More convenience, less privacy

By Felix Salmon
February 27, 2013

Restaurants are the natural home of impulse purchases. Would you like a third bottle of that wine? Would you like to see the dessert menu? What the hell, why not. All you need to do is say the word, and it all just appears, fresh and delectable for your consumption, before you’ve so much as paid a penny. Eventually, of course, the bill comes — essentially, it’s an invoice listing everything that you’ve already consumed. Then you pay that invoice, and leave.

This is a very sensible way for restaurants to operate. They don’t all work that way: at fast-food joints, for instance, or coffee shops, you tend to pay for what you’re consuming before you consume it. At that point, if you want more, you have to pay again. Which is just one reason why you rarely see people doing that. But generally, the extra amount that people order before the bill arrives more than makes up for the fact that some tiny percentage of them might try to dine-and-dash. Paying is never very pleasant, and if you force people to do it before they’re get what they want, that’s going to reduce both the number of people who buy things and the number of things that they buy.

When we order food in a restaurant, we know that we’re going to be paying for it, literally, in the future — but thanks in part to hyperbolic discounting, even pushing the moment of truth back half an hour or so makes us more prone to running up a tab right now. Similarly, we spend more on credit cards than we do on debit cards: it’s always easier to spend money in the future than it is to spend money in the present.

Online merchants, especially ones who have a lot of mobile shoppers, face a similar problem to restaurants. They want to encourage impulse purchases, but it’s hard to make an impulse purchase when you’re laboriously typing in your name and address and credit card number. The ideal solution would be for would-be purchasers to be able to just press a button, and presto, the item is ordered: the buyer can worry about exactly how to pay for it tomorrow.

That’s the promise behind Klarna, in Europe, and Affirm, which launched today. You click a button, and the item is ordered and on its way to you; the merchant is actually paid by Klarna or Affirm, and not by the purchaser. It then becomes the job of the intermediary — Klarna, or Affirm — to invoice the buyer and chase down the payment, long after the actual purchase has been made.

The two companies work on slightly different models. Klarna uses credit: it’s essentially lending money to the purchaser, and charging interest. Affirm, by contrast, charges the merchant, rather than the customer. Merchants already pay an interchange fee so that they can accept credit cards as payment; paying a similar fee to Affirm will surely be worth it, if they can convert a greater percentage of shopping carts into actual purchases. Also, Affirm seems to be a lot more mobile-native than Klarna.

At heart, however, the two shops are selling much the same product: a way of making online shopping as painless as possible, with payment pushed off until tomorrow. It’s a pretty good idea. But what’s interesting to me is the way that Affirm founder Max Levchin is touting Affirm’s know-your-customer algorithms: the site will identify who you are using Facebook, pull in lots of other data including your Zip code and your mobile device ID, and use all of that information to predict how likely you are to pay the bill once you receive it.

Levchin’s a big fan of such predictive usage of data:

At PayPal, where I was the CTO, we succeeded because we gained deep understanding of the immense quantities of behavioral data that we captured in processing millions of transactions per day. We learned so much about our customers, that we could predict their intentions, and prevent vast majority of intentional fraud.

This is clever, but it can also be a weakness. The reason why so many fintech startups are aiming at PayPal is that people don’t like PayPal; and the one of the main reasons that people don’t like PayPal is precisely its sophisticated fraud-detection algorithms, which tend to throw up a lot of very annoying false positives.

Obviously, Affirm needs to know who you are, and where to find you, so that it can invoice you for the stuff that you’ve bought online. And if you do end up being rejected when you try paying with the Affirm button, then the worst-case scenario is that you’re just back to the status quo ante, forced to pay with a credit card or similar. Still, people don’t like being instantly profiled as untrustworthy; the problem, of course, is that it’s precisely the untrustworthy people with no intention of paying who are likely to be flocking to Affirm in an attempt to order free stuff.

Affirm is trying to make buying stuff on your phone as easy as two taps, without being sunk by massive coordinated fraud. If it works, merchants will surely love it — and won’t much care about the fees it charges. Also, if it works, it will probably end up being bought by Facebook. Which would only exacerbate the worries that people already have about multi-billion-dollar corporations monetizing their personal data. Buying stuff online might become a lot easier. But there’s bound to be a privacy cost, somewhere.

5 comments so far

“When we order food in a restaurant, we know that we’re going to be paying for it, literally, in the future”

That may be, but in many (most?) restaurants nowadays, the server recites a litany of specials, never mentioning the price. Sticker shock when one receives the tab.

I hate this practice; I have trouble remembering the details, and I want to know the cost. When a restaurant pulls this ploy on me, I always make the server repeat the choices at least three times, and I always ask the price of each option.

Posted by HughLoebner | Report as abusive

surely this ought to be owned by the Telcos. They’ve been banging on about how you could buy stuff on your phone and then get billed at the end of the month alongside your phone bill. Yet somehow, it doesn’t seem to have gained traction so far. It is odd bc the telco already knows you, provided you are a contract customer, and thus know whether you are or not a credit risk, and if u pay by say direct debit, which is pretty much the norm, at least in Europe, then they’ll get paid, it’ll be the banks problem, if there’s any issue.
still, why aren’t they doing it? I don’t know, maybe they are stupid, like they were when they offered a wall garden Internet and nobody was interested unless it was the full Internet free for their ‘curation’. A

Posted by fxtrader7 | Report as abusive

“But there’s bound to be a privacy cost, somewhere.”

And now you worry about this? You seem to be all for convenience and electronic (easily traceable) payment when it’s to the benefit of the likes of BofA. You poo-poo the use of cash. If you use any form of electronic payment, some piece of that ends up in a database, held by the bank, or the card servicers, or the store you are shopping in, databases that get used for marketing purposes. How is this different?

Posted by Moopheus | Report as abusive

I’ve been surfing online greater than three hours these days, but I never found any fascinating article like yours. It’s pretty worth sufficient for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you probably did, the net can be a lot more useful than ever before.

Reporters tried to interview the Ying Ying, but all immersed in the new joy in the hope to keep some personal space, did not accept interview

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see