A column by Marcus W. Mosen
Some know better and better, others have always known better, and only the very few know what they are writing about – and knowing nothing obviously makes nothing. This is the motto of numerous comments in the last days and weeks in our banking and payment bubble on the one or other news.
No sooner had our investigative @SchreiberDohms blaring the exclusive report on the sangfroid and soundless cessation of the “Paydirekt” brand to the world, the many wise guys in the (social) media already knew that this decision should/could/must actually have been made as early as 2015.
These conclusions and comments may already have spoiled the pleasurable bite of the Sunday bun for one or the other who has been involved in the development of the Paypal clone in different positions over the past six years. For despite all justified criticism of the “Paydirekt” vision, the colleagues who for years have tried to implement a strategy that was only half-heartedly approved by the committees in parts, deserve respect for their commitment.
Paypal clone
From the beginning, Paydirekt found itself in the dilemma of the indecision of the “incubators” within the three DK pillars. While the first ones hesitated, the second ones liked to talk about “funding rounds” like in a start-up and the third ones were already thinking in their back rooms about how to organize the “exit” in a face-saving way.
Creating a Paypal clone within national borders, with a limited budget and a scope limited to online commerce – that could not go well. Although started and managed with a lot of strategy consulting competence and capacities, the offer did not really reach the market. Today, Paydirekt is synonymous with a vision of digital payment products based on a committee resolution in association-related structures – only that the market no longer follows this resolution.
It’s time to break new ground. This hope now links the payment bubble with the European Payment Initiative (#EPI), which wants to create a counterpart to Mastercard and Visa. The savings banks want to be on the command deck this time: they are (so far) the only credit economy pillar to have beamed the Girocard into the Apple Wallet. They are doing two things in this way: 1. they are exploiting the desire of our society’s corona-induced mobile contactlessness to breathe a little innovation into the card product which has long since arrived in the product life cycle at “Maturity”.
And 2. the Girocard in ApplePay could be a helpful tactical manoeuvre to improve the negotiating position for the enforcement of the Girocard principles in the EPI project. After all, the French will not want to put their “Carte Bancaire” and the Dutch their “iDEAL” up for grabs so quickly.
However, whether German consumers will accept the need for another new payment procedure – defined by EPI – in one or two years’ time is questionable if local structures are now being cemented too much. A little more “glasnost” in the decisions and “perestroika” in the further product definition of EPI certainly cannot hurt.
“A little more “glasnost” in the decisions and “perestroika” in the further product definition of EPI cannot hurt”.
“Welcome to the future”
The Girocard in ApplePay documents the shortcomings of a national card solution when using this payment method abroad and in e-commerce. It simply does not work there at present. The latter is to be remedied with the “Girocard on the Internet”. This would either completely eliminate customer confusion or render the Giropay procedure obsolete, or both. The international colleagues in the “Neue Mainzer Straße” and in “Unterschweinstiege” (in Frankfurt) are probably already slapping each other on the back.
And the Oldenburgers, at least those with an account at the Landesbank of the same name, will get their good old “EC card” back, except that it can actually do everything – at the POS, on the Internet and in the Apple or Google wallet, always because it is actually a “fake” MasterCard debit. “Welcome to the future”, says the head of MasterCard Germany Peter Bakenecker with a grin on his face via LinkedIn.
With all the outside-in (non-)knowledge of the payment strategy considerations that DK has made or may make in the future, we commentators must also ask ourselves how we ourselves would have implemented these decisions in committee or group structures.
After all, decisions are often driven or influenced by other, higher priorities and not least by the decision-makers’ own personal goals. So it is not always just reason, superiority, strategic foresight or altruism that are the driving forces behind decisions.
One advantage of such decisions, however, is that they are more “forgiving” due to their complexity, as they go through many processes and hands before they are finally made. In retrospect, the collective overall responsibility then already seems like a net with a double bottom.
Every “scribbler” should therefore ask himself/herself, when he/she takes a “quick shot” in the social media, whether, when and how he/she has developed visions and implemented strategies from A-Z. Because talking/writing is relatively easy. Developing, implementing and doing is something completely different. I can confirm this from my own experience. Here and now only as a commentator :-)
