遇与艰苦斗争之间的差别其实就在于消费者是否能轻松养成新支付习惯的能力。这为有意愿的消费者提供了完善习惯的空间,也为不感兴趣的消费者迈出习惯养成的第一步提供一种激励措施。而变动最少的革新者将会获得胜利。这就是为什么我认为移动/数字支付领域的成功最终将在某种程度上影响消费者已经完善多年的数字生活习惯,例如下载应用,按下在线购物的按钮,结账的时候输入PIN码,使用二维码等等。这可能并不像听起来那么疯狂,因为我们见到的某些移动支付领域的变化正是结合了这些用户体验的。

那么你最喜欢的支付创新又在哪些地方符合Webster定理?

Getting consumers hooked on something new is every innovator’s dream. There’s only one big problem: Consumers don’t break old habits easily.

Psychologists say that consumers are just hard-wired to resist change, believing that whatever they’re doing today is vastly better than any value they could get from making the switch to something new. And, as consumers, we’ve all exhibited that behavior ourselves, whether it’s always ordering the same entrée at your favorite restaurant (that’s me) or buying the same brand of car (my father). Said simply, we all sort of prefer the devil we know to the devil we don’t.

In payments, we’ve been watching different versions of this movie now for years and we’ve seen how they all end. Not enough consumers are willing to break their old payments habits to convince enough merchants that it’s worth investing in “the something new.” The feedback loop of consumers and merchants and more consumers and more merchants never takes hold.

Years and millions of dollars (and manyears) later, innovators (and their investors) eventually pull the plug.

We saw this happen just last week when Facebook decided to shutter Gifts. Gifts seemed like such a logical idea at the time: make it easy to send a gift to a friend on their birthday. They did that by putting a nice little prompt right at the same spot where the “Happy Birthday” greeting could be entered. Easy peasy.

Except if you were the recipient.

Recipients got plastic Facebook giftcards that were mailed to them. Each gift card could hold separate balances for any merchant participating in the Facebook Gifts program, thus preserving exclusivity for merchants but (in my opinion) confusing the heck out of the recipient. Let’s say a lucky birthday girl has four generous friends all of whom sent her an e-gift via Facebook Gifts on her birthday. She gets one Facebook card that holds the different balances from those four different friends and the merchants they each chose. Facebook thought that one card would be more convenient than getting four, except that was asking consumers to change how they used gift cards at stores. Apparently not enough of them liked it well enough to get merchants to sign on and/or the merchants that were part of the initial batch interested enough to stick with it. So Facebook killed it last week.

Getting consumers hooked on new things is the subject of a really interesting book called, appropriately,Hooked. Nir Eyal is the author and he’s an entrepreneur and a lecturer at Stanford Business School. Hooked offers a methodology for getting consumers to love something enough to make it a habit, which is, of course, the zillion dollar question now up for grabs in payments and commerce. Everyone in payments is focused on getting consumers interested in ditching whatever they are using today for something “better”: a digital wallet, a mobile coupon, a prepaid card, a new loyalty program, a new app, whatever.

Hooked’s thesis has four major components: The Trigger, The Action, The Reward and The Investment that all need to be managed to form the habits that will hook consumers.

Triggers sort of start it all by prompting a user to do something. Triggers can be external (e.g. ads, share and like buttons, seeing a store) or internal (e.g. emotions, people, situations, routines).

Actions are what people do in response to a trigger – but with two big exceptions. Eyal says that the user must be both motivated (they get a reward) and able to take an action (the action has to be simple, not cost a ton of money, not take a lot of time, not be too mentally taxing, etc.).

Rewards are the payoff for taking the action and are the incentive for taking an action. Rewards don’t always have to be about money, even though they often are. Tribal rewards are more social (e.g. getting a response from your friends when you post on Facebook or Instagram), Hunt rewards are the payoff from a search for resources (e.g. finding something on Pinterest or Houzz) and Self rewards are about mastery (e.g. my inevitable quest to beat my own personal best score in BeJeweled or Skeeball).

So far, this isn’t really rocket science and sounds pretty similar to the concepts that Charles Duhigg, one of our IP 2014 keynote speakers, documents in his book, The Power of Habit, which I’ve discussed before What makes Hooked slightly different, though, is Eyal’s concept of “investment” and the role that it plays in completing “The Hook” that Eyal claims ultimately creates the habit.“Scratching the itch” that Eyal says triggers can create only happen if the rewards that people get from scratching that itch leaves them wanting more. That’s the notion of Investment, which Eyal says gives consumers a reason to “load the next trigger.” Eyal describes this as banking a “store of value” that makes what the consumer does more valuable in the future. It talks about the psychology of frequent flyer programs, points-based reward schemes and even TV show cliffhangers (raise your hands if you aren’t chomping at the bit for the next season of Scandal or Homeland to start). It’s why the “gamification” of rewards is such a popular concept.

