Navigating Card Fees in Retail: A Guide to Interchange Fees and Maximizing Savings”

 

 

by Loopline Media  30 November 2023

In the swiftly transitioning world to a cashless economy, understanding and managing card transaction fees is crucial for retailers of all sizes.  Jerry Logo, a former Key Account Manager at Payone GmbH and First Data and ex-account manager for retailer Foot Locker (on behalf of Payone GmbH) emphasizes the overlooked potential savings in interchange fees and acquirer mark-up fees.  This article aims to unravel the complexities of card fees for merchants, particularly interchange fees, and highlights why their understanding is essential in an increasingly digital transaction environment.

Understanding Interchange Fees Interchange fees are transaction fees paid by merchants to the card-issuing banks whenever customers make purchases using credit or debit cards. These fees cover handling costs, fraud risk, bad debts, and the risks involved in approving payments. Despite their significance, many merchants lack clarity on interchange fees, impacting their ability to manage costs and, subsequently, their profit margins.

The Mechanics of Card Processing and Interchange Fees When a customer pays with a card, the merchant’s bank (acquirer) requests payment from the customer’s bank (issuer) via the card network. The issuing bank assesses the request for potential fraud and fund availability before transferring funds, minus the interchange fee, to the acquirer. Although interchange fees are technically between the issuing and acquiring banks, ultimately the merchant bears the cost.

Interchange Fees: A Costly Affair for Retailers Interchange fees can account for a substantial portion of transaction costs particularly for tier 1 and 2 retailers – typically between 0.3% and 2% of the transaction amount. These fees are a significant part of the fees merchants pay to banks, yet they often go unnoticed or misunderstood. For big retailers, overlooking, misinterpreting or misunderstanding these fees can lead to substantial losses. Even a fraction of a percentage point can translate into significant amounts when dealing with large volumes of transactions.

Why Retailers Must Pay Attention to Interchange Fees With the ongoing shift towards cashless transactions, retailers cannot afford to ignore interchange fees. Understanding these costs is key to effective financial management and maintaining competitive pricing. Retailers need to be aware of the factors influencing interchange fees, such as the type of card used (credit or debit), card schemes (like Visa or Mastercard), and the nature of the transaction (card present or not) amongst other nuanced risk factors.

Interchange++ vs. Blended Pricing Models

Retailers engaging in card transactions typically encounter two primary pricing models: Interchange++ and Blended Pricing. Interchange++ is known for its high level of transparency, offering merchants a detailed breakdown of costs for each transaction. This model is particularly favored by larger retailers who prioritize clarity in their financial dealings. In contrast, Blended Pricing, often chosen by smaller retailers for its simplicity, consolidates all transaction costs into a single rate. While this model offers a more straightforward billing process at month-end, it tends to lack the detailed cost analysis provided by Interchange++. This lack of transparency can be a significant drawback for retailers who are keen on meticulously managing and optimizing their payment processing expenses.

For major, tier 1 retailers, the preference often leans towards Interchange++, relying on the clarity it provides. They depend on a transparent and diligent merchant bank that is committed to clear communication from the beginning and maintains honesty, especially when discrepancies arise. In such large-scale operations, even minor overlooked fees or unrefunded amounts can accumulate to substantial figures. It’s essential for these retailers that their finance directors and teams are vigilant and equipped with systems capable of detecting errors or pending refunds from the merchant bank. The onus lies on the merchant bank as well, which holds an ethical and legal responsibility to flag and reimburse such transactions promptly.

In the current landscape, where artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping various sectors, Mr. Logo emphasizes the importance for retailers to align with forward-thinking merchant banks that leverage AI to enhance their payment technologies. This strategic move not only positions them competitively in the market but also aids in outpacing competitors. Additionally, retailers themselves should be proactive in integrating AI into their internal systems. This integration acts as a safeguard against human errors and oversights by finance teams, who may struggle to keep pace with the evolving fee structures in the payment sector. AI implementation serves as a failsafe, ensuring accuracy and efficiency in financial operations, thereby bolstering the retailer’s ability to navigate and thrive in the complex dynamics of card processing fees.

