2 PAYMENT METHOD PROFILES: CARD
Case Studies
Case Study: Belgium Without a national regulation on interchange prior to the IFR, Belgium’s domestic debit scheme, Bancontact, formerly known as Mister Cash before its rebrand in 2016, operated on zero interchange fees collected prior to 2007, after which they adopted a flat fee structure of €0.056 per transaction. 200 201 This was significantly lower than the global networks’ pre- IFR rates which ranged anywhere from 0.3% to 0.5% per transaction. 202 After the IFR took effect, Belgium adopted the EU-wide cap of 0.2% along with a legal ceiling of €0.056, and Bancontact set their ceiling at €0.05. 203 In 2023, the Belgian government announced a proposal to reduce the regulated rate, bringing the per-transaction rate to 0.1% and maintaining the €0.056 ceiling. Though this fee reduction is not officially mandated, Bancontact lowered their rate to 0.1% applied uniformly across debit products in 2024. Bancontact’s voluntary adjustment set a new benchmark in the Belgian market and the global schemes eventually followed suit and lowered their rates, primarily for domestic consumer debit transactions. 204 Bancontact’s case serves as an example of how a strong domestic debit scheme can function as a pricing anchor. The network continues to grow, having processed over 2.5 billion transactions in 2024, a 4.5% increase from 2023. Their mobile payments solution, Payconiq, has seen a 30% increase in just the past year, bringing in 471 million payments. 205 This growth has also been supported by the regulation set in July 2022 requiring all merchants to accept at least one form of electronic payment. Domestic card scheme performance varies greatly by market in the EU. In Denmark, Dankort has steadily lost ground, seeing its share of issued cards decline from 55% in 2009 to nearly 45% in 2024, and an 85% decline in Dankort cards without a co-badged international scheme during that period. 206 Its lack of compatibility with popular digital wallets like Apple Pay and Google Pay, combined with limited refund and chargeback capabilities narrow its usage amongst consumers. 207 On the other hand, BLIK in Poland, though not a traditional scheme but rather a local A2A payment method, has grown 40% year-over-year and holds a significant share of the ecommerce landscape over card payments. 208 A contributing factor to this adoption is BLIK’s lower cost fee structure at a 0.17% interchange fee and a 0.14%-0.19% scheme fee. 209
86
Powered by FlippingBook