I read this piece the other day. It’s about the new payment method set out to kill credit cards. I’m thinking, what? PayPal?

(Now, I am a bit biased because I work for eBay and PayPal is one of our companies. However, I’ve been using paypal for years, whereas I’ve only been at eBay for a little more than a month. In fact, I just had a run in with the patheticness of paper checks and the drudgery it entails. If everyone used paypal [employers, banks, rental offices], life would be easy.)

The article isn’t about PayPal though. It’s about this new fandangled Bill Me Later payment plan. Quick and dirty: Old Credit Card playa tires of the game. (Hate the game, not the playa!) He starts an alternative to credit cards for online payments. With just you birthday, last 4 digits of you social security number, and address, they approve you for the purchase amount. You then receive a bill in the mail and pay at your leisure, however you see fit.

I’m thinking, “Big deal. What’s so special about this?” Those that use it, love it, and tend to spend more. It’s that tend to spend more part retailers like. Plus, these guys charge the merchants 1.5% vs. credit cards 2%. It’s pretty much a no brainer for businesses. Business is all about 2 things: Making money and keeping as much of it as you can.

There’s an article I read in HBR awhile back. It said that change in conditions creates a change in productivity. The change could be for the better or for the worse, that didn’t matter. Just that fact that something changed spurred activity. I think that’s what’s going on here. To quote one of the users, “If you have good credit, you have got to try Bill Me Later. I have quite a few credit cards, and every time I use it(sic) over the Internet I am afraid someone is going to steal my account numbers and use my credit line fraudulently. But with the Bill Me Later option, I feel secure.” Now, I’m missing something here. Those same theives who are after her credit card numbers aren’t after this info? Heck, I’m no expert but with one credit card number stolen that card can be maxed. With all this info stolen, unlimited purchases can be made in your name. Yeah, it sounds *much* safer to me.

What about fraudulent activity though? To quote Bill Me Later, “Does Bill Me Later® protect me from unauthorized charges? Yes, Bill Me Later® provides ‘zero fraud liability’ protection; the same protection provided by most major credit cards. This means you are not responsible for unauthorized charges.” Therefore, even if that girl’s credit card number was stolen, she wouldn’t be responsible. Once again, what’s the point?

People are funny in how they don’t think things though. You place a new thought/method in front of them, and they think, “Oh, this is new. It must be better.”

My biggest gripe with Bill Me Later is that it’s one way. From what I can tell, it’s not two way. In other words, they’re taking the beauty of online, instantaneous payment processing and taking us back in time to before credit cards where only in-store credit existed. I buy something online and the paper trail begins. One of my favorite quotes from the article is from Forrester analyst Sucharita Mulpuru: “It has the potential to open online retail to a whole new segment of customers that wouldn’t have shopped otherwise.” Like who? My grandparents (or sadly enough, my parents who fear the stolen credit card thievery too). No offense, but literally, that segment is a dying breed. Today’s youth couldn’t be bothered about putting every bit of information online, much less a stinkin’ credit card number.

This company is growing and will most likely be bought for lots of cash. Really though, I don’t think they have a lasting business model. Here’s why:

– Who wants a new “credit line” for every single purchase made? (i.e. every $20 order) Hence, this will be a big purchase option only.
– How long can people be fooled? Sure, it’s a new way, but eventually, people have to realize it’s no safer than Credit Cards.
– One way only? Why use a service like this that’s only one way, when PayPal lets you send AND receive money.
– But customers spend more! That’s only because of the “90 day no payment” for purchases over $250. That’s a retail ploy, not a lasting business model.

Well, those are my thoughts. Now, when someone runs up to you and says, “Hey, I just heard of this cool feature called Bill Me Later.” You can tell them, “Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer Bill Me Now, i.e. PayPal.”

Everyone keeps talking about how bad Google made out in the AOL deal, but I think they’re missing some key points. Granted most of my points and opinions are derived from the NY Times article. Regardless, here are my thoughts.

Google has agreed to give AOL ads special placement on its site, something it has not done before. Until now, Google prided itself on its auction system for ads, which treated small businesses on an equal footing with its largest customers.

It doesn’t say that others can’t follow in AOL’s footsteps. Knowing Google, this will become an option for anyone. Kinda like eBay’s ” Promote Your Listing on eBay”. Give us some more cash, and we’ll help it stand out. However, I hardly call the bottom right hand corner as “special” placement.

They will also carry AOL’s logo, the first time Google has agreed to place graphic ads on its search result pages.

They probably wanted to try this on a global scale anyway, as an experiment to see how it works out. There’s nothing wrong with making a little money with their experiment.

Google will also provide technical assistance so AOL can create Web pages that will appear more prominently in the search results list.

The flip side is that Google is then going to have a cached copy of every piece of content the TW empire has ever created. Not a bad deal considering they only have to offer up advice that is freely available. I can only imagine that in the days to come, we’ll find out that the technical assistance wasn’t anything special. You can picture the discussion now between Dick and Eric:

Dick: “I want you guys to also help us show up in your results more. I know we have relevant content, but it hardly shows up in searches.”

Eric: [Thinking to himself: Well, the information to help them is freely available on the internet, but if we help them, then we’ll be sure to have all their content in our DB and earn some brownie points.] “Sure, if that will help push the deal further, we’ll help you.”

Dick: [Sucker, we just got help that is worth untold millions]

Eric: [Sucker, we just scored points by offering a few entry-level SEOs.]

Google will also make a special effort to incorporate AOL video programming in its expanding video search section and it will feature links to AOL videos on the video search home page. These links will not be marked as advertising.

Easy access to some of the “best” (read: popular) content for free? How is this not good for the Google average user base? Remember, most of the population isn’t geeks. They read People and US magazine, and they like it! =)

An executive involved in the talks said that as recently as two weeks ago, Mr. Parsons told Microsoft executives that he preferred their bid. Still, that executive said, Microsoft had the impression that executives in the AOL unit preferred to work with Google. Yesterday, several AOL executives said that was true. A source close to Mr. Parsons said his only goal was to do the best deal for AOL’s future.

I think that Mr. Parsons non-stated stated stance was a bunch of crap. Dick probably said that to hopefully garner what he wanted from Google, which furthered “his only goal”. Of course AOL preferred Google, Microsoft was their enemy for so long. It’s hard to put that aside. “Yeah, I know we tried to kill you once, but my have we told you lately how beautiful you look?” I don’t think so.

AOL executives are attracted to the idea of offering marketers a full range of Internet advertisements, from splashy ads on the home page of AOL.com to text ads.

Once again, Google gets first hand view of “beefier” ads and the results they garner on a huge scale. I think they’re hoping to justify text ads. “We’ve seen the stats between flash ads, image ads, and text ads. There is no benefit, and actually a hindrance, to using non-text ads.” Or if they find out the opposite then it’s “Oh crap, banner ads do work better than text ads. Let’s use AOL to figure out how best to technically work them out.” Either way, they win.