The Impact of Regulation on Interchange Fees Governments have stepped in to regulate interchange fees, introducing caps and demanding greater transparency. For instance, the Durbin Amendment in the US and similar regulations in the European Economic Area set limits on these fees. Such regulations aim to protect merchants from exorbitant charges and ensure fair competition.

Leveraging Interchange Fees for Strategic Advantage Savvy retailers view interchange fees not just as an expense but as an opportunity for strategic financial planning. By understanding the intricacies of these fees, merchants can negotiate better terms with banks, choose the most cost-effective card schemes, and encourage payment methods that incur lower fees. Retailers can also use the insights from detailed fee breakdowns to make data-driven decisions, enhancing their overall payment strategy.

In the digital transaction era, where cashless payments are becoming the norm, a deep understanding of interchange fees is more than just necessary – it’s a strategic business advantage. By demystifying these fees and choosing the right pricing model, retailers can save significantly, improve their financial management, and stay competitive in the dynamic retail landscape. As we move forward, merchants who proactively manage these costs will be better positioned to thrive in the increasingly digital economy.

Loopline media

Post-Brexit: data protection
Card processor sends sensitive data to wrong address
24 August 2022

Worldline SA subsidiary Payone GmbH has been accused of breaching data protection rules after it sent sensitive employee payroll information to the wrong address by accident. The Worldline Group holdS a 60% stake in the Frankfurt based company who have a small UK market presence.

In June 2021, one of Payone GmbH’s ex UK employees (the data subject) received a “potential data breach notification” from the firm advising him that his salary, National Insurance data, nationality (Special Category Data) was amongst various bits of information sent to an incorrect home address.

This included personal information such as the former employees name, age and address.  It also included details such as the date of birth and the amount of annual work bonus he received in his bank account amongst other identifiable data.

Payone GmbH confirmed that this document was sent out in error following an employee making a mistake when re-entering data processed by their third-party payroll provider.  The error arose when the employee was fulfilling an Article 15 GDPR request. The error was spotted by the data subject when he noticed in an email version of the document that the postal address was incorrect. An attempt to notify Payone GmbH of the error went in vain as the document was already irretrievably despatched.

The data subject was alarmed with the incident which exposed him to the possibility of fraudulent activity, amidst reasonable fears his data could end up on the dark web and used by criminals.  Habitually resident in the UK he complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in June 2021. He similarly raised the concern in Germany via The Hessian Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (HBDI).

The ICO reprimanded Payone GmbH for the error in their final decision letter.
Similarly, the HBDI cited a violation of Article 5(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) relating to integrity and confidentiality.

The ICO stated in their July 2021 findings that Payone GmbH, “should take steps to ensure that all personal data records are accurate and up to date. Holding inaccurate information, such as addresses, does increase the risk of personal data breaches and poses risks to the security of information”.

The HBDI confirmed in their October 2021 findings that Payone GmbH had taken remedial action. They concluded that a monetary fine would not be imposed on Payone GmbH as they had taken technical and organisational steps in response to the data breach. Data subjects could now request their data in an autonomous portal.

The GDPR, which came into effect in 2018, gave the Information Commissioner’s Office greater powers to tackle data breaches. The new ‘UK GDPR’ charts its own course after Brexit whilst seeking to maintain EU GDPR adequacy.  In extreme scenarios, organisations face penalties of up to £20m or 4 per cent of their global worldwide turnover, whichever is more.

In the years prior to GDPR, the ICO fines were capped at £500,000.

The data subject said: “I am just glad I spotted it; they were going to resend the document again to another wrong address. Prior to Brexit the process would have been commenced via the ICO who in turn would liaise with the HBDI on the data subjects’ behalf; but I found myself communicating with both authorities separately which was an additional step but in the end was surprisingly
effective. Unfortunately, Payone GmbH again sent my incorrect address to the
Workers Pension Trust in January 2022, and documents yet again went to the wrong address. In my opinion they have not learned from the first time and my complaint is sitting with the ICO yet again”.

The former employee is pursuing a remedy under Article 82 UK GDPR via
the Court’s of England & Wales.

Extraordinary Experiences

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Our Core Values

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

We use cookies to improve user experience and analyse website traffic. By clicking ‘Accept’, you agree to our website’s cookie use as described in our Privacy Policy.