So what’s the shortest path to producing the habit-forming behavior that every payments innovation is seeking? I’d like to introduce you to Webster’s Habit-Forming Payments Theorem ☺.

If the two big variables that really determine whether people form a habit–or get hooked–is whether they can (are able) and want to (aremotivated). If so, then highly motivated, highly able consumers are, therefore, the innovator’s ultimate prize.

Disengaged consumers who aren’t able to respond to a trigger are the innovator’s booby prize with tons of money wasted on people who are neither interested nor able to respond.

So what’s the best way to position an innovation to win the ultimate prize?

Here’s where Webster’s Habit-Forming Theorem might help. The x-axis measures ability and the y-axis measures willingness – both from the consumer’s point of view. An innovation that has lots of willing consumers with no ability to use that innovation is a lost opportunity. Lots of ability to use an innovation without willing consumers is an uphill battle. At a minimum, this simple 2 x 2 matrix could help innovators decide in the privacy of their own innovation labs (or garages or whatever) where their innovation really fits, and where they think their competition’s does, too.

Now, let’s put the Webster Theorem to the test.

Take open loop prepaid cards.

These products have been around for something like 13 years. These mag stripe plastic cards that are accepted in all card-accepting merchant locations on- and off-line, have been marketed as an essential tool for the unbanked and a product that will bring financial inclusion to the millions and millions of people in the world who live outside of the financial mainstream. There’s just one problem: they’ve struggled to ignite. The very consumers for whom these products were developed haven’t developed the habit of using them.

In fact, consumers who have them (perhaps their employers deposit their paychecks on them) exhibit the following behavior: paycheck gets deposited on card, consumer goes to cash machine and then withdraws most of the money in cash. Unbanked consumers aren’t necessarily showing up at stores in droves to buy open loop prepaid products off of J-hooks. Those who are more of the “unhappily banked” consumers who are using products like Walmart’s Bluebird that looks and acts like the bank account that they’ve always had (minus the high bank fees). The unbanked are generally unwilling to ditch the tangible cash product for which they pay no fees for an intangible plastic product that costs money to use. So the consumers for whom these products were intended are clearly able, but they are not willing to use them. This puts prepaid cards in the “uphill battle” quadrant, according to Webster’s Theorem.

Lots of innovators are trying very hard to move up the matrix to “nirvana” by adding features that make keeping funds on a plastic card more appealing:offers, short term loans and the like. The mobile device, which can make the intangibility of the prepaid product more real by providing balance and transaction information, is also useful in addressing the issues associated with the intangibility of knowing exactly how much money is available to spend. But unless the utility and economics of the product change, the uphill battle will continue since the only habit that prepaid products have successfully nurtured is a continued use of cash.

Let’s take another example, which is my all-time favorite: NFC.

In the U.S., NFC started out in the hopeless quadrant–no willing consumers and no real places to use NFC cards (or phones). Where consumers could use cards or phones, in the UK, for example, consumers didn’t seem all that interested. Now, all of you reading this are pretty sophisticated people who understand how NFC works because it’s your business. But ask Joe Six-Pack what he thinks of NFC. The ones I’ve asked worry that phones enabled with NFC will randomly interact with POS terminals and drain their bank accounts. You laugh. But the consumer perception is that “tap and go” payments takes too much control out of their hands and puts it with a technology that they don’t understand. Even the Brits who have been living with NFC for years say they’d rather have biometrics. Depending on your point of view, NFC either remains in the hopeless category or has moved to the “uphill battle” quadrant. But for both spots, it has its work cut out for it to develop into a habit-forming experience for consumers and, therefore, a technology that merchants are willing to invest in.

Yes, I know what you’re saying: Apple’s new iPhone will have NFC and then you’ll be eating humble pie! As I said last week, you’ll have to wait a couple more weeks for my perspective on Apple and NFC, but I have yet to see Apple put a product in market that’s either a hopeless or uphill battle for them and the consumers they serve.

Let’s give the Webster’s Theorem another workout, this time on mobile wallets.

For the moment, let’s set aside the fact that “mobile wallets” are still evolving as a concept and the definition of the term is anything but consistent. Let’s take two examples: apps that consumers download on their phones for the purpose of paying in a physical store; and apps that consumers download for other purposes that are also payment-enabled.

To be successful, mobile payment apps have to get consumers to use them with enough frequency to develop into a habit-forming experience. The Starbucks mobile app success is because the coffee chain layered an easy payment option on top of two other ingrained consumer habits: buying coffee at least once a day and using a Starbucks prepaid card to pay for it. Moving those smartphone-toting consumers to a QR code mobile app that every single one of them could use on Day One has driven something like 15 percent of Starbucks volume in fewer than 3 years. Willing and able consumers delivered Starbucks’ “nirvana” mobile app experience.

