Monday, September 8, 2014

Mobile payments have been boring so far. Here’s how to make them more interesting.

By Greg Blumstein, Managing Partner, Onyx Venture Advisors
September 8, 2014

Back in April I started writing a blog post that discussed the merits of Apple beginning to offer a mobile payments platform, the technology they have and could leverage towards providing such a service, and the new feature-set that it could bring about in payments. That article was over 13,000 words in its draft form, so I simply scrapped the article and never posted it. The most interesting part of that article, to me, was writing about what should be exciting in mobile payments, rather than the limited enhancement of replacing your plastic credit card with your phone.

After years of rumors, in the last week, additional rumors have started circulating that Apple will finally introduce its mobile payments solution in partnership with the major credit card payment networks, and include NFC in the upcoming iPhone 6, likely to be introduced tomorrow.

Below I briefly address two major points – Why Apple hasn’t launched a payment system until now, and what Apple and others could build into mobile payments and the payment networks of the future.

Why has Apple waited on introducing mobile payments?
While Apple is a global company, with roughly 60% of its revenue’s coming from outside the US, it still introduces most of its new products and services in the US first. At least part of the speculation has been that Apple was trying to get agreements in place with the major credit card networks, and perhaps some major retailers as well. Beyond that, to date, contact-less payments are not widely accepted in the US, whether you look at NFC, QR Codes (Passbook and others), WiFi or BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy, a.k.a, “iBeacons”).

That said, the US market is likely to start changing rapidly. Brick-and-mortar merchants in the US are going to be updating their Point-of-Sale (PoS) hardware to meet the October 2015 deadline to support EMV (“Chip-and-PIN” / “Chip-and-signature”). After the deadline, merchants who don’t support EMV will start being held liable for card-present fraud, when an EMV equipped card is present and processed.

Most of the major PoS hardware manufacturers seem to be including NFC as part of their newest PoS equipment that supports EMV, meaning NFC will finally start seeing wide deployment. You’ve likely already seen newer PoS hardware that supports EMV and NFC at some larger retailers such as pharmacy chains, which have already started rolling out new PoS equipment.

Replacing your plastic credit cards with your phone is boring. Here are some features that could make it more interesting.
Much of the aforementioned 13,000-word article revolved around how Apple could implement such features. That included discussions of Apple becoming a full-fledged payment network similar to American Express, Discover, MasterCard, and Visa, and the potential for Apple to also become a credit issuer similar to major credit card issuers, i.e., the banks (American Express, Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Discover, etc).

Many of the ideas below would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement if Apple just replaced your existing card with an iPhone, and continued to utilize the existing card networks’ limited legacy functionality. I hope Apple will do something more revolutionary than what Google has tried in the past with Google Wallet, or Coin is trying to do with its product for example.

Adopting the consumer standpoint, the benefits of not carrying around their existing plastic credit cards are fairly limited, especially if one can’t use your phone to pay 100% of the time. Therefore, more interesting features that could be enabled with both mobile payments and updated payment networks might include:
  • Real digital receipts. One-stop for all of your receipts perpetually, with much more information such as the exact items purchased, serial numbers, individual item prices, and real dates and times (instead of just a posting date). This would give you detailed information on each purchase instead of just a store name and total amount. Businesses could receive this information in real-time, imported directly into accounting software like QuickBooks for example, without having to recover receipts (paper or digital) from their employees. Imagine never receiving a paper receipt ever again, or giving out your email address for a digital receipt. [Square is rumored to be working on a product like this]
  • Location information. See the exact location on a map of the merchant for a transaction. Ever tried to remember what/where a purchase was made when it’s from a national chain, or a merchant name you don’t recognize? This feature will eliminate the doubt.
  • Zero fraud liability, including never needing to replace your expired, worn-out, lost, stolen, or hacked “credit card” or credit card number. See the recent examples of card information being stolen from Home Depot, TJ Max, Target, Adobe, Neiman Marcus, etc. Apple could leverage its “Secure Enclave” technology to provide a real solution to this, with one-time-use credit card numbers for every transaction, and/or per merchant, and for both web based transactions and in-store transactions. If your card number were stolen, it would be completely worthless and impossible to use at any other merchant. If your iPhone were stolen, no one could use it to purchase anything without your fingerprint via Touch ID.
  • No network / network offline transactions. Trying to pay at a parking meter with a cellular connection that’s slow or down at the moment? At a retailer and their credit card network connection is down? Using the Secure Enclave built into the iPhone, Apple could allow smaller transactions to be processed completely off-line, similar to a stored-value card. This could also replace other stored value cards such as transit cards.
  • Identifying the charging entity. On some multiple-card shared accounts (such as couples, with children, or business accounts) which person made the purchase is difficult to discern. With this feature, it would always be clear who and what device made the purchase.
  • Easy Card  (De)Activation. For businesses, the ability to instantly assign and revoke “cards” to employees on an as-needed basis, with real-time adjustable credit limits per employee. This could also apply to family members.
  • Streamlined functionality. One payment app, one process, and “Apple Simple”.

