The subject of “bill shock” has been getting an increasing amount of coverage lately. On one side, the FCC and consumer groups are advocating new regulations mandating customer alerts and other information to help customers avoid unexpected monthly charges, or “bill shock.” On the other side, three wireless industry groups, CTIA, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) and the Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG), have come out in opposition to the FCC’s proposed mandate. The consumer view According to Consumer Reports, bill shock is a common occurrence: One in five survey respondents reported receiving an unexpectedly high bill in the previous year, often for exceeding the plan's voice, text, or data limits… half of them were hit for at least $50, and one in five for more than $100. The industry view In comments to the FCC, the CTIA maintained that new mandates were not only unnecessary but costly, and that carriers already provided sufficient monitoring tools for customers. In addition, the CTIA argued that the FCC did not have the authority to impose such rules and that they would violate First Amendment protections: The FCC should refrain from initiating prescriptive rules that not only would likely cost carriers (and therefore consumers) tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to put into practice, but that also would raise numerous legal issues, create substantial implementation challenges, and force companies to upgrade to a set of government standards instead of creatively competing in the provision of service to customers. A No-Win Situation? The issue puts carriers in an awkward position. Even if they prevail with the FCC and prevent the proposed mandates, they may still lose in terms of public relations with consumers. Connected Planet Blogger Susana Schwartz got to the heart of the matter with the question of who is ultimately responsible: the customer or the carrier? At what point is it too much responsibility to put on the carriers’ shoulders and at what point should people be held responsible for their choices? Regardless of the answer to such philosophical questions, there are the three key FCC proposals that wireless carriers need to be aware of as the issue moves forward. Three New Potential FCC Mandates   Over-the-Limit Alerts: The FCC’s proposed rules would require customer notification, such as voice or text alerts, when the customer approaches and reaches monthly limits that will result in overage charges.   Out-of-the-Country Alerts: The FCC’s proposed rules would require mobile providers to notify customers when they are about to incur international or other roaming charges that are not covered by their monthly plans, and if they will be charged at higher-than-normal rates.     Easy-to-Find Tools: The FCC’s proposed rules would require clear disclosure of any tools offered by mobile providers to set usage limits or review usage balances. The FCC is also asking for comment on whether all carriers should be required to offer the option of capping usage based on limits set by the consumer.   How will these proposals affect your business? Let us know your concerns. We’ll keep a close watch on this issue as it develops and keep you posted.

This is the third post in our series about bundling. In the previous two posts, I discussed 1) the many benefits of bundling services and 2) how to determine who might be a good candidate for bundled services. When it comes to maximizing upside and mitigating risk, of primary concern is knowing your customer’s payment history and creditworthiness. But once you’ve identified good candidates for bundled services, just what is it you should offer? An offer they can’t refuse As with most marketing practices, there is no exact formula for creating a successful bundled package. Some considerations include: Making sure the package is worth more than the sum of its parts. If it costs the same to buy each of the services separately, your customers might very well go shopping elsewhere for each individual service.   Creating a package that makes it easier to choose from various options. An overly complicated offer is more likely to drive customers away. On the other hand, an offer that simplifies your customer’s life is going to be more attractive.     Ensuring that the customer feels at least one product in the bundle is a “need” item. For example, many consumers require a landline for an alarm system, which makes the landline a “need item” for them. Linking an essential service or product (“need item”) to a luxury product/service (“nice to have”) adds value to the package and makes it more attractive to certain consumers. Because the package includes a need item, these consumers would think twice before skipping a payment.     Providing a few choices rather than a one-size-fits-all offer. Create several packages at different price points that include different options. To determine the most appropriate services to bundle, you need to drill down to find out what products are most appealing in a particular market. For instance, bundling might be more appealing in some higher income point populations as opposed to lower income areas.     Understanding a customer’s cash flow situation and accommodating for a certain degree of bill shock can go a long way toward creating bundled offers that customers actually respond to in a positive way.     Any questions? If you’re thinking about getting into the bundling game — or expanding on your current bundling strategy — you have a lot to consider beyond these three posts. If you have specific questions in the realm of bundling you would like to see addressed, please be sure to comment on this post.

Well, actually, it isn’t. The better question to ask is when to use knowledge based authentication (KBA). I know I have written before about using it as part of a risk based authentication approach to fraud account management, but I am often asked what I mean by that statement. So, I thought it might be a good idea to provide a few more details and give some examples. Basically, what I mean is this: risk segmentation based on binary verification is unwise. Binary verification can occur based on identity elements, or it can occur based on pass/fail performance from out of wallet questions, but the fact remains that the primary decisioning strategy is relying on a condition with two outcomes – verified or not verified, pass or fail – and that is unwise. When we recommend a risk based authentication approach, the view is more broadly based. We advocate using analytics and weighting many factors, including those identity elements and knowledge based authentication performance as part of an overall decision, rather than an as end-all decision. If you take this kind of approach, when might you want to use this kind of approach? The answer to that is just about any time a transaction contains a level of risk, understanding that each organization will have a unique definition and tolerance for “risk”. It could be an origination or account opening scenario, when you do not yet have a relationship with a consumer. It could be in an account management setting, when you have a relationship with the consumer and know their expected behavior (and therefore anything outside of expected behavior is risk). It could be in transactional settings where there is an exchange of money or information belonging to the consumer. All of these are appropriate uses for KBA as part of a risk based approach.

