Feeds

UK punters happy to pay £3 to top up e-wallets

We never knew you were so keen

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

A survey of UK attitudes to mobile payments reckons that £3 a time is the sweet spot for topping up wallets, with 65 per cent of you looking forward to pay-by-tap.

Paying for the privilege of adding credit to a purse was the option selected by 34 per cent of respondents to the survey, which was carried out by marketing consultants Simon-Kucher. Less popular options included paying a set fee per transaction (17 per cent), paying a percentage of each transaction (14) or paying a monthly fee (22 per cent).

Having established that users want to pay every time they load money onto the wallet (paying nothing wasn't an option) the public was asked how much they'd be willing to shell out every time they wanted to transfer funds to their phone.

Fascinatingly almost 40 per cent of people said 25 pence was just too cheap, which is very magnanimous of them. £3 was the point at which the majority though it prohibitively expensive, so Simon-Kucher concludes that to be the maximum services will be able to charge.

Chart showing how much people want to pay

Prepaid cards often charge a fee for topping up: Orange cash, for example, will charge up to £1.50 if topped up at a post office, but that drops to nothing if the money is transferred using a debit card. Google's pre-paid card (as opposed to Google Wallet which hosts cards) isn't charging anything at all to top up the balance, at least until the end of 2011.

Existing wallet schemes, such as the Google Wallet and the UK's Orange Quick Tap don’t charge the user anything at all. Load Google Wallet with your Citi card, or Orange Quick Tap with your Barclaycard details, and you'll pay nothing at all for the convinence of paying with a tap of the handset.

Neither Google nor Orange makes any money out of proximity payments, the pennies collected on each transaction go to MasterCard in both cases. And it is pennies: literally a penny a time for low-value transactions on Visa's PayPass, ramping up to four pence for anyone spending a tenner. Not enough to get very excited about unless you're really upset at the eight pence shops currently pay on every Chip & PIN transaction.

So the idea that UK punters will pay £3 a time to top up a pre-paid balance seems fanciful, even if the 316 respondents to Simon-Kucher' survey were representative it seems clear that competitive pressure will force prices a lot lower than that. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Of COURSE Stephen Elop's to blame for Nokia woes, says author
'Google did have some unique propositions for Nokia'
FCC, Google cast eye over millimetre wireless
The smaller the wave, the bigger 5G's chances of success
It's even GRIMMER up North after MEGA SKY BROADBAND OUTAGE
By 'eck! Eccles cake production thrown into jeopardy
Mobile coverage on trains really is pants
You thought it was just *insert your provider here*, but now we have numbers
Don't mess with Texas ('cos it's getting Google Fiber and you're not)
A bit late, but company says 1Gbps Austin network almost ready to compete with AT&T
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.