Adopting the merchant standpoint, additional enhancements should be created on that front as well:
  • Lower rates. Apple can undercut the existing payment networks by providing an in-house end-to-end system and still make a profit. Imagine saving 1%-2% per transaction vs. traditional credit cards. If the necessity of upgrading to newer POS terminals to support EMV and avoid the fraud-shift doesn’t do it, this would surely pay for the cost of new POS terminals in a short period of time. The savings are even more pronounced for card-not-present (web-based) transactions.
  • Lowered 3rd party fraud rates. Card-not-present (web based) fraud amounted to $282 Billion in losses in 2012 in the US. Using push alerts and TouchID, Apple could finally offer online merchants a 100% no-chargeback guarantee for stolen “credit cards”, even on non-physical/digital goods and services that aren’t shipped to a cardholders address. For card-present (brick and mortar) purchases, even with existing zero-fraud liabilities, Apple wouldn’t need any documentation (such as signed receipts) from the merchant to resolve a card-stolen situation as they’d have all of the data in-house including a digital “signature” from the iPhone (the users fingerprint) that authorized the transaction. Even EMV doesn’t solve this problem completely. As mentioned previously, Apple’s new system could also completely eliminate stolen physical credit cards and credit card numbers altogether.
  • Micropayments. To date there’s no great solution to micropayments for online merchants, due to high per-transaction fees for credit cards. If Apple owned the entire system (end-user account, network, merchant account), they could finally enable a financially viable solution that would work for micropayments online.
  • Better data. Traditional payment gateways (PayPal, Authorize.net, First Data, etc) and merchant account providers aren’t very good at giving merchants easily decipherable data on their transactions, especially when it comes to fees, disputes, and chargebacks. Square and Stripe are doing a better job at this, but at least in the case of Square, it’s questionable if they’re making money by offering one price transactions, without the typical and additional per-transaction fee. Apple could offer merchants even more data that provides insight into their customers’ habits and spending. This could open a can-of-worms from a privacy perspective, unless cardholders decided to opt-in, potentially for discounts from merchants. This would be similar to loyalty cards used at many retailers today that offer discounts.

While the above features are certainly difficult or even impossible to achieve today, they should be where Apple, other consumer-facing companies, and payment networks focus their attention, rather than replacing your piece of plastic with another form.

Monday, March 24, 2014

Strategic Alliance with GoLAN Consulting Inc.

We are thrilled to announce a new strategic alliance with GoLAN Consulting Inc., an established US-based human capital and organizational development firm. The partnership enables Onyx and GoLAN to jointly provide an end-to-end solution tailored for Israeli startups.

You can read the full press release below.


----------------------



PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release 

March 24th, 2014

GoLAN Consulting and Onyx Venture Advisors Announce a Strategic Alliance.