Building the frequency that delivers habituation is also why so many innovators turn to the QSR space to launch mobile apps and do it with QR codes. Breakfast and lunch daily plus the convenience of the mobile phone to pay is the combo platter served up in this environment. Innovators like LevelUp have made it worthwhile for consumers to download and use the app by offering rewards that pay off with more frequent usage. And that makes the investment in continuing to use LevelUp more valuable. A QR code-based payment method also enables payment across all phones and all merchants cost effectively and it also taps into behavior that consumers are familiar with in other mobile app settings. Consumers have been using mobile boarding passes and mobile coupons with QR codes for years. They like using them and know how to use them. Willing consumers and able consumers in this mobile payments scenario, again, deliver “nirvana.” BTW, once you get a critical mass of willing and able consumers into “nirvana,” scale becomes a whole lot easier to achieve (still hard, but at least there’s something to leverage to keep the flywheel spinning).

People also download mobile apps for other reasons, e.g. Uber for taxis and a myriad of others for online ordering. Many payments innovators are attaching payments to those apps in order to build habituation and frequency. That is exactly what Chinese internet giants Alipay and TenCent are doing in an effort to expand the use of those digital accounts outside of their own walled gardens. Like Starbucks, they are embedding payments into high-frequency, high-utility mobile apps to build habituation and preference and therefore achieve “nirvana.”

But here’s where I think using Webster’s Theorem to examine the various players across the mobile payments landscape could get interesting and even a bit cautionary.

The worst place on the matrix to be is where consumers are neither willing nor able for any reason to use a payments product. Yet it’s amazing how that doesn’t seem to stop innovators from spending time and money trying to solve the toughest and most expensive problem in payments. I remember asking Square’s co-founder, Jim McKelvey, what advice he’d give to an innovator wanting to solve these two-sided problems in payments. He answered in one word: “Don’t.”

Most innovators today operate in the “uphill battle” mode where vast fortunes are being spent trying to convince consumers to willingly switch away from what they do today to something new that they might have enabled at a few places to seed the market. The uphill battle is convincing enough consumers to make the investment in the longer term, when the longer term isn’t readily apparent to consumers nor appealing enough today to ask them to patiently wait. Not having enough interested consumers isn’t a glowing advertisement for getting merchants to sign on. That’s what I believe happened to Square’s wallet. There were not enough consumers who could use it in enough places to matter to them. Those handful of consumers lost interest as did present and future merchants. I predict that we will see the taps slowly being turned off of many of these “uphill battle” innovations over the next year or so as investors figure out that getting consumers to change their habits is but a short hop to hopeless (and much smaller bank accounts).

The tragedy of payments, though, I think will happen where it’s too hard for willing consumers to use a particular payments innovation often enough to get hooked and in enough of the places that matter to them. In the digital payments world, that’s the slippery slope that those with a digital consumer base already in the habit of using the product must avoid. If you think about it, the difference between a lost opportunity and uphill battle is the ability for consumers to easily adopt a new payments habit. This is something that will give willing consumers places to perfect their habits and disinterested consumers an incentive to take the first step to habit-forming behavior. Innovators that do that by introducing the fewest moving parts will win. It’s why I think that success in the mobile/digital payments world will ultimately leverage in some way the digital habits that consumers have perfected over the years, such as downloading apps, pushing the buy button online, typing in a PIN at checkout, using QR codes, etc. And that may not be as crazy as it sounds because the most momentum we’ve seen in mobile payments leverage some combination of those user experiences.

Where you see some of your favorite innovations in payments fitting onto Webster’s Theorem?


用微信扫描可以分享至好友和朋友圈

扫描二维码或搜索微信号“iweiyangx”
关注未央网官方微信公众号,获取互联网金融领域前沿资讯。

发表评论

发表评论

您的评论提交后会进行审核,审核通过的留言会展示在下方留言区域,请耐心等待。

评论

您的个人信息不会被公开,请放心填写! 标记为的是必填项

取消

幸文君

72
总文章数

互联网金融爱好者。

新金融时代区域性互金平台的资产优势

张彦军 | 网贷之家 1天前

互联网金融狂潮简史

秋源俊二 11-18

[未央研究]本周互联网金融回顾 | 2017年第46周

未央研究 11-17

他的模式全球风靡,却在中国水土不服?

一本财经 11-17

蝶变与重生:大变革下的金融科技创新风口

孟永辉 11-16

版权所有 © 清华大学五道口金融学院互联网金融实验室 | 京ICP备17044750号-1