Electronic Bill Presentment & Payment (EBPP) is supposed to be the killer app
on the Internet for companies looking to reduce the cost of distributing invoices
and processing payments. Unfortunately, reality has yet to live up to the marketing
hype surrounding the consumer acceptability of these products.
Consumer EBPP (B2C)
Corporate EBPP (B2B)
By using software programs like Quicken introduced in 1984 for electronic bill payment, consumers were expected to change their old-fashioned bill paying habits in favor of paying bills via the PC. The low level of acceptance, which never grew beyond the early adopters of the technology, was blamed on input requirements because billing information was still paper based. The Internet provided the vehicle to deliver electronic bills or invoices. With the ability to receive and pay bills online, usage of electronic bill payment was supposed to take off. It still has not. Less than 5 million households are actively initiating electronic payments.
Today, electronic bill presentment and payment (EBPP) is still plagued by the infamous "chicken-and-egg" syndrome. Consumers are unwilling to utilize online bill payment until a large portion of their bills are available online; while billers are unwilling to present bills electronically until a significant
portion of consumers demand it.
Further hindering the advancement of EBPP are the numerous methods (models) of presenting bills online and plethora of technology vendors offering solutions that support these models or variations of them.
There are three common EBPP models being promoted in the market today.
There are a number of technical and behavioral obstacles to be overcome before
any of the bill presentment and payment models will be attractive to large
number of consumers.
- Less than half of all consumer households are equipped with modem equipped PCs.
- Approximately 20% of all payments are one-time payments which are unlikely
candidates for on-line billing.
- Who "owns" the customer and how payment discrepancies are resolved is a major
issue especially where third party processors are involved.
- When a customer inquires about a bill, the company customer service
representative does not view the same version of the billing information.
- Writing a small number of checks still takes less time than booting a PC,
dialing up an Internet connection and clicking on web sites.
In the biller direct model, the billing organization makes bills available on its own web site and invites its customers to view and pay their bills directly from this site. Typically, the biller sends an email message to the consumer
alerting them to a new bill. The customer then logs onto the biller site via a secure connection, reviews her billing information, and enters payment instructions (usually for a pre-established payment mechanism).
A variation on this model allows the biller to send summary bill data in the
email message with an embedded hyperlink back to its web site for bill detail
and marketing messages. The consumer can then respond immediately to the bill by
clicking on the link, which transfers the session back to the biller site for
reviewing bill detail and setting up payment.
The biller direct model is the simplest and best-defined EBPP model in use
today. The biller assumes the central role in this model, handling the
responsibilities of customer enrollment/service, bill data translation/formatting,
web site presentation, payment initiation, and remittance processing. A growing
number of technology vendors offer software to handle some or all of this complex
process. By using this model, the biller essentially creates a new channel for
distributing bills, which may parallel other e-commerce initiatives.
On the payment side, the biller utilizes its existing bank relationships for
electronic payment processing and remittance posting, a key advantage. Some of the
major credit card companies and utilities are adopting this model. There is a strong
belief that controlling the payment interface can build customer loyalty.
The major disadvantage of this model is that the consumer must visit a different
web site for payment of each bill. In addition many bills are cycled at
different times during the month so consumers must log-on at different times to
pay them or keep track of the e-mail notifications.
Biller Consolidation Model
The biller consolidation model is inherently more complicated, primarily because
one or more third parties act as middlemen to route billing and payment data.
These middlemen fall into two broad categories: bill consolidators and biller
service providers. Bill consolidators receive billing data from numerous
billers, aggregate and sort it by consumers enrolled in EBPP programs, then send
it to distribution points based upon where individual consumers are enrolled.
These distribution sites are commonly banks, but can also be Internet portal
sites such as AOL, Quicken.com, and Yahoo! Finance and even the United States
Postal Service. Biller service providers play a similar role on the billing
side, but usually partner with a consolidator for payment processing. Biller
service providers also tend to target small to mid-sized billers with a low-cost
fully outsourced solution.
After consumers log into their EBPP service sites (banks and portals), review
their bills and schedule payments, payment instructions are sent back to the
consolidator for processing. In addition to payments for electronically
presented bills, these instructions commonly include those to payees that
customers have already set up in their EBPP programs. These are typically for
recurring household bills, but can be made to any person or business (commonly
referred to as a "pay anyone" service, which is offered by most large
consolidators and banks). Due to the prevalence of pay anyone services, roughly
half of all payments processed by consolidators are fulfilled by printing and
mailing paper checks. The remainder go through electronic channels (ACH,
MasterCard RPS, EFT networks, etc.)
Thick and Thin
There are several variations on the consolidator model, based upon product and
service offerings of the consolidator and the involvement of biller service
providers. The main difference in these model variations has to do with the
amount of billing data transmitted to the consolidator for storage and customer
The so-called "thick consolidation" model refers to the transmission of full
bill detail to the consolidator, while in the "thin consolidation" model only
summary-level data is transmitted. In this model, if the consumer wants to
access bill detail, she/he hyperlinks back to the biller's site.