NEW YORK, NY – March 24th, 2014 – GoLAN Consulting Inc., a professional services company, and Onyx Venture Advisors LLC, a product innovation firm, announced a strategic alliance today.  The alliance will deliver a comprehensive set of services and business functions to Israeli tech start-ups seeking to expand their operations into the US. 

Clients will benefit from GoLAN’s end-to-end HR/OD services (Human Resource / Organizational Development, including strategic Human Capital planning, complete hiring process, Compensation and Benefits plans, HR and Corporate Growth, and Organizational Processes & Procedures) and Onyx’ product advisory, customer development, monetization, and operational expertise.

“We are excited to collaborate with GoLAN Consulting, a pioneer and leader in their space, and believe that our complementary set of services provides a definitive one-stop-shop for Israeli start-ups as they make their first steps in the US market,” said Ariel Steinlauf, Managing Partner at Onyx Venture Advisors.

Dr. Val Golan, Managing Director at GoLAN Consulting, said of the alliance “Israeli Start-ups are, more than ever, at the forefront of technological innovation, and are increasing their imprint onto the US marketplace. With the unique expertise of Onyx Venture Advisors in digital innovation, this thrilling new alliance offers a comprehensive solution to support successful US implementation of our Israeli Start-up clients.” 

ABOUT GOLAN CONSULTING


For the past 11 years, GoLAN Consulting has been supporting the US implementation of Israeli tech start-ups, and dealing with both the strategic and operative parts of setting up a new entity and building the first team in line with the founders' vision, while keeping the Company DNA intact.
Strategic implementation, operational execution, building executive teams and creating efficient organizational processes are at the core of GoLAN’s expertise.  The company was founded by Dr. Val Golan who has extensive experience in HR strategy, years of experience working with US CEOs of Israeli companies, and positioning newly established teams for long term success.

ABOUT ONYX VENTURE ADVISORS


Onyx Venture Advisors LLC is a product development and innovation firm, based at the heart of New York’s Silicon Alley.  The firm provides digital innovation services to Fortune 100 companies and startups alike with a stated mission to enable clients to innovate cost-effectively and achieve better business results, faster.

The firm advises corporations in the development of new initiatives by guiding the innovation process from ideation, through launch, to performance tracking.  Onyx also assists entrepreneurs with incubating business ideas and bringing the right products to market, and helps early-stage startups identify the right application for their technology, determine the right monetization model, and scale their products/services to support millions of users.

For further inquiries please contact:


GoLAN Consulting Inc.

Val Golan
+1 (201) 475-0188
info@golanconsulting.com
www.golanconsulting.com
www.linkedin.com/company/golan-consulting

Onyx Venture Advisors LLC

Ariel Steinlauf
+1 (646) 274-0200
info@onyxva.com 
www.onyxva.com
www.facebook.com/onyxva
www.linkedin.com/company/onyx-venture-advisors-llc

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Yahoo, AOL, And The Sad Truth About Online Publishing OR How I Learned To Overcome My Fear And Love Snapchat

By Ariel Steinlauf, Managing Partner, Onyx Venture Advisors
February 19, 2014

In recent weeks I’ve seen many articles about Yahoo! and AOL, two of the most venerable giants of the early-internet era. The two companies have known many ups and downs, and these days are global corporate behemoths. However, a closer look at their core business – running enormous online media networks – reveals that it is not a particularly lucrative one to be in.

Let’s begin with the smaller of the two – AOL. The days of the mega-merger with Time Warner are long gone as AOL, currently with an enterprise value of only $3.5 Bn, is a standalone company operating two distinct businesses: a declining, yet profitable, dial-up subscription service, and an online advertising business. The subscription business generated $650 MM in 2012, down from $705 MM in 2012, and AOL is using the cash flow it generates to fund the growth of its online advertising business. The only problem is – it’s not growing so fast.

