Interpretation： Bank transfers are free. Why did Alipay WeChat start charging for cash withdrawals？
Yesterday, Alipay announced that due to the rising comprehensive operating costs,Starting from October 12 this year, a 0.1% service fee will be charged for individual users who exceed the free withdrawal quota, and each individual user will enjoy a basic free withdrawal quota of 20,000 yuan.. This is the second time that another third-party payment giant began to implement the charging policy after WeChat announced the collection of withdrawal fees in March this year.
△ Alipay official Weibo screenshot
On the other hand, banks that were previously paid by third parties to share cakes are playing free cards in groups.
In February of this year,Industrial and Commercial Bank, Agricultural Bank, China Bank, China Construction Bank and Bank of Communications.Five state-owned commercial banks have decided to gradually exempt customers from handling fees for transfer and remittance services through mobile banking, whether it is inter-bank or off-site.
In July this year, 12 joint-stock commercial banks across the country announced the establishment of the "Commercial Bank Network Finance Alliance": they decided to waive the handling fee for inter-bank transfers through electronic channels such as mobile banking and personal online banking.
Internet finance is threatening to force bank reform.
There is no charge for bank transfer. Why should Alipay and WeChat go in the opposite direction?
Just half a year ago, Alipay also vowed to publicly promise "no charge for cash withdrawal", and once told the public with obvious advertising style that every transaction to users in the past 11 years was free. Indeed, the fierce internet finance in recent years has partially changed the ecology of the financial sector, forcing the five major banks to put down their airs and jointly announce the free transfer of mobile banking.
"Playing the market for free and charging back the cost" has become the business logic of many Internet companies.
Alipay claims to charge for "cost" reasons. It is the consistent behavior of Internet companies to burn money in the early stage, make money at a loss and quickly accumulate popularity. It is through this model that Ant Financial, which owns Alipay, has gained 400 million users and a valuation of up to 60 billion US dollars, becoming the largest "unicorn" in the field of financial technology.
Judging from the data in the first quarter of this year, at present, in the field of mobile payment, WeChat and Alipay occupy nearly 90% of the market share and are in an absolute monopoly position.
However, unicorns also have to eat. With the expansion of scale, the pressure on enterprises to burn money will be greater. It is also a natural business logic to cut subsidies under the pressure of increasing profits and then turn to fees to recover costs. A few months ago, it was the product of this logic that Didi raised the taxi price immediately after buying Uber.Now Alipay turns to charge the same thing. After all, wool can only grow on sheep.
The charging decision may damage Alipay’s credit.
It is a natural but bold move to "cut wool" for users. After all, the competition of instrumental payment channels is very fierce, and it is not easy to keep users loyal through stickiness. Once the user experience declines, the consequences of user loss will occur. Therefore, Alipay has carefully set its own charging standards by comparing the charging methods of competitors’ WeChat wallets.
Compared with the uproar caused by WeChat charging half a year ago, users’ reaction to Alipay charging is lighter. With the demonstration effect of the former, people have subconsciously judged that Alipay will not provide "free lunch" for too long. Although Alipay has also said that it will insist on no charge, it is more like a public relations propaganda strategy. The default mode in the minds of users who have been washed away by the Internet tide for more than ten years is to strictly separate "listening to what they say" from "observing what they do".
Facts have proved that as a commercial product, chasing profits is an instinctive reaction of products, and "observing what they do" is always more reliable than "listening to what they say", and Alipay’s charges have once again confirmed this point — — After all, there is no obvious indication that its "comprehensive operating cost" has really risen sharply in the past six months.
Therefore, although business logic is understandable,However, the decision to charge may still damage Alipay’s credit unless it can provide a better customer experience. Otherwise, this kind of action that is contrary to the promise of "no charge" more than half a year ago is either a kind of "forgetfulness" with malice to users or the arrogance peculiar to market leaders.
With the rapid development of Internet, the market is full of unknowns.
Free is a magic weapon for Internet companies to compete, but if they want to be strong, they must find a long-term profit model, and "burning money" cannot create value for society. With the profit model, it is possible to provide users with sustained and good services. The two companies have successively charged for cash withdrawal, which means that mobile payment is initially mature, but how will the market develop in the future, and will there be alternative products? Or with the development of technology, the new payment mode will replace WeChat payment and Alipay.
To be clear, payment accounts are different from bank accounts. The Administrative Measures for Online Payment Services of Non-bank Payment Institutions promulgated last year emphasized that payment institutions should follow the purpose of developing e-commerce and providing small, fast and convenient micro-payment services for the society, which means that third-party payment is still a supplement to the payment market.
Wen Yi CCTV Review Special Contributor Wang Yahong