Other variations include different payment methods supported, degrees of control
over payment offerings and channels, biller administration functions, marketing
capabilities, and pricing.
Consumer Consolidation Model
The consumer consolidator model is the only one that currently enables consumers
to view all their bills via the web, if they so choose. This is accomplished
through a 'low-tech' approach of routing all paper bills to a service center for
scanning into pdf formats, which can then be viewed online.
There are generally no interactive capabilities with the bills and all additional
bill content (statement stuffers, regulatory notices, etc. ) are trashed. The
service provider's site has a handy user interface for organizing and viewing
bills and entering payment options. Some even offer storage of historical bills
online or on a CD. After the consumer views his/her bills and sends payment
instructions back to service provider, the service provider then transmits these
instructions to a bank or other payment processor for fulfillment.
A Comparison of the Models
For billers that want control over all aspects of the billing/payment process,
biller direct is the model of choice. Without the involvement of a third party
processor, the biller maintains direct relationships with its customers and
privacy concerns are minimized. This control comes at a high price though. Costs
for licensing and implementing EBPP software can easily run into high six
figures. From the consumer's perspective, this model is the least desirable. The
primary reason is that consumers must enroll to receive electronic bills with
each of their billers separately, and then receive bills individually from
billers. Unless consumers grant access to their e-bills to an aggregation
service, the bill data cannot be integrated with any online banking accounts.
Consumers must also authorize payment arrangements with each biller
individually. To minimize processing costs, the biller can limit payment options
to ensure all payments are processed electronically. In this model, banks
essentially remain in their current role of background payment processor. On the
other hand though, banks lose the opportunity to generate new revenues from bill
presentment services offered to existing corporate clients and the opportunity
to integrate EBPP services with retail online banking offerings.
The biller consolidation model gives a distinct advantage to consumer, since
multiple bills can be viewed and paid from a single web site. If the consumer
accesses bills from her bank site, bill payment can be integrated with her
checking or other accounts. Both banks and billers have limited roles in
implementation of this model. For this reason, costs for billers are
significantly lower than the direct model and, depending on the consolidator's
pricing model, banks can present bills from numerous billers with minimal
investment. The main disadvantage of the biller consolidation model is that both
banks and billers face potential disintermediation from their customers, along
with valuable opportunities to generate new revenues from EBPP services.
Customer service issues can also be a problem in this model, since no one entity
has ownership of the entire process. Servicing customers is an important
requirement in this model since typically half of all payments must be paid via
check, which increases processing time and errors.
The consumer consolidation model represents a transitional model that will serve
to build awareness and comfort with EBPP services to some consumers. However, it
will likely not be a long-term play due to inherent limitations in the paper
billing process. Namely, consumers do not receive bills any faster (in some
cases more slowly) and the value of the bill is improved little over the paper
version, since it has no interactive capabilities. (Techno-savvy consumers can
receive similar value to these scanning services by purchasing an inexpensive
scanner, and scanning and indexing bills on their own.) Customer service is
still an issue since the scanning service acts as an intermediary between the
consumer, biller, and payment provider (banking system). The lone significant
advantage to this model is that is represents the only method today by which
consumers can receive all their bills electronically and subsequently pay them
from a single location. A significant portion of payment in this model (greater
than 50%) are also paid via manual methods.
There are many product and service offerings which provide a single-point
gateway for high-volume mailers to extract information from legacy systems and
send the data to bill consolidators, consumer service providers, or the
companies web site.
Corporate EBPP (B2B)
The attention B2B e-commerce is receiving is just short of phenomenal. The
treasury departments involvement in e-commerce is extremely strong, even where it does not directly involve the payment process, such as electronic order entry.
There are fundamental differences in the market drivers between the b2c and b2b
markets. While a growing majority of companies plan to increase their use of the
Internet to deliver invoice and payment information to other companies, there
are significant operational barriers to implementing wholesale changes to the
payment process. The most significant challenge for most companies is the
integration to a legacy billing and receivables system.
What is Driving the Adoption of B2B?
In the B2C market the main driving force is reaching out to consumers and
building better relationship which foster a product loyalty which hopefully
translates into the consumer increasing their purchases. In the Business to
Business market cross selling and up selling are less important. What is
important is saving money and accelerating the flow of funds.
There are five B2B catalysts stimulating the adoption of B2B Solutions:
- Increasing experience with Web technology
- Consolidation of industry standards
- Simplification of application technologies
- Increasing stickiness in B2B technologies
- Cost savings and new revenue opportunities
While e-commerce initiatives are becoming wide spread, Corporate EBPP is likely
to follow the slow and steady acceptance pattern the industry experienced with
Financial Electronic Data Interchange (FEDI). Using the Automated Clearing House
(ACH) as the payment vehicle the Internet is bringing affordable technology to
small and mid-sized businesses that allows them to participate in e-commerce
just as FEDI provided the means for large corporations to deal with their major
The addition of smaller trading partners will accelerate each year but
transaction volumes are likely to remain low until industry standards are
developed and companies are able to modify or replace their IT infrastructure to
take full integrated advantage of web based applications.
Return to Top