AOL’s online advertising business generated $1.6 Bn in 2013, up from $1.4 Bn in 2012. It is comprised of owned & operated (O&O) properties, which are further divided into display ads and search ads, and a 3rd-party network. While the latter is growing by double digits (30%), the O&O part is only growing by single digits (5%). Furthermore, 40% of the O&O revenue is attributed to search, powered by Google. As if to exacerbate the situation, the online advertising business is not terribly profitable. A look at AOL’s cost breakdown by segment (which closely mimic the revenue streams) reveals that the O&O segment is barely profitable, while the 3rd-party network is losing money.

Moving on to Yahoo!, the picture doesn’t get much better. While Yahoo!’s enterprise value is nearly $37 Bn, that value is largely attributed to its 24% stake in Alibaba, the Chinese e-commerce giant slated to go public later this year. With analysts projecting Alibaba’s value at $120 Bn to $150 Bn, one thing is certain – Yahoo! stands to make a boatload of money out of that IPO, and investors value to the company accordingly.

Meanwhile, its core online advertising business isn’t faring so well – the company generated $4.7 Bn in 2013, down from ~$5 Bn in 2012. Similarly to AOL, Yahoo! derives most of its revenue from display ads and search ads, the latter powered by Microsoft. Both revenue streams have been stagnant and most recently have declined. I could go into further analysis of display vs. search or O&O vs. affiliate sites, but the outlook won’t be any rosier. Deducting its Alibaba stake, Yahoo!’s core business is trading at ~1X revenue.

Interestingly, all these numbers serve to highlight is one sad truth – online publishing, even at scale, is not such a great business to be in. This stems from several reasons:
  • Content production is expensive
  • CPMs are low and getting lower due to
    • More accountable models (e.g., CPC, CPA)
    • Programmatic buying and real-time bidding (RTB) putting downward pressure on CPMs

 The scale of an online media network is no longer enough to make money, as the content served needs to be coupled with additional data about the user viewing it for advertisers to be willing to pay. That’s why Google’s search ads are more valuable than display ads and why Facebook’s native ad formats are so appealing – both companies have unique, highly relevant information about the user viewing the content and they use it for their advertisers’ benefit. More importantly, they didn’t pay a penny to produce their content.

To keep up with Google and Facebook, AOL and Yahoo! have made, and need to continue making, substantial investments in ad technologies, either developing them in-house or acquiring them (mostly the latter). But, they still need to produce their content as well, while Google and Facebook don’t. Plus, AOL and Yahoo!’s balance sheets don’t support recruiting engineering talent away from these two tech darlings. And without great engineers, their internal platforms are doomed to be at a disadvantage.

If running an online media network is such a terrible business, what business would you rather operate in order to capture all of those coveted digital advertising dollars?

There are three answers to this question:

(1)   Focus solely on producing premium content

The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are examples of companies who realized they had unique, highly desirable premium content that they can also charge for, separately from putting advertising next to it. They also realized they can’t develop their own independent ad tech platforms and opted to outsource that function. And so, they erected pay-walls. AOL is actually seeing initial positive signs from its own AOL On video platform, but it’s too early to tell.

(2)   Focus solely on creating an ad tech platform that can serve many players

AppNexus, and recently SOVRN, are examples of companies that provide the means for advertisers to engage in RTB and programmatic buying. SOVRN is actually a spin-off from Federated Media, a company that decided to sell its online media network and focus on developing an ad tech platform to serve many players. AOL has recently acquired Adap.tv and instantly became a strong player in the growing video ad serving space.

(3)   Develop a new media platform and invent new kinds of ad formats

Which finally brings us to Snapchat, the new kid on the block that everybody wants to play with, sometimes offering $3 Bn for the pleasure to do. Is Snapchat really worth $3 Bn? Certainly not today, but it might be in a few years if it plays its cards right. All Evan Spiegel et al need to do is figure out how to retain their users’ attention and how to put native forms of advertising in front of them. If they do, they might become the next Facebook. All the while, not paying a penny for the content they serve.