Shopkeepers do want it, because it expands their market from those with funds to also those without. Klarna carries the lending risks, for the shopkeeps it’s a risk-free customer base
In the Netherlands no less than twenty trade associations sent letters to the government on behalf of their shopkeeper members urging legal action to prevent Klarna from coming. Part of it is that Klarna is fairly expensive compared to the common payment methods (i.e., cash and debit cards). Klarna charges a whopping 4% of the purchase price, whereas using a debit card (perhaps 95% of payments in physical shops) costs a fixed 17 euro cents, and cash costs just the costs of keeping it around safely and getting it to the bank.
But there is also the realisation that a customer who uses BNPL today, won't be coming back next month when they are paying off their loan.
Dutch shopkeepers do not want Klarna, but if major chains like Primark etc. do it, they fear customers will start expecting it.
> But there is also the realisation that a customer who uses BNPL today, won't be coming back next month when they are paying off their loan.
I don’t think that’s a good argument. For shops and customers that utilize BNPL you are not typically making routine purchases at the shop anyway because the minimums are $50 or more (merchants can negotiate those terms with the provider) but the base tends to be around $50.
If you buy a bicycle using BNPL you’re not like coming back to the shop the next month and buying a new bike again.
BNPL increases sales and merchants really like using it which is why they are signing up for it more and more. Basically the increase in cost is worth it to increase sales.
There may be some bad social dynamics, taking out loans, etc. but generally both merchants and customers like using those products which is why they use them.
Your intuition is wrong. As a simple example, during the months of saving in cash, by the time they have the cash, if they even save at all, they have more options for purchase. So maybe they go with the original merchant, maybe they don’t. Maybe they buy something else.
Instead merchants prefer to lock in a sale right then and there, and they pay for that service.
Surely that averages out with people switching the other way during the save-up period?
Perhaps for an individual shop right now, in a world where Klarna exists but not universally, yes, there's a benefit to using it to lock in that particular customer right now.
It's less obvious to me, in the long run, that widespread Klarnification results in benefits to any particular shop. As mentioned earlier, having Klarna sapping up to double-digit percentages of the portion of customers' money (it's "zero interest" until it very much isn't, and they're in the "subprime" market) they were spending on possible-Klarnables and a few percent of yours on top as fees is easily a bigger impact that the average losses, if any, from the delta between switch-away and -to.
It's a bit of a prisoners' dilemma: you stand to gain money by defecting (to using Klarna) unilaterally, but if everyone does that, you all, plus the customer, collectively lose money (to Klarna).
> Surely that averages out with people switching the other way during the save-up period?
Maybe? I’m not aware yet of any data that would support that hypothesis one way or the other. But we know that some businesses fail and some succeed so it would lead me to believe that hypothesis probably isn’t correct. As you mention though the availability of these offers isn’t universal, some businesses eschew these options and others don’t, and we will see that play out in the market.
If the businesses that don’t offer these services (cash only businesses as an analog) fail or convert you might have your answer.
I will also say that for many businesses they offer more than one BNPL provider at checkout so there is competitive pressure to offer good terms, have good creditworthiness models, and features to attract customers. Platforms like Shopify allow BNPL providers to create easy to use plugins that appear at checkout and merchants can add a few including Shopify’s home grown solution rather trivially.
In general I think your argument that it’s less obvious that it’s beneficial “in the long run” rests on the same logic that credit cards, 0% for 12 month offers, personal loans, etc. do as to whether there are benefits. Right now businesses add these products and see revenue go up, even if margins go down by 6-8% or so.
Your assumption that customers will not buy accessories until they have repaid the Klarna loan is a long way from certain.
Loans like this also encourage customers to increase spend, because adding an extra few dollars (cents, etc) to your monthly payment is psychologically not as big of a deal as waiting another month or two before you can afford the more expensive item.
Yes they do, because they don’t have a decrease in gross revenue, but instead a higher gross revenue and smaller margins. But that results in higher profit for the merchant so they go with it.
OK, merchants do not want a new expense that is 4% of gross revenue.
Klarna’s TOS currently says a merchant can’t surcharge for it… but Visa, MC et al used to do that too.
Never heard of them. I don't think I ever saw these offered in online shops operating in the Netherlands, while Klarna is in almost every online shop. If they offer BNPL they are probably just as much scum.
They might say they want it, but like a wise parent guiding the BNPL spending habits of a teenager, government is right to step in and stop shopkeepers from seeking to cheese their way through business (only in the short term) by relying on a fickle and unsustainable base of new creditors.
Putting a new group of people into predatory debt is a nice way to juice your numbers before you dump your shares, but it's not a good way to sustain an economy focused on producing real value.
You know some businesses are led by people not board rooms, and especially businesses that consider themselves part of a community, and sell to their neighbors, don't want said neighbors to be rat-fucked by exploitative financial products, even if it will possibly benefit them at no risk.
This is generally called "being a person with a soul."
>businesses that consider themselves part of a community, and sell to their neighbors, don't want said neighbors to be rat-fucked by exploitative financial products, even if it will possibly benefit them at no risk.
>This is generally called "being a person with a soul."
Wholesome. So the hole in the wall restaurant that only takes cash was actually trying to save its customers from a lifetime of credit card debt, rather than saving the 3% interchange fee and possibly tax evade?
I mean the hole in the wall burger joint near me that I love openly charges 3% more when you pay with a credit card for the exact reason of not wanting to give away 3% of their sales figure to a credit card processor, since said credit card processor didn't cook the burger. And you can feel how you feel about that, I personally appreciate the transparency and make it a point to bring my debit card.
I don't know if they're engaged in tax fraud though. Not really my department.
I believe in business done for mutual gain, that's how I do mine, and I make it a point to find as many like-minded people to do business with because they're just easier to deal with. I don't feel the need to get second quotes on car repairs because I've gone to the same shop my dad went to. I know the guy, I handle his IT needs. He isn't out to get me for every dime he can, and I'm not out for every dime either: we go to each other when we have problems, and we solve those problems for one another with some on the top to take home.
I'm sure neither of us will be billionaires but I can also sleep at night which is nice.
Sure but it is easier to order genocide from an office than being the guy who has to march the children into the gas chamber.
Humans have come up with wonderful bureaucracy to dilute responsibility.
Your comment doesn't show how people, as opposed to an board, would be any better in this scenario. Both would weigh the pros and cons of such an action before making such a command.
that depends on the deal. Restaurants don't wnat meal delivery services because of the terrible economics but really have no choice if the delivery company captures the customer base.
The restaurants where I am banded together against app based food delivery. The only ones that do are Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, and Subway, and those typically have a 25-minute wait since no local Doordash/Uber drivers live close enough. Ergo, nobody uses it.
The local independent Chinese place delivers and the local pizza places also deliver. (Pizza Hut’s own delivery is significantly cheaper than ordering it via Uber Eats.) Ergo, restaurants don’t have to deal with the rent seeking that siphons off profits, and money stays more local.
In a city an hour away, a local guy came up with his own food delivery service and eventually paid a programmer to make a simple app. You can now order from a whole bunch of places cheap. It’s amazing he’s stayed in business, but one thing he doesn’t do is rip off restaurants.