The subject of “bill shock” has been getting an increasing amount of coverage lately. On one side, the FCC and consumer groups are advocating new regulations mandating customer alerts and other information to help customers avoid unexpected monthly charges, or “bill shock.” On the other side, three wireless industry groups, CTIA, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) and the Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG), have come out in opposition to the FCC’s proposed mandate. The consumer view According to Consumer Reports, bill shock is a common occurrence: One in five survey respondents reported receiving an unexpectedly high bill in the previous year, often for exceeding the plan's voice, text, or data limits… half of them were hit for at least $50, and one in five for more than $100. The industry view In comments to the FCC, the CTIA maintained that new mandates were not only unnecessary but costly, and that carriers already provided sufficient monitoring tools for customers. In addition, the CTIA argued that the FCC did not have the authority to impose such rules and that they would violate First Amendment protections: The FCC should refrain from initiating prescriptive rules that not only would likely cost carriers (and therefore consumers) tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to put into practice, but that also would raise numerous legal issues, create substantial implementation challenges, and force companies to upgrade to a set of government standards instead of creatively competing in the provision of service to customers. A No-Win Situation? The issue puts carriers in an awkward position. Even if they prevail with the FCC and prevent the proposed mandates, they may still lose in terms of public relations with consumers. Connected Planet Blogger Susana Schwartz got to the heart of the matter with the question of who is ultimately responsible: the customer or the carrier? At what point is it too much responsibility to put on the carriers’ shoulders and at what point should people be held responsible for their choices? Regardless of the answer to such philosophical questions, there are the three key FCC proposals that wireless carriers need to be aware of as the issue moves forward. Three New Potential FCC Mandates   Over-the-Limit Alerts: The FCC’s proposed rules would require customer notification, such as voice or text alerts, when the customer approaches and reaches monthly limits that will result in overage charges.   Out-of-the-Country Alerts: The FCC’s proposed rules would require mobile providers to notify customers when they are about to incur international or other roaming charges that are not covered by their monthly plans, and if they will be charged at higher-than-normal rates.     Easy-to-Find Tools: The FCC’s proposed rules would require clear disclosure of any tools offered by mobile providers to set usage limits or review usage balances. The FCC is also asking for comment on whether all carriers should be required to offer the option of capping usage based on limits set by the consumer.   How will these proposals affect your business? Let us know your concerns. We’ll keep a close watch on this issue as it develops and keep you posted.

This is the third post in our series about bundling. In the previous two posts, I discussed 1) the many benefits of bundling services and 2) how to determine who might be a good candidate for bundled services. When it comes to maximizing upside and mitigating risk, of primary concern is knowing your customer’s payment history and creditworthiness. But once you’ve identified good candidates for bundled services, just what is it you should offer? An offer they can’t refuse As with most marketing practices, there is no exact formula for creating a successful bundled package. Some considerations include: Making sure the package is worth more than the sum of its parts. If it costs the same to buy each of the services separately, your customers might very well go shopping elsewhere for each individual service.   Creating a package that makes it easier to choose from various options. An overly complicated offer is more likely to drive customers away. On the other hand, an offer that simplifies your customer’s life is going to be more attractive.     Ensuring that the customer feels at least one product in the bundle is a “need” item. For example, many consumers require a landline for an alarm system, which makes the landline a “need item” for them. Linking an essential service or product (“need item”) to a luxury product/service (“nice to have”) adds value to the package and makes it more attractive to certain consumers. Because the package includes a need item, these consumers would think twice before skipping a payment.     Providing a few choices rather than a one-size-fits-all offer. Create several packages at different price points that include different options. To determine the most appropriate services to bundle, you need to drill down to find out what products are most appealing in a particular market. For instance, bundling might be more appealing in some higher income point populations as opposed to lower income areas.     Understanding a customer’s cash flow situation and accommodating for a certain degree of bill shock can go a long way toward creating bundled offers that customers actually respond to in a positive way.     Any questions? If you’re thinking about getting into the bundling game — or expanding on your current bundling strategy — you have a lot to consider beyond these three posts. If you have specific questions in the realm of bundling you would like to see addressed, please be sure to comment on this post.

Well, actually, it isn’t. The better question to ask is when to use knowledge based authentication (KBA). I know I have written before about using it as part of a risk based authentication approach to fraud account management, but I am often asked what I mean by that statement. So, I thought it might be a good idea to provide a few more details and give some examples. Basically, what I mean is this: risk segmentation based on binary verification is unwise. Binary verification can occur based on identity elements, or it can occur based on pass/fail performance from out of wallet questions, but the fact remains that the primary decisioning strategy is relying on a condition with two outcomes – verified or not verified, pass or fail – and that is unwise. When we recommend a risk based authentication approach, the view is more broadly based. We advocate using analytics and weighting many factors, including those identity elements and knowledge based authentication performance as part of an overall decision, rather than an as end-all decision. If you take this kind of approach, when might you want to use this kind of approach? The answer to that is just about any time a transaction contains a level of risk, understanding that each organization will have a unique definition and tolerance for “risk”. It could be an origination or account opening scenario, when you do not yet have a relationship with a consumer. It could be in an account management setting, when you have a relationship with the consumer and know their expected behavior (and therefore anything outside of expected behavior is risk). It could be in transactional settings where there is an exchange of money or information belonging to the consumer. All of these are appropriate uses for KBA as part of a risk